Is it the law that is too complicated to understand or is it the human mind?
This aims to develop pro forma answers for Best Bar Ever from the cases decided by Justice Leonen from 2013 to 2019. This does not cover all the topics in the bar syllabus.
POLITICAL LAW
Citizenship
When the names of the parents of a foundling cannot be discovered despite a diligent search, but sufficient evidence is presented to sustain a reasonable inference that satisfies the quantum of proof required to conclude that at least one or both of his or her parents is Filipino, then this should be sufficient to establish that he or she is a natural-born citizen (G.R. No. 221538).
Foundling is considered a natural-born citizen when sufficient evidence is presented to conclude that at least one or both of his or her parents is Filipino.
Essence of Due Process
The essence of due process is the opportunity to be heard, an opportunity to explain one's side, or an opportunity to seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of.
There is no denial of the right to due process if there was an opportunity for the parties to defend their interests in due course.
Administrative Due Process
Due process in administrative proceedings does not require the submission of pleadings or a trial-type of hearing.
In Ang Tibay v. Court of Industrial Relations, the Court ruled that administrative due process only requires the following:
- The party should be allowed to present his or her own case and submit supporting evidence;
- The deciding tribunal must consider the party's evidence;
- There is evidence to support the tribunal's decision;
- The evidence supporting the tribunal's decision must be substantial or such "relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion";
- The tribunal's decision was based on the evidence presented or the records of the case disclosed to the parties;
- The tribunal's decision must be based on the judges' independent consideration of the facts and law governing the case; and
- The tribunal's decision must be rendered such that the issues of the case and the reasons for the decisions are known to the parties.
Equal Protection Clause
A claim of "selective prosecution" may only prosper if there is extrinsic evidence of "clear showing of intentional discrimination."
The prosecution of one person to the exclusion of others who may be just as guilty does not automatically entail a violation of the equal protection clause.
Right against Unreasonable Search and Seizure
The following are recognized instances of permissible warrantless searches laid down in jurisprudence: (1) a "warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest," (2) search of "evidence in 'plain view,'" (3) "search of a moving vehicle," (4) "consented warrantless search[es]," (5) "customs search," (6) "stop and frisk," and (7) "exigent and emergency circumstances." (G.R. No. 200370)
Seizure of Evidence in Plain View
The elements of which are:
- a prior valid intrusion based on the valid warrantless arrest in which the police are legally present in the pursuit of their official duties;
- the evidence was inadvertently discovered by the police who had the right to be where they are;
- the evidence must be immediately apparent, and
- plain view" justified mere seizure of evidence without further search;
Stop and Frisk
A "stop and frisk" search is the act of a police officer to stop a citizen on the street, interrogate him, and pat him for weapon(s) or contraband.
The allowable scope of a "stop and frisk" search is limited to a "protective search of outer clothing for weapons."
Consented Search
Petitioner's silence or lack of resistance can hardly be considered as consent to the warrantless search.
Consent to a warrantless search and seizure must be "unequivocal, specific, intelligently given . . . [and unattended] by duress or coercion."
Mere passive conformity or silence to the warrantless search is only an implied acquiescence, which amounts to no consent at all.
The presence of a coercive environment negates the claim that the accused consented to the warrantless search.
Checkpoints
Routine checkpoints must be conducted in a way least intrusive to motorists. The extent of routine inspections must be limited to a visual search
An extensive search may be conducted on a vehicle at a checkpoint when law enforcers have probable cause to believe that the vehicle's passengers committed a crime or when the vehicle contains instruments of an offense.
That the object of a warrantless search is allegedly inside a moving vehicle does not justify an extensive search absent probable cause.
Law enforcers cannot act solely on the basis of confidential or tipped information.
A tip is still hearsay no matter how reliable it may be. It is not sufficient to constitute probable cause in the absence of any other circumstance that will arouse suspicion.
Reasonable Warrantless Searches
There are searches based on reasonable suspicion where this Court justified the warrantless search of the accused who attempted to flee with a buri bag after the police officers identified themselves.
There are reasonable searches because of heightened security.
In border searches, there is a reasonable reduced expectation of privacy when travelers pass through or stop at airports or other ports of travel.
Freedom of Association
Automatic membership in a homeowners' association does not violate lot owners' right to freedom of association because they were not forced to buy their lots from the developer.
The constitutional guarantee of freedom of association can only be invoked against the State and does not apply to private transactions, like a sale, where a condition was validly imposed by the vendor.
Right to Counsel
The right to counsel under Section 12(1) of Article III of the Constitution applies in criminal proceedings, but not in administrative proceedings.
It is a right given to persons accused of an offense during criminal investigation. Any proceeding conducted by an administrative body is not part of the criminal investigation or prosecution.
Custodial investigation
Custodial investigation commences when a person is taken into custody and is singled out as a suspect in the commission of a crime under investigation and the police officers begin to ask questions on the suspect's participation therein and which tend to elicit an admission.
A "request for appearance" issued by law enforcers to a person identified as a suspect is akin to an "invitation." Thus, the suspect is covered by the rights of an accused while under custodial investigation.
The confrontation between Teresita and petitioner can be considered as having been done in a custodial setting because (1) petitioner was requested to appear by the police; (2) the confrontation was done in a police station; and (3) based on his testimony, PO3 Lozarito was inside the police station during the confrontation. When petitioner appeared before Teresita at the police station, the "pressures of a custodial setting" were present.
Any admission obtained from the "request for appearance" without the assistance of counsel is inadmissible in evidence.
The infractions of the so-called Miranda rights render inadmissible only the extrajudicial confession or admission made during custodial investigation
Right to Speedy Disposition of Cases vs Right to a Speedy Trial
The right to a speedy trial is invoked against the courts in a criminal prosecution.
The right to speedy disposition of cases, however, is invoked even against quasi-judicial or administrative bodies in civil, criminal, or administrative cases before them.
Inordinate Delay
The Barker balancing test provides that courts must consider the following factors when determining the existence of inordinate delay:
- the length of delay;
- the reason for delay;
- the defendant's assertion or non-assertion of his or her right; and
- the prejudice to the defendant as a result of the delay.
The right may be invoked as early as the preliminary investigation or inquest.
For the purpose of determining whether inordinate delay exists, a case is deemed to have commenced from the filing of the formal complaint and the subsequent conduct of the preliminary investigation.
Inordinate delay in the resolution and termination of a preliminary investigation violates the accused's right to due process and the speedy disposition of cases, and may result in the dismissal of the case against the accused.
The delay of three (3) years in the termination of the preliminary investigation was found to have been inordinate delay, which was violative of petitioner's constitutional rights.
Burden of Proof of Delay
The burden of proving delay depends on whether delay is alleged within the periods provided by law or procedural rules.
If the delay is alleged to have occurred during the given periods, the burden is on the respondent or the accused to prove that the delay was inordinate.
If the delay is alleged to have occurred beyond the given periods, the burden shifts to the prosecution to prove that the delay was reasonable under the circumstances and that no prejudice was suffered by the accused as a result of the delay.
Double Joepardy
In substantiating a claim for double jeopardy, the following requisites should be present:
(1) the first jeopardy must have attached prior to the second; (2) the first jeopardy must have been validly terminated; and (3) the second jeopardy must be for the same offense as in the first.
With regard to the first requisite, the first jeopardy only attaches:
(a) after a valid indictment; (b) before a competent court; (c) after arraignment; (d) when a valid plea has been entered; and (e) when the accused was acquitted or convicted, or the case was dismissed or otherwise terminated without his express consent.
Jeopardy does not attach where a defendant pleads guilty to a defective indictment that is voluntarily dismissed by the prosecution.
Civil Service Commission
The doctrine of immutability of final judgments applies to decisions rendered by the Civil Service Commission.
A decision of the Civil Service Commission becomes final and executory if no motion for reconsideration is filed within the 15-day reglementary period under Rule VI, Section 80 of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service
Civil Service Commission has jurisdiction over government-owned or controlled corporations with original charters.
By "government-owned or controlled corporation with original charter," We mean government owned or controlled corporation created by a special law and not under the Corporation Code of the Philippines.
Commission on Audit
Commission on Audit has the power and mandate to settle all government accounts.
The Constitution vests in the [Commission on Audit] audit jurisdiction over "government-owned and controlled corporations with original charters," as well "government-owned or controlled corporations" without original charters.
A corporation, whether with or without an original charter, is under the audit jurisdiction of the Commission on Audit so long as the government owns or has controlling interest in it.
The extent of the Commission on Audit's audit authority extends to non-governmental entities that receive subsidy or equity from or through the government.
The Commission on Audit is competent to determine the status of an entity as a government-owned or controlled corporation.
In the absence of malice or bad faith, the canvass and audit performed by the auditors, which were substantiated by evidence, should be upheld in recognition of their technical expertise.
Money Claims
All money claims against the Government must first be filed with the Commission on Audit which must act upon it within sixty days.
Rejection of the claim will authorize the claimant to elevate the matter to the Supreme Court on certiorari and in effect sue the State thereby (Presidential Decree No. 1445, Sections 49-50).
Money claims against the government cannot be the subject of writs of execution absent any showing that they have been brought before the Commission on Audit, under this Court's Administrative Circular No. 10-2000 and Commission on Audit Circular No. 2001-002.
The finding that government is liable in a suit to which it consented does not translate to enforcement of the judgment by execution.
Separate Money Claim, Not Required
Separation benefits may be released without filing a separate money claim before the Commission on Audit when separation benefits have already been appropriated and disbursed.
For example, Petitioner's Board of Trustees already issued the Resolution on September 23, 1992 for the release of funds to pay separation benefits to terminated employees of Bicolandia Sugar Development Corporation. Private respondents' checks were released by petitioner to the Arbitration Branch of the Labor Arbiter in 1992.
Foreign Grants
Upon donation to the government [e.g., Corregidor Foundation, Inc.], the foreign grants became public in character. Thus, these funds may be audited by the Commission on Audit (G.R. No. 211293).
Disallowances
In the event of a disallowance of salaries, emoluments, benefits, and allowances due to government employees, the approving officers and recipients incur no liability to refund for as long as they acted in good faith.
A surviving spouse who received survivorship pension benefits in good faith no longer needs to refund such pensions.
Receiving another set of honoraria and cash gift for rendering services to the Corregidor Foundation, Inc. would be tantamount to payment of additional compensation proscribed in Article IX-B, Section 8 of the Constitution. These circumstances negate any claim of good faith.
Government Funds
"Government funds" includes public moneys of every sort and other resources pertaining to any agency of the Government.
For funds to be considered government funds or public funds, it must be shown that the funds properly belong to a government agency.
Government funds cannot be garnished.
The general rule is that government funds cannot be seized by virtue of writs of execution or garnishment.
If the funds belong to a public corporation or a government-owned or controlled corporation which is clothed with a personality of its own, separate and distinct from that of the government, then its funds are not exempt from garnishment.
The funds of the National Housing Authority are not exempt from garnishment.
Sequestration
Sequestration did not have the effect of transferring ownership to the national government nor to the Presidential Commission on Good Government.
A sequestration order is similar to the provisional remedy of Receivership under Rule 59 of the Rules of Court. The PCGG, as a mere conservator, does not automatically become the owner of a sequestered property on behalf of the government.
Office of the Ombudsman
The Office of the Ombudsman may investigate and prosecute on its own or on complaint by any person, any act or omission of any public officer or employee, office or agency, when such act or omission appears to be illegal, unjust, improper or inefficient.
The Office of the Ombudsman is armed with the power to investigate.
Orders and decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman in criminal cases may be elevated to this Court via a Rule 65 petition, while its orders and decisions in administrative disciplinary cases may be appealed to the Court of Appeals via a Rule 43 petition.
Criminal Cases before the Ombudsman
The Office of the Ombudsman has the sole power to determine whether there is probable cause to warrant the filing of a criminal case against an accused.
Generally, a decision by the Ombudsman absolving respondents is unappealable.
The exoneration of public officers by the Ombudsman in a charge alleging grave misconduct and a violation of Republic Act No. 3019, Section 3(g) is generally unappealable.
However, if it is shown that the Ombudsman acted with grave abuse of discretion, then the complainant may file a Rule 65 Petition with the proper court.
The remedy available to a party aggrieved with the Office of the Ombudsman's finding of probable cause in a criminal case is not an appeal, but a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court before this Court.
Administrative Cases before the Ombudsman
The Ombudsman was given the power to evaluate an administrative complaint even though the complainant does not have a personal interest in the case.
In administrative cases filed under the Civil Service Law, an allowed appeal may only be brought by the party adversely affected by the decision.
As a quasi-judicial agency, decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative disciplinary cases may only be appealed to the Court of Appeals through a Rule 43 petition.
Party List
Party-list groups may be national, regional, and sectoral parties or organizations. It is not necessary that all party-list groups should prove that they represent a “marginalized” or “under-represented” sector.
The divisor in the formula in determining the proportion garnered by the party-list group shall include all the votes cast validly for a party-list group listed in the ballot but later on disqualified.
The divisor shall exclude (1) invalid votes and (2) votes cast made for those party-list groups whose disqualification attained finality prior to the elections.
The invalid votes, for the determination of the denominator, may be votes that were spoiled or votes that resulted from the following:
- improper shading or having no shade at all;
- existence of stray or ambiguous marks;
- tears in the ballot;
- and/or ballots rejected by the Precinct Count Optical Scan (PCOS) machines under the paper-based automated election system.
Nuisance Candidate
A nuisance candidate is thus defined as one who, based on the attendant circumstances, has no bona fide intention to run for the office for which the certificate of candidacy has been filed, his sole purpose being the reduction of the votes of a strong candidate, upon the expectation that ballots with only the surname of such candidate will be considered stray and not counted for either of them.
Other candidates, who do not have any similarity with the name of the alleged nuisance candidate are mere silent observers in the nuisance case.
Counting of Vote, Nuisance Candidate
In a multi-slot office, all votes cast in favor of the nuisance candidate whose name is confusingly similar to a bona fide candidate shall not be automatically credited in the latter's favor.
If the ballot contains one (1) vote for the nuisance candidate and no vote for the bona fide candidate, that vote will be counted in the latter's favor.
However, if the nuisance candidate and the bona fide candidate each gets a vote, only one (1) vote will be counted in the latter's favor.
Appointments
The prohibition on midnight appointments only applies to presidential appointments. It does not apply to appointments made by local chief executives
Effectivity of Appointments
Under Rule IV, Section 1 of Civil Service Commission Memorandum Circular No. 40-98, an appointment takes effect immediately upon issuance by the appointing authority.
Once the appointee has assumed the duties of the position, he or she is entitled to receive the salaries corresponding with the position though the Civil Service Commission has not yet approved the appointment.
Should the appointment be initially disapproved, it nevertheless remains effective if a motion for reconsideration or an appeal of the disapproval is seasonably filed with the proper office.
Therefore, during the pendency of the motion for reconsideration, the appointee remains entitled to his or her salaries until the appointment is finally disapproved by the Civil Service Commission.
That the Province suddenly had no funds to pay for Marco's salaries despite its earlier certification that funds were available under its 2004 Annual Budget does not affect his appointment.
Reassignments
The right to security of tenure is not violated when a public officer or employee, whose appointment is not station-specific, is reassigned.
It is presumed that reassignments are "regular and made in the interest of public service."
When an employee's appointment is station-specific, his or her reassignment may not exceed a maximum period of one (1) year.
When an employee's appointment is not station-specific, the reassignment may be indefinite and exceed one (1) year.
A reassignment may be deemed a constructive dismissal in the following cases:
- the employee is moved to a position with a more servile or menial job as compared to his previous position
- the employee was reassigned to an office not in the existing organizational structure
- he or she is not given a definite set of duties and responsibilities
- the motivation for the reassignment was to harass or oppress the employee on the pretext of promoting public interest
Constructive dismissal may be inferred from reassignments done twice within a year, or during a change of administration of elective and appointive officials.
Survivorship Pension Benefits
According to Section 3 of Republic Act No. 9946, survivorship pension benefits are given to surviving spouses of retired judges or justices or surviving spouses of judges or justices who are eligible to retire optionally.
When the judge or justice is neither retired nor eligible to retire, his or her surviving spouse is not entitled to those benefits.
Salary Standardization Law
The salary of a water district's general manager is covered by the Salary Standardization Law despite Section 23 of the Provincial Water Utilities Act of 1973.
For the purpose of standardization, "the general rule is that all allowances are deemed included in the standardized salary."
For allowances and other incentive packages to be deemed exceptional and permissible under Section 12, there must be a showing that they "are given to government employees of certain offices due to the unique nature of the office and of the work performed by the employee."
Financial Performance Award is not shown to be an exceptional incentive package.
Sec. 33 of P.D. No. 807 or the Civil Service Decree of the Philippines does not exempt the Food Basket Allowance from the general rule.
There is no room for the Employee Suggestions and Incentive Award System for the indiscriminate grant of an incentive package to all employees.
Government-Owned or Controlled Corporation
An entity is considered a government-owned or controlled corporation if all three (3) attributes are present: (1) the entity is organized as a stock or non-stock corporation; (2) its functions are public in character;and (3) it is owned] or, at the very least, controlled by the government.
The following are GOCCs:
Leyte Metropolitan Water District is a stock corporation organized under an original charter or special law, i.e., Presidential Decree No. 198 or the Provincial Water Utilities Act of 1973.
A water district is -
- a government-owned or controlled corporation with an original charter (Tanjay Case),
- a corporation created pursuant to a special law — P.D. No. 198, as amended, and as such its officers and employees are covered by the Civil Service Law (G.R. No. 65428),
- a quasi-public corporation whose employees belong to the Civil Service (G.R. No. 81490).
Boy Scouts of the Philippines is a non-stock corporation created under an original charter, specifically, Commonwealth Act No. 111.
Corregidor Foundation, Inc. is a government-owned or controlled corporation under the audit jurisdiction of the Commission on Audit.
The following are not GOCCs:
Manila Economic and Cultural Office is a non-stock corporation performing certain "'consular and other functions' relating to the promotion, protection and facilitation of Philippine interests in Taiwan." However, none of its members, officers or trustees were found to be government appointees or public officers designated by reason of their office. Because of the absence of the third attribute, i.e., government ownership or control, this Court held in Funa v. Manila Economic and Cultural Office that respondent corporation was not a government-owned or controlled corporation. Instead, it was declared a "sui generis entity" whose accounts were nevertheless subject to the audit jurisdiction of the Commission on Audit because it receives funds on behalf of the government.
Executive Committee of the Metro Manila Film Festival is not a government-owned or controlled corporation because it was not organized either as a stock or a non-stock corporation. Despite the absence of the first element, the Court held that it is subject to the audit jurisdiction of the Commission on Audit because it receives its funds from the government.
Philippine Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, though created through an original charter, eventually became a private corporation when its "sovereign powers" to arrest offenders of animal welfare laws and the power to serve processes in connection therewith were withdrawn via an amendatory law.
Administrative Law
Administrative agencies may not issue writs of certiorari to annul acts of officers or state organs even when they exercise supervisory authority over these officers or organs.
In administrative law[,] supervision means overseeing or the power or authority of an officer to see that subordinate officers perform their duties. If the latter fail or neglect to fulfill them[,] the former may take such action or step as prescribed by law to make them perform their duties.
Control, on the other hand, means the power of an officer to alter or modify or nullify or set aside what a subordinate officer had done in the performance of his duties and to substitute the judgment of the former for that of the latter.
Public Office
Public office is a public trust. Public officers and employees must at all times be accountable to the people, serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency, act with patriotism and justice, and lead modest lives.
No one has a vested right to public office. One can continue to hold public office only for as long as he or she proves worthy of public trust.
Liability of Public Officer
Under the Administrative Code, officers who enter into contracts contrary to Sections 46 and 47 of Book V, Title I, Subtitle B, Chapter 8 of the Administrative Code are liable to the government or to the other contracting party for damages
Three (3)-fold liability rule in the law on public officers, provides that the wrongful acts or omissions of a public officer may give rise to civil, criminal and administrative liability. An action for each can proceed independently of the others."
Section 52, Rule IV does not consider a first-time offender as a mitigating circumstance.
A grave offense cannot be mitigated by the fact that the accused is a first-time offender or by the length of service of the accused.
Misconduct
There are two (2) types of misconduct, namely: grave misconduct and simple misconduct.
In grave misconduct, as distinguished from simple misconduct, the elements of corruption, clear intent to violate the law, or flagrant disregard of an established rule must be manifest.
Without any of these elements, the transgression of an established rule is properly characterized as simple misconduct only.
Under Rule 10, Section 46(A)(2) of the Revised Rules on Administrative Cases, gross neglect of duty is categorized as a grave offense punishable by dismissal from service.
Republic Act No. 9184
Negotiated Procurement is allowed in take-over of contracts. Expiration of contract cannot be categorized as a takeover of contracts.
Execution of Government Contracts
Contracts involving the expenditure of public funds must comply with the following requirements; otherwise, the contract is void:
- There must be an appropriation law authorizing the expenditure required in the contract.
- There must be attached to the contract a certification by the proper accounting official and auditor that funds have been appropriated by law and such funds are available.
The existence of appropriations and the availability of funds are indispensable pre-requisites to or conditions sine qua non for the execution of government contracts.
Republic Act No. 6713
Republic Act No. 6713 specifically identifies as unlawful the solicitation or acceptance of gifts "in the course of their official duties or in connection with any operation being regulated by, or any transaction which may be affected by the functions of their office."
Section 7(d) of Republic Act No. 6713 penalizes both solicitation and acceptance.
Codes of Ethics for Public Employees
Codes of ethics for public employees such as sheriffs prohibit them from accepting any form of remuneration in relation to the performance of their official duties.
The sheriff cannot act as a party's agent. He or she can only act as an officer of the court which he or she represents.
Government officials or employees are prohibited from engaging in private practice of their profession unless authorized by their department heads.
More importantly, if authorized, the practice of profession must not conflict nor tend to conflict with the official functions of the government official or employee.
A conflict of interest exists when an incumbent government employee represents another government employee or public officer in a case pending before the Office of the Ombudsman.
Local Government Code
Republic Act No. 7160, otherwise known as the Local Government Code, requires prior authorization from the sangguniang panlungsod, law, or ordinance, before a city mayor may sign a contract in behalf of the city.
If the city mayor has no authority from the sangguniang panlungsod to sign a contract, members of the sangguniang panlungsod have standing to file a case to have this contract declared null and void.
LABOR LAW
Officers vs. Employees
An office is created by the charter of the corporation and the officer is elected by the directors or stockholders.
On the other hand, an employee usually occupies no office and generally is employed not by action of the directors or stockholders but by the managing officer of the corporation who also determines the compensation to be paid to such employee.
Serious Misconduct
To warrant the dismissal from service of a rank-and-file employee under Article 297(a) of the Labor Code, the misconduct (1) must be serious or "of such grave and aggravated character," (2) should "relate to the performance of the employee's duties," (3) should render the employee "unfit to continue working for the employer," and (4) should "have been performed with wrongful intent."
The following are considered as serious misconduct for which an employee's services may be terminated:
- gambling during office hours,
- sexual intercourse within company premises,
- sexual harassment,
- sleeping while on duty,
- contracting work in competition with the business of one's employer
Trivial and unimportant acts are not contemplated under Article 297(a) of the Labor Code.
Willful Breach of Trust
To warrant the dismissal of fiduciary rank-and-file employees, the employer must adduce proof of actual involvement in the alleged misconduct for loss of trust and confidence.
Mere error in a single ticket issued by the conductor does not amount to serious misconduct or willful breach of trust that authorizes dismissal.
For managerial employees, mere existence of a basis for believing that the employee has breached the trust and confidence of the employer is sufficient.
Abandonment
Abandonment constitutes a just cause for dismissal.
Abandonment of work does not per se sever the employer-employee relationship. It is merely a form of neglect of duty, which is in turn a just cause for termination of employment.
For abandonment of work to exist, it is essential (1) that the employee must have failed to report for work or must have been absent without valid or justifiable reason; and (2) that there must have been a clear intention to sever the employer-employee relationship manifested by some overt acts.
Absence
Settled is the rule that mere absence or failure to report to work is not tantamount to abandonment of work.
The intervening period when respondent failed to report for work, from respondent's prison release to the time he actually reported for work, was justified. Since there was a justifiable reason for respondent's absence, the first element of abandonment was not established.
Intention
To justify the dismissal of an employee based on abandonment of work, there must be a showing of overt acts clearly evidencing the employee's intention to sever the employer-employee relationship.
Respondent's act of reporting for work after being cleared of the charges against him showed that he had no intention to sever ties with his employer.
Respondent's non-compliance with the return-to-work notices and his alleged act of crumpling the first return-to-work notice are equivocal acts that fail to show a clear intention to sever his employment.
Procedural Due Process
In termination based on just causes, the employer must comply with procedural due process by furnishing the employee a written notice containing the specific grounds or causes for dismissal.
The notice must also direct the employee to submit his or her written explanation within a reasonable period from the receipt of the notice.
Afterwards, the employer must give the employee ample opportunity to be heard and defend himself or herself. A hearing, however, is not a condition sine qua non.
A formal hearing only becomes mandatory in termination cases when so required under company rules or when the employee requests for it.
Finally, the employer must serve a notice informing the employee of his or her dismissal from employment.
Notice to respondent informing him of his dismissal after sending two (2) return-to-work notices violated procedural due process.
Authorized Causes
There is no right to be heard in dismissal for an authorized cause.
Where there is no allegation of employee misconduct or negligence that amounts to a just cause for dismissal under Article 282 of the Labor Code, the employee concerned has no right to be heard prior to their dismissal.
The merger of two corporations does not authorize the surviving corporation to terminate the employees of the absorbed corporation in the absence of just or authorized causes as provided in Articles 282 and 283 of the Labor Code.
Redundancy
[R]edundancy, for purposes of our Labor Code, exists where the services of an employee are in excess of what is reasonably demanded by the actual requirements of the enterprise.
The act of hiring new employees while firing the old ones negat[es] the claim of redundancy.
For the implementation of a redundancy program to be valid, the employer must comply with the following requisites: (1) written notice served on both the employees and the Department of Labor and Employment at least one month prior to the intended date of retrenchment; (2) payment of separation pay equivalent to at least one month pay or at least one month pay for every year of service, whichever is higher; (3) good faith in abolishing the redundant positions; and (4) fair and reasonable criteria in ascertaining what positions are to be declared redundant and accordingly abolished.
Retrenchment
An employer may terminate employment to prevent business losses.
Retrenchment may only be exercised in compliance with substantive and procedural requisites.
As to the substantive requisites, an employer must
- first show "that the retrenchment is reasonably necessary and likely to prevent business losses which, if already incurred, are not merely de minimis, but substantial, serious, actual and real, or if only expected, are reasonably imminent as perceived objectively and in good faith by the employer."
- Second, an employer must also show "that [it] exercises its prerogative to retrench employees in good faith for the advancement of its interest and not to defeat or circumvent the employees' right to security of tenure."
- Third, an employer must demonstrate "that [it] used fair and reasonable criteria in ascertaining who would be dismissed and who would be retained among the employees, such as status (i.e., whether they are temporary, casual, regular or managerial employees), efficiency, seniority, physical fitness, age, and financial hardship for certain workers."
Jurisprudence requires that the necessity of retrenchment to stave off genuine and significant business losses or reverses be demonstrated by an employer's independently audited financial statements.
Photocopied financial statements could not be considered at face value, especially absent an affidavit of a witnes.
It must "also show that its losses increased through a period of time and that the condition of the company is not likely to improve in the near future."
It is not enough for a company to simply incur business losses or go through rehabilitation to justify retrenchment. It must still show that the retrenchment was reasonably necessary to effectively prevent the actual or imminent losses.
Giving separation pay way beyond what the law requires sheds doubts on alleged "dire financial condition of the company.
When termination of employment is occasioned by retrenchment to prevent losses, an employer must declare a reasonable cause or criterion for retrenching an employee. Retrenchment that disregards an employee's record and length of service is an illegal termination of employment.
Retrenchment scheme without taking seniority into account rendered the retrenchment invalid.
Age, per se, cannot be a valid ground for denying employment to a security guard.
As to the procedure requisites, an employer must
- serve a "written notice both to the employees and to the Department of Labor and Employment at least one month prior to the intended date of retrenchment."
- pay "the retrenched employees separation pay equivalent to one month pay or at least 1/2 month pay for every year of service, whichever is higher."
Accepting separation pay does not estop Dawal, et al. from questioning their illegal dismissal.
But the separation pay already received by Dawal, et al., "as consideration for signing the quitclaims, must be subtracted from their individual monetary awards.
Serious Business Losses
The employer is exempted from having to pay separation pay if the closure was due to serious business losses.
The above exemption would still not apply if the employer voluntarily assumes the obligation to pay terminated employees, regardless of the employer's financial situation.
Dismissal
A valid dismissal must comply with substantive and procedural due process: there must be a valid cause and a valid procedure.
Employers may only terminate employment for a just or authorized cause and after complying with procedural due process requirements.
Burden of Proof
The employer has the burden of proving that the dismissal of its employees is with a valid and authorized cause. The employer's failure to discharge this burden makes the dismissal illegal.
The complaining employee must first establish by substantial evidence the fact of termination by the employer. There can be no illegal termination when there was no termination.
While, in illegal termination cases, the burden is upon the employer to show just cause for termination of employment, such a burden arises only if the complaining employee has shown, by substantial evidence, the fact of termination by the employer.
Violation of Due Proces
Failure to serve the 30-day prior notice on Dawal also makes PAL liable for an indemnity of P50,000.00 as nominal damages.
In Agabon, this court awarded an amount as indemnity to the dismissed employee due to the violation of the right to procedural due process.
Constructive Dismissal
Constructive dismissal exists where there is involuntary resignation because of the harsh, hostile and unfavorable conditions set by the employer.
Spontaneous expressions of an employer do not automatically render a hostile work atmosphere.
"Kung ayaw mo na ng ginagawa mo, we can manage!" These words, however, are not sufficient to make the continued employment of petitioner impossible, unreasonable, or unlikely.
Placing security guards on floating status is a valid exercise of management prerogative.
However, any such placement on off-detail should not exceed six (6) months. Otherwise, constructive dismissal shall be deemed to have occurred. Security guards dismissed in this manner are ordinarily entitled to reinstatement.
No work, No pay
If there is no work performed by the employee there can be no wage or pay, unless of course the laborer was able, willing and ready to work but was illegally locked out, dismissed or suspended.
The "no work, no pay" principle contemplates a "no work" situation where the employees voluntarily absent themselves.
Backwages
An employee is not entitled to any salary during the period of his detention.
His entitlement to full backwages commenced from the time the petitioner refused his reinstatement.
Absent proof of the actual date that respondent first reported for work and was refused by petitioner, the computation of backwages should only begin from the date of the filing of the Complaint applying the doctrine of "no work, no pay."
Separation Pay
Separation pay may be awarded to employees in the following cases: (a) reduction in workforce as a result of redundancy; (b) retrenchment or installation of labor-saving devices; or (c) closure and cessation of operations.
Separation benefits are not granted to petitioner by law in case of voluntary resignation, or by any contract it entered into with respondent.
Merger is not one of the circumstances where the employees may claim separation pay. In merger, the employment of the absorbed employees subsists.
Retirement Pay
Retirement benefits, where not mandated by law, may be granted by agreement of the employees and their employer or as a voluntary act on the part of the employer.
An employee who has already qualified for optional retirement but dies before the option to retire could be exercised is entitled to his or her optional retirement benefits, which may be claimed by the qualified employee's beneficiaries on his or her behalf.
Insurance Proceeds
Insurance proceeds is in the concept of an indemnity while retirement benefits is conditioned on age and length of service.
The grant of insurance proceeds will not necessarily bar the grant of retirement benefits.
Waivers and Quitclaims
Quitclaims do not bar employees from filing labor complaints and demanding benefits to which they are legally entitled.
Quitclaims do not negate charges for illegal dismissal.
Waivers and quitclaims are not invalid in themselves.
Requisites of a valid quitclaim: (1) the employee executes a deed of quitclaim voluntarily; (2) there is no fraud or deceit on the part of any of the parties; (3) the consideration of the quitclaim is credible and reasonable; and (4) the contract is not contrary to law, public order, public policy, morals or good customs, or prejudicial to a third person with a right recognized by law.
Liability of Officers
Corporate directors and officers are not liable for the illegal termination of a corporation's employees. It is only when they acted in bad faith or with malice that they become solidarity liable with the corporation.
An illegally dismissed employee is entitled to either reinstatement, if viable, or separation pay if reinstatement is no longer viable, and backwages.
Return-to-Work Order
The return-to-work order should have included all striking workers, and should not have excluded the workers affected by the redundancy program.
An order of reinstatement is different from a return-to-work order.
The award of reinstatement, including backwages, is awarded by a Labor Arbiter to an illegally dismissed employee pursuant to Article 294 of the Labor Code.
On the other hand, a return-to-work order is issued by the Secretary of Labor and Employment when he or she assumes jurisdiction over a labor dispute in an industry that is considered indispensable to the national interest.
Unfair Labor Practice
The union has the burden to prove, by substantial evidence, its allegation of unfair labor practice.
For there to be unfair labor practice, the violation of the Collective Bargaining Agreement must be gross and must be related to the Agreement's economic provisions.
The act of granting benefit to employees to induce them to waive their collective bargaining rights is unfair labor practice.
Seafarers
Filipinos hired as seafarers are contractual employees whose employment is governed by their respective contracts with their employers: "[t]heir employment is governed by the contracts they sign every time they are rehired and their employment is terminated when the contract expires."
Disability Benefits
Section 20(B) of the POEA contract provides that entitlement to disability benefits requires that the seafarer’s disability be work-related and that it occurs during the contract’s term.
The POEA-SEC bars the compensability of disability arising from a pre-existing illness when attended by an employee's fraudulent misrepresentation.
Work-Related Illness
The POEA contract defines “work-related illness” as “any sickness resulting to disability or death as a result of an occupational disease listed under Section 32-A of this contract with the conditions set therein satisfied."
Illnesses not listed as an occupational disease under Section 32 of the 2000 Philippine Overseas Employment Administration Amended Standard Terms and Conditions Governing the Employment of Filipino Seafarers on Board Ocean-Going Vessels are disputably presumed to be work-related.
Reasonable Proof
Seafarers must prove through substantial evidence the correlation between their illness and the nature of their work for their claim for disability benefits to prosper.
There is still a need for the claimant to establish, through substantial evidence, that his illness is work-related.
To be compensable, reasonable proof of work-connection, not direct causal relation, is sufficient.
It is enough that there is "a reasonable linkage between the disease suffered by the employee and his work to lead a rational mind to conclude that his work may have contributed to the establishment or, at the very least, aggravation of any pre-existing condition he might have had."
Death Compensation and Benefits
Section 32-A of the POEA-SEC acknowledges the possibility of "compensation for the death of the seafarer occurring after the employment contract on account of a work-related illness" as long as the following conditions are met
- The seafarer's work must involve the risks described herein;
- The disease was contracted as a result of the seafarer's exposure to the described risks;
- The disease was contracted within a period of exposure and under such other factors necessary to contract it;
- There was no notorious negligence on the part of the seafarer.
Even if the seaman died after the term of the contract, his beneficiaries are entitled to death compensation and benefits.
The failure to undergo a post-employment medical examination within three (3) days from repatriation leads to the forfeiture of medical benefits and sickness allowance, not death benefits.
Post-Employment Medical Examination
Section 20(B) of the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration-Standard Employment Contract (POEA-SEC) mandates seafarers to see a company-designated physician for a post-employment medical examination, which must be done within three (3) working days from their arrival. Failure to comply shall result in the forfeiture of the right to claim disability benefits.
Company-Designated Physician
Duty of the company-designated physician in issuing a final medical assessment:
- The company-designated physician must issue a final medical assessment on the seafarer's disability grading within a period of 120 days from the time the seafarer reported to him;
- If the company-designated physician fails to give his assessment within the period of 120 days, without any justifiable reason, then the seafarer's disability becomes permanent and total;
- If the company-designated physician fails to give his assessment within the period of 120 days with a sufficient justification (e.g, seafarer required further medical treatment or seafarer was uncooperative), then the period of diagnosis and treatment shall be extended to 240 days. The employer has the burden to prove that the company-designated physician has sufficient justification to extend the period; and
- If the company-designated physician still fails to give his assessment within the extended period of 240 days, then the seafarer's disability becomes permanent and total, regardless of any justification.
In Vergara v. Hammonia Maritime Services, Inc., this Court read the POEA-SEC in harmony with the Labor Code and the AREC in interpreting in holding that:
- the 120 days provided under Section 20-B (3) of the POEA-SEC is the period given to the employer to determine fitness to work and when the seafarer is deemed to be in a state of total and temporary disability;
- the 120 days of total and temporary disability may be extended up to a maximum of 240 days should the seafarer require further medical treatment; and
- a total and temporary disability becomes permanent when so declared by the company-designated physician within 120 or 240 days, as the case may be, or upon the expiration of the said periods without a declaration of either fitness to work or permanent disability and the seafarer is still unable to resume his regular seafaring duties.
Third Doctor Rule
Section 20(B)(3) of the POEA-SEC requires referral to a third physician in the event of diverging findings by a company-designated physician and a seafarer's personally chosen physician.
If a doctor appointed by the seafarer disagrees with the assessment, a third doctor may be agreed jointly between the employer and the seafarer. The third doctor's decision shall be final and binding on both parties.
The third doctor rule does not apply when there is no final and definitive assessment by the company-designated physicians.
Republic Act No. 10022
The clause "or for three (3) months for every year of the unexpired term, whichever is less" as reinstated in Section 7 of Republic Act No. 10022 is unconstitutional and has no force and effect of law.
Limiting wages that should be recovered by an illegally dismissed overseas worker to three months is both a violation of due process and the equal protection clauses of the Constitution.
Incorporating a similarly worded provision in a subsequent legislation does not cure its unconstitutionality.
Labor Arbiter
An intra-cooperative dispute between two officers on one hand and the Board of Directors on the other falls within the jurisdiction of the regular courts, not of the Labor Arbiter.
Intra-cooperative dispute is within the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court.
National Labor Relations Commission
The National Labor Relations Commission has the power to overturn the findings of fact of the Labor Arbiter. The National Labor Relations Commission is not bound by the findings of the Labor.
The factual findings of the NLRC, when affirmed by the CA, are generally conclusive on this Court.
Motion for Reconsideration
Motions for reconsideration not served on the adverse party do not toll the running of the reglementary period for filing an appeal. Upon lapse of the reglementary period, the judgment sought to be reconsidered becomes immutable.
Memorandum of Appeal
A mere procedural lapse in the venue where petitioner filed its Memorandum of Appeal is not fatal to its cause. This is especially so in light of how respondent estopped herself in failing to raise the issue of jurisdiction while petitioner's appeal was pending before the National Labor Relations Commission.
Prescriptive Period
Actions for damages due to illegal dismissal prescribed in four years. A delay of merely four (4) months in instituting an illegal dismissal case is more than sufficient compliance with the prescriptive period. Moreover, the six-month period from the date of dismissal to the filing of the Complaint was well within reason and cannot be considered "inexcusable delay."
The prescriptive period with respect to claim for entire service incentive leave pay commenced only from the time of her resignation or separation from employment.
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law
The landowner's "failure to manifest an intention to exercise his right to retain within sixty (60) calendar days from receipt of notice of CARP coverage" is a ground for losing his or her right of retention.
Republic Act No. 6657 or the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law generally covers all public and private agricultural lands.
Lands not devoted to agricultural activity are outside the coverage of Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law.
Section 3(d) of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law defines agrarian dispute as those relating to tenurial arrangements, including leasehold and tenancy.
Department of Agrarian Reform Secretary
Under the new Section 24, Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law through Republic Act No. 9700, all cases involving the cancellation of registered emancipation patents, certificates of land ownership awards, and other titles issued under any agrarian reform program are now within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Department of Agrarian Reform Secretary.
With the enactment of Republic Act No. 9700, the exclusive and original jurisdiction over cases for cancellation of registered emancipation patents now belongs to the Department of Agrarian Reform Secretary.
Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board
Administrative agencies, such as the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB), are not courts of law exercising judicial power.
Jurisprudence has settled that DARAB possesses no power to issue writs of certiorari.
That the statutes allowed the DARAB to adopt its own rules of procedure does not permit it with unbridled discretion to grant itself jurisdiction ordinarily conferred only by the Constitution or by law.
CIVIL LAW
Lack of Marriage License
To prove that a marriage was solemnized without a marriage license, "the law requires that the absence of such marriage license must be apparent on the marriage contract, or at the very least, supported by a certification from the local civil registrar that no such marriage license was issued to the parties."
The marriage is void when the marriage contract between Santiago Cariño and his first wife, Susan Nicdao, bore no marriage license number and in addition, the local civil registrar certified that it has no record of any marriage license issued to Santiago Cariño and Susan Nicdao.
The Certification from the Office of the Civil Registrar should categorically state that Marriage License No. xxxx does not exist. It is not sufficient that the certification states no record could be found.
The marriage license "cannot be located as said license . . . does not appear from [the local civil registrar's] records" enjoys probative value.
A certificate of 'due search and inability to find' sufficiently proved that [the local civil registrar] did not issue [a] marriage license . . . to the contracting parties."
Insufficient Certification
We are not prepared to establish a doctrine that a certification that a marriage license cannot be found may substitute for a definite statement that no such license existed or was issued. That the license now cannot be found is not basis per se to say that it could not have been issued.
Mere presentation of a certification from the civil registrar that the marriage license cannot be found is not enough to discharge the burden of proving that no such marriage license was issued.
Marriage Contract
The admission of a marriage contract with proof of its authenticity and due execution suffices to discharge the burden of proving beyond reasonable doubt that a prior marriage exists.
Article 26 of the Family Code
Under Article 26 of the Family Code, a divorce between a foreigner and a Filipino may be recognized in the Philippines as long as it was validly obtained according to the foreign spouse's national law.
Paragraph 2 of Article 26 speaks of "a divorce . . . validly obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating him or her to remarry." Based on a clear and plain reading of the provision, it only requires that there be a divorce validly obtained abroad.
Article 26 of the Family Code does not demand that the alien spouse should be the one who initiated the proceeding wherein the divorce decree was granted. It does not distinguish whether the Filipino spouse is the petitioner or the respondent in the foreign divorce proceeding.
A foreign divorce may be recognized in this jurisdiction as long as it is validly obtained, regardless of who among the spouses initiated the divorce proceedings.
Article 26 should be interpreted to include cases involving parties who, at the time of the celebration of the marriage were Filipino citizens, but later on, one of them becomes naturalized as a foreign citizen and obtains a divorce decree.
Judicial Recognition of a Foreign Divorce
Courts do not take judicial notice of foreign laws and foreign judgments.
Judicial recognition of a foreign divorce requires that the national law of the foreign spouse and the divorce decree be pleaded and proved as a fact before the Regional Trial Court.
The Certificate of Acceptance of the Report of Divorce does not state any qualifications that would restrict the remarriage of any of the parties. There can be no other interpretation than that the divorce procured by petitioner and respondent is absolute and completely terminates their marital tie.
Filiation
A person who seeks to establish illegitimate filiation after the death of a putative parent must do so via a record of birth appearing in the civil register or a final judgment, or an admission of legitimate filiation.
If filiation is sought to be proved under the second paragraph of Article 172 of the Family Code, the action must be brought during the lifetime of the alleged parent.
A birth certificate not signed by the alleged father therein indicated is not competent evidence of paternity.
Support
The right to receive any pension or gratuity from the Government shall be exempt from execution.
The benefit of exemption from execution of pension benefits is a statutory right that may be waived, especially in order to comply with a husband's duty to provide support under Article XV of the 1987 Constitution and the Family Code.
Builder in Good/Bad Faith
The party asserting the status of builder in good faith, must substantiate their claim through preponderance of evidence.
The private respondents who constructed their residential house on a property they had mistakenly believed to be owned by their mother but later turned out to belong to another, were considered as builders in good faith.
The son and daughter-in-law are builders in good faith as they introduced improvements on the lot with the knowledge and consent of their parents, the registered lot owners.
Private respondents who constructed their houses on the subject parcel of land on their mistaken belief that it was owned by a complete stranger, who gave them permission to build their houses thereat, without verifying the latter's title, are builders in bad faith.
The lack of blood relation should have been enough to put respondents on guard and convince them not to rely on her claim of ownership.
Builders in bad faith have no right to recover their expenses over the improvements they have introduced. Yet, they are entitled to recoup the necessary expenses.
Nuisance
Hazardous billboards are public nuisances. Prescribed remedies are
- A prosecution under the Revised Penal Code or any local ordinance; or
- A civil action; or
- Abatement, without judicial proceedings, if the local Building Official determines that this is the best remedy under the circumstances.
Removing or dismantling billboards, banners, and signages cannot qualify as acts relating to the implementation and completion of "government infrastructure projects," or of "national government projects" within the contemplation of Republic Act No. 8975. They do not involve the construction, operation, maintenance, repair, or rehabilitation of structures for public use.
Succession
No judicial declaration of heirship is necessary in order that an heir may assert his or her right to the property of the deceased.
Negligence in Keeping the Funds
A person who is negligent in keeping the funds cannot be relieved from liability.
Keeping National Food Authority collections outside the vault constituted negligence on the part of petitioner. A cashier in her position would have used the vault to keep her collections. Petitioner failed to do this. Her negligence is made more pronounced by the fact that the collections kept in the vault were not taken by the robbers.
Negligence of an Electric Distribution Company
An electric distribution company is a public utility presumed to have the necessary expertise and resources to enable a safe and effective installation of its facilities. Absent an indication of fault or negligence by other actors, it is exclusively liable for fires and other damages caused by its haphazardly installed posts and wires.
The Ridjo doctrine simply states that the public utility has the imperative duty to make a reasonable and proper inspection of its apparatus and equipment to ensure that they do not malfunction. Its failure to discover the defect, if any, considering the length of time, amounts to inexcusable negligence; its failure to make the necessary repairs and replace the defective electric meter installed within the consumer's premises limits the latter's liability.
Should a distribution utility not exercise the standard of care required of it due to its negligence in the inspection and repair of its apparatus, then it can no longer recover the amounts of allegedly used but uncharged electricity.
Considering that Nordec's meters were read monthly, Meralco's belated discovery of the cause of the alleged irregularities, or four (4) months after they purportedly started, can only lead to a conclusion of negligence.
Default
In order that the debtor may be in default it is necessary that the following requisites be present:
- that the obligation be demandable and already liquidated;
- that the debtor delays performance; and
- that the creditor requires the performance judicially and extrajudicial.
Incidental Fraud
Unjust exclusion from participating in the management of the affairs of the corporation constitutes fraud incidental to the performance of the obligation.
Rescission
Rescission under Article 1191 in the present case, carries with it the corresponding obligation of restitution.
However, mutual restitution under Article 1191 is no license for the negation of contractually stipulated liquidated damages.
Article 1191 states that "the injured party may choose between fulfillment and rescission of the obligation, with the payment of damages in either case."
Obligations and Contract
Under Article 1186 of the Civil Code, a "condition shall be deemed fulfilled when the obligor voluntarily prevents its fulfillment."
For novation to have legal effect, the creditor must expressly consent to the substitution of the new debtor.
Forms of Contract
A contract may be contained in several instruments with nonconflicting terms. A contract need not be contained in a single writing.
Similarly, a written agreement of which there are two copies, one signed by each of the parties, is binding on both to the same extent as though there had been only one copy of the agreement and both had signed it.
The interest rate and attorney's fees stipulated in the delivery invoices are binding on the parties and formed part of the contract of sale.
Consent
Only an absolute and unqualified acceptance of a definite offer manifests the consent necessary to perfect a contract.
For a proposal to bind a party, there must be proof that it consented to all the terms on offer.
This Court held that the arbitration clause was nonetheless binding because the Conditions of Contract were expressly made an integral part of the principal contract between the parties.
The subscription of the principal agreement effectively covered the other documents incorporated by reference to them.
Reformation
Reformation of an instrument may be allowed if subsequent and contemporaneous acts of the parties show that their true intention was not accurately reflected in the written instrument.
Requisites for an action for reformation of instrument to prosper:
- there must have been a meeting of the minds of the parties to the contract;
- the instrument does not express the true intention of the parties; and
- the failure of the instrument to express the true intention of the parties is due to mistake, fraud, inequitable conduct or accident.
In reforming an instrument, no new contract is created for the parties, rather, the reformed instrument establishes the real agreement between the parties as intended, but for some reason, was not embodied in the original instrument.
Maceda Law
Where installments are to be paid on a monthly basis, paying "at least two years of installments" pertains to the aggregate value of 24 monthly installments.
For failing to pay two years of installments, the buyer is entitled to a grace period of not less than sixty (60) days from the due date within which to make her installment payment.
The seller, on the other hand, had the right to cancel the contract after thirty (30) days from receipt by buyer of the notice of cancellation.
Three (3) requisites before the seller may actually cancel the subject contract:
- the seller shall give the buyer a 60-day grace period to be reckoned from the date the installment became due;
- the seller must give the buyer a notice of cancellation/demand for rescission by notarial act if the buyer fails to pay the installments due at the expiration of the said grace period; and
- the seller may actually cancel the contract only after thirty (30) days from the buyer's receipt of the said notice of cancellation/demand for rescission by notarial act.
For failure to cancel the contract in accordance with the procedure provided by Maceda law, the contract to sell between the parties remains valid and subsisting.
Agency
The essential elements of agency are: (1) there is consent, express or implied, of the patties to establish the relationship; (2) the object is the execution of a juridical act in relation to a third person; (3) the agents (sic) acts as a representative and not for himself; and (4) the agent acts within the scope of his authority.
Revocation as a form of extinguishing an agency under Article 1924 of the Civil Code only applies in cases of incompatibility, such as when the principal disregards or bypasses the agent in order to deal with a third person in a way that excludes the agent.
Agency Coupled with Interest
An agency is coupled with interest if a bilateral contract depends upon it or when an agency is established for both the principal and the agent.
An agency coupled with interest is irrevocable.
Article 1927. An agency cannot be revoked if a bilateral contract depends upon it, or if it is the means of fulfilling an obligation already contracted, or if a partner is appointed manager of a partnership in the contract of partnership and his removal from the management is unjustifiable.
Adoption
For the adoption of the adopter's own children born out of wedlock valid, the consent of the adopter's spouse and the adopter's children if they are 10 years old or older was required by Republic Act No. 8552.
Personal service of summons should have been effected on the spouse and all legitimate children to ensure that their substantive rights are protected. It is not enough to rely on constructive notice as in this case.
Compromise
A compromise agreement once approved by final order of the court has the force of res judicata between the parties and should not be disturbed except for vices of consent or forgery.
A decision on a compromise agreement is final and executory; it has the force of law and is conclusive between the parties.
A judgment on compromise may be executed in accordance with the Rules of Court.
The doctrine on immutability of judgments applies to compromise agreements approved by the courts in the same manner that it applies to judgments that have been rendered on the basis of a full-blown trial.
While the general rule is that a valid compromise agreement has the power to render a pending case moot and academic, being a contract, the parties may opt to modify the legal effects of their compromise agreement to prevent the pending case from becoming moot.
A conditional settlement of a judgment award may be treated as a compromise agreement and a judgment on the merits of the case if it turns out to be highly prejudicial to one of the parties.
Interest
Where interest was stipulated in writing by the debtor and creditor in a simple loan or mutuum, but no exact interest rate was mentioned, the legal rate of interest shall apply.
The imposition of an unconscionable interest rate is void ab initio for being contrary to morals, and the law.
Interest due shall earn legal interest from the time it is judicially demanded, although the obligation may be silent upon this point.
When the credit card provider failed to prove its client's consent, even if the latter did not deny availing of the credit card by charging purchases on it, the credit card client may only be charged with legal interest.
Registered-Owner Rule / Article 2180
Under the fifth paragraph of Article 2180, whether or not engaged in any business or industry, an employer is liable for the torts committed by employees within the scope of his assigned tasks.
In cases where both the registered-owner rule and Article 2180 apply, the plaintiff must first establish that the employer is the registered owner of the vehicle in question. Once the plaintiff successfully proves ownership, there arises a disputable presumption that the requirements of Article 2180 have been proven. As a consequence, the burden of proof shifts to the defendant to show that no liability under Article 2180 has arisen.
Defenses of the registered owner:
- first, that it had no employment relationship with the driver;
- second, that the driver acted outside the scope of his assigned tasks; or
- third, that it exercised the diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and supervision of the driver.
Mere disavowals are not proof that suffice to overturn a presumption.
The mere allegation of the existence of hiring procedures and supervisory policies, without anything more, is decidedly not sufficient to overcome presumption.
Damages
Damage includes any and all damages that a human being may suffer in any and all the manifestations of his life: physical or material, moral or psychological, mental or spiritual, financial, economic, social, political, and religious.
Anybody who suffers any damage from culpa aquiliana, whether a relative or not of the victim, may recover damages from the person responsible therefor.
Compensatory Damages
In the absence of actual proof of losses, actual damages cannot be awarded.
For one is only entitled to adequate compensation for pecuniary loss that he has duly proven.
The appropriate measure for damages in case of delay in discharging an obligation consisting of the payment of a sum or money, is the payment of penalty interest at the rate agreed upon; and in the absence of a stipulation of a particular rate of penalty interest, then the payment of additional interest at a rate equal to the regular monetary interest; and if no regular interest had been agreed upon, then payment of legal interest or six percent (6%) per annum.
Even when a claimant is compelled to litigate to defend himself/herself, still attorney's fees may not be awarded where there is no sufficient showing of bad faith of the other party.
Moral Damages
Moral damages are "compensatory damages awarded for mental pain and suffering or mental anguish resulting from a wrong." They are awarded to the injured party to enable him to obtain means that will ease the suffering he sustained from respondent's reprehensible act.
The following conditions must be met before moral damages may be awarded:
- there must be an injury, whether physical, mental or psychological, clearly sustained by the claimant;
- there must be culpable act or omission factually established;
- the wrongful act or omission of the defendant is the proximate cause of the injury sustained by the claimant; and
- the award of damages is predicated on any of the cases stated in Article 2219 of the Civil Code.
For deaths caused by quasi-delict, the recovery of moral damages is limited to the spouse, legitimate and illegitimate descendants, and ascendants of the deceased.
Brothers and sisters may recover damages, except moral damages, for the death of their sibling.
In rape cases, the award of civil indemnity is mandatory upon proof of the commission of rape, whereas moral damages are automatically awarded without the need to prove mental and physical suffering. Exemplary damages are also imposed, as example for the public good and to protect minors from all forms of sexual abuse.
Moral damages are recoverable when the dismissal of an employee is attended by bad faith or fraud or constitutes an act oppressive to labor, or is done in a manner contrary to good morals, good customs or public policy. Exemplary damages, on the other hand, are recoverable when the dismissal was done in a wanton, oppressive, or malevolent manner.
Making the employees sign a new employment contract on a piece-rate basis, which violates the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act, especially when under the new contract, the employees were underpaid and deprived of their overtime premium shows how bad faith on the part of the employer.
As a rule, a corporation is not entitled to moral damages because, not being a natural person, it cannot experience physical suffering or sentiments like wounded feelings, serious anxiety, mental anguish and moral shock. The only exception to this rule is when the corporation has a reputation that is debased, resulting in its humiliation in the business realm.
Moral damages may be recovered in cases of libel, slander, or defamation.
Nonetheless, moral damages should still be awarded. As he had testified during trial, members of his family were displeased with him for being accused of committing illegal and corrupt acts. He was berated by his mother Tor having humiliated their family. His children were questioned at school. As such, an award of P500,000.00 as moral damages is an adequate recompense to the mental anguish and wounded feelings that petitioner had endured.
Temperate Damages
Temperate or moderate damages may only be given if the "court finds that some pecuniary loss has been suffered but that its amount cannot, from the nature of the case, be proved with certainty."
Temperate damages may be awarded where the amount of actual damages was not proven due to the inadequacy of the evidence presented or when the plaintiff failed to submit competent proof of actual damages.
In Tan v. OMC Carriers, Inc., temperate damages were rightly awarded because plaintiff suffered a loss, although definitive proof of its amount cannot be presented as the photographs produced as evidence were deemed insufficient.
In Canada v. All Commodities Marketing Corporation, temperate damages were also awarded wherein respondent's goods did not reach the Pepsi Cola Plant at Muntinlupa City as a result of the negligence of petitioner in conducting its trucking and hauling services, even if the amount of the pecuniary loss had not been proven.
In Philtranco Services Enterprises, Inc. v. Paras, the respondent was likewise awarded temperate damages in an action for breach of contract of carriage, even if his medical expenses had not been established with certainty.
In People v. Briones, in which the accused was found guilty of murder, temperate damages were given even if the funeral expenses for the victim had not been sufficiently proven.
No Award for Temperate Damages
The factual findings of the appellate court that respondent has failed to establish such pecuniary loss or, if proved, cannot from their nature be precisely quantified precludes the application of the rule on temperate or moderate damages.
If the petitioner failed to prove that he has suffered any pecuniary loss, he cannot recover temperate damages.
Nominal Damages
Nominal damages are adjudicated in order that a right of the plaintiff, which has been violated or invaded by the defendant, may be vindicated or recognized and not for the purpose of indemnifying the plaintiff for any loss suffered by him.
Nominal damages are awarded to vindicate the violation of a right suffered by a party, in an amount considered by the courts reasonable under the circumstances.
Exemplary Damages
Exemplary damages, which cannot be recovered as a matter of right, may not be awarded if no moral, temperate, or compensatory damages have been granted.
Since exemplary damages cannot be awarded, the award of attorney's fees should likewise be deleted.
Exemplary damages may be awarded even in the absence of aggravating circumstances. It may be awarded "where the circumstances of the case show the highly reprehensible or outrageous conduct of the offender."
Jurisprudence sets certain requirements before exemplary damages may be awarded, to wit:
- they may be imposed by way of example or correction only in addition, among others, to compensatory damages, and cannot be recovered as a matter of right, their determination depending upon the amount of compensatory damages that may be awarded to the claimant;
- the claimant must first establish his right to moral, temperate, liquidated or compensatory damages; and
- the wrongful act must be accompanied by bad faith, and the award would be allowed only if the guilty party acted in a wanton, fraudulent, reckless, oppressive or malevolent manner.
Commonwealth Act No. 141
Under Commonwealth Act No. 141, a claimant may acquire alienable and disposable public land upon evidence of exclusive and notorious possession of the land since June 12, 1945.
June 12, 1945 is the "reckoning point of the requisite possession and occupation" and not of the land classification as alienable and disposable. A property applied for judicial confirmation of title may be classified as alienable and disposable at any time.
Classifying a land of the public domain as agricultural is essential only to establish the applicant's "eligibility for land registration, not the ownership or title over it.
Acquisitive Prescription
The period to acquire public land by acquisitive prescription under Presidential Decree No. 1529 begins to run only after the promulgation of a law or a proclamation by the President stating that the land is no longer intended for public use or the development of national wealth.
Burden of Proof upon the Applicant
Public land remains inalienable unless it is shown to have been reclassified and alienated to a private person.
To establish that a land is indeed alienable and disposable, applicants must submit the application for original registration with the CENRO certification and a copy of the original classification approved by the DENR Secretary and certified as a true copy by the legal custodian of the official records.
A CENRO certification, by itself, is insufficient to prove the alienability and disposability of land sought to be registered.
The CENRO Certification should have been accompanied by an official publication of the DENR Secretary's issuance declaring the land alienable and disposable.
Burden of Proof upon the State
When a land has been in the possession of the applicants and their predecessor-in-interest since time immemorial and there is no manifest indication that it is unregistrable, it is upon the State to demonstrate that the land is not alienable and disposable.
Review or Reopening of a Decree of Registration
Petitions for a review or reopening of a decree of registration based on actual fraud must be filed before the proper court within the one-year period provided under the relevant laws.
Fraud
Fraud as a ground for a review or reopening of a land registration decree contemplates actual and extrinsic fraud.
Only extrinsic fraud may be raised as a ground to "review or reopen a decree of registration."
Actual fraud "proceeds from an intentional deception practiced by means of the misrepresentation or concealment of a material fact." Extrinsic fraud "is employed to deprive parties of their day in court and thus prevent them from asserting their right to the property registered in the name of the applicant."
An applicant's failure to state in the free patent application that other parties are also in possession of the land applied for "clearly constitutes a concealment of a material fact amounting to fraud and misrepresentation within the context of [Section 91 of Commonwealth Act No. 141, as amended], sufficient enough to cause ipso facto the cancellation of their patent and title.
The employment or use of share tenants in whatever form for purposes of complying with the requirements of the Public Land Act regarding entry, occupation, improvement, and cultivation is prohibited.
One-Year Period
Section 101 of Commonwealth Act No. 141 allows actions by the state for the reversion of land fraudulently granted to private individuals even when they are filed after the lapse of the one-year period.
All actions for the reversion to the Government of lands of the public domain or improvements thereon shall be instituted by the Solicitor General or the officer acting in his stead, in the proper courts, in the name of the Republic of the Philippines.
Action for Reconveyance
An action for reconveyance is a legal and equitable remedy, an action in personam, available to a person whose property has been wrongfully registered under the Torrens system in another's name.
It does not seek to set aside the decree but, respecting it as incontrovertible and no longer open to review, seeks to transfer or reconvey the land from the registered owner to the rightful owner.
Actions for reconveyance of real property may be filed before the Regional Trial Courts or the Municipal Trial Courts, depending on the assessed value of the property involved.
"[A]n action for reconveyance ... prescribes in [10] years from the issuance of the Torrens title over the property."
In an action for reconveyance, the right of action accrues from the time the property is registered.
Reconveyance is available as long as the property has not passed to an innocent third person for value.
Action for Annulment of Title
An action for annulment of title questions the validity of the title because of lack of due process of law. There is an allegation of nullity in the procedure and thus the invalidity of the title that is issued.
The Court of Appeals has exclusive original jurisdiction over actions for annulment of judgments of Regional Trial Courts.
In all cases of registration procured by fraud, the owner may pursue all his legal and equitable remedies against the parties to such fraud without prejudice, however, to the rights of any innocent holder for value of a certificate of title.
Assurance Fund
Based solely on Section 95 of Presidential Decree No. 1529, the following conditions must be met:
- the individual must sustain loss or damage, or the individual is deprived of land or any estate or interest.
- the individual must not be negligent.
- the loss, damage, or deprivation is the consequence of either (a) fraudulent registration under the Torrens system after the land's original registration, or (b) any error, omission, mistake, or misdescription in any certificate of title or in any entry or memorandum in the registration book.
- the individual must be barred or otherwise precluded under the provision of any law from bringing an action for the recovery of such land or the estate or interest therein.
It is a condition sine qua non that the person who brings an action for damages against the assurance fund be the registered owner, and, as to holders of transfer certificates of title, that they be innocent purchasers in good faith and for value.
Claims for the recovery of damages to be paid out of the Assurance Fund will not be allowed when the claimant is negligent.
Section 96, in relation to Section 97, requires that the person causing the fraud should be impleaded in the claim for damages.
Implied Trust
An implied trust is based on equity and is either (i) a constructive trust, or (ii) a resulting trust. A constructive trust is created by force of law such as when a title is registered in favor of a person other than the true owner. A resulting trust is created by implication of law and is presumed as intended by the parties.
The prescriptive period to enforce implied trust is 10 years from the time the right of action accrues.
It is now well-settled that the prescriptive period to recover property obtained by fraud or mistake, giving rise to an implied trust under Art. 1456 of the Civil Code, is 10 years pursuant to Art. 1144.
This ten year prescriptive period begins to run from the date the adverse party repudiates the implied trust, which repudiation takes place when the adverse party registers the land.
Prescriptive Period
Actions based upon a written contract should be brought within ten (10) years from the time the right of action accrues. Indubitably, such right of action accrue from the moment the breach of right or duty occurs.
Prescription of actions is, nevertheless, interrupted when they are filed before the courts, when there is a written extrajudicial demand by the creditors, and when there is any written acknowledgement of the debt by the debtor.
A written extrajudicial demand wipes out the period which has already elapsed, and it starts anew the prescriptive period.
Agricultural Land Reform
The relation of landholder and tenant shall be limited to the person who furnishes land, either as owner, lessee, usufructuary, or legal possessor, and to the person who actually works the land himself with the aid of labor available from within his immediate farm household.
Sec. 6 of R.A. No. 3844, as amended, does not automatically authorize a civil law lessee to employ a tenant without the consent of the landowner. The lessee must be so specifically authorized.
On the other hand, under the express provision of Art. 1649 of the Civil Code, the lessee cannot assign the lease without the consent of the lessor, unless there is a stipulation to the contrary.
Forum Non Conveniens
Forum non conveniens finds no application and does not operate to divest Philippine tribunals of jurisdiction and to require the application of foreign law.
Neither the mere invocation of forum non conveniens nor the averment of foreign elements operates to automatically divest a court of jurisdiction. The matter of jurisdiction rests on the sound discretion of a court.
Forum non conveniens must not only be clearly pleaded as a ground for dismissal; it must be pleaded as such at the earliest possible opportunity. Otherwise, it shall be deemed waived.
A defendant must also plead and show that a prior suit has, in fact, been brought in another jurisdiction.
Contractual choice of law is not determinative of jurisdiction. Stipulating on the laws of a given jurisdiction as the governing law of a contract does not preclude the exercise of jurisdiction by tribunals elsewhere.
TAXATION LAW
Power to Determine the Zonal Value of Properties
Under Section 6(E) of Republic Act No. 8424,[52] only the Commissioner of Internal Revenue has the power to determine the zonal value of properties.
Withholding Tax Requirement
An expense, whether the same is paid or payable, "shall be allowed as a deduction only if it is shown that the tax required to be deducted and withheld therefrom was paid to the Bureau of Internal Revenue."
The obligation of the payor/employer to deduct and withhold the related withholding tax arises at the time the income was paid or accrued or recorded as an expense in the payor's/employer's books, whichever comes first.
Payments for reimbursements of representation, travel, and entertainment expenses of its officers are not considered compensation of employees and likewise not subject to withholding tax.
Timing of Deduction
Revenue Audit Memorandum Order No. 1-2000, provides that under the accrual method of accounting, expenses not being claimed as deductions by a taxpayer in the current year when they are incurred cannot be claimed as deduction from income for the succeeding year.
All-Events Test
The accrual of income and expense is permitted when the all-events test has been met. This test requires: (1) fixing of a right to income or liability to pay; and (2) the availability of the reasonable accurate determination of such income or liability.
Claim for VAT Refund
Excess input tax or creditable input tax is not an erroneously, excessively, or illegally collected tax. Hence, it is Section 112(C) and not Section 229 of the National Internal Revenue Code that governs claims for refund of creditable input tax.
The 90-day and 30-day reglementary periods under Section 112(C) of the National Internal Revenue Code are both mandatory and jurisdictional. Non-compliance with these periods renders a judicial claim for refund of creditable input tax premature.
The thirty (30)-day statutory period within which to file a petition for review is jurisdictional. Non-compliance bars the Court of Tax Appeals from taking cognizance of the appeal
Taxpayers who have relied on the Bureau of Internal Revenue Ruling DA-489-03, from its issuance on December 10, 2003 until its reversal on October 6, 2010 by this Court in Aichi, are, therefore, shielded from the vice of prematurity.
Excise Tax on Stemmed leaf tobacco
Stemmed leaf tobacco is subject to the specific tax under Section 141(b). It is a partially prepared tobacco.
Stemmed leaf tobacco transferred in bulk between cigarette manufacturers is exempt from excise tax under Section 137 of the 1986 Tax Code in conjunction with RR No. V-39 and RR No. 17-67.
Only transfers of stemmed leaf tobacco between L-7 permittees are exempt. Importation of stemmed leaf tobacco is not included in the exemption under Section 137.
The government is never estopped from collecting legitimate taxes because of the error committed by its agents.
Excise Tax on Brand
New brands shall be classified according to their current net retail price.
A variant of a brand is taxed according to the highest rate of tax for that particular brand. Variants of existing brands which are introduced in the domestic market after the effectivity of Republic Act No. 8240 shall be taxed under the highest classification of any variant of that brand.
A 'variant of brand' shall refer to a brand on which a modifier is prefixed and/or suffixed to the root name of the brand and/or a different brand which carries the same logo or design of the existing brand.
San Mig Light Brand
When the product "San Mig Light" was introduced in 1999, it was considered as an entirely new product and a new brand of petitioner's fermented liquor, there being no root name of "San Miguel" or "San Mig” in its existing brand names.
Though the "escudo" logo appears on both "Pale Pilsen" bottle and "San Mig Light" bottle and can, the same cannot be considered as an indication that "San Mig Light" is merely a variant of the brand "Pale Pilsen", since the said "escudo" insignia is the corporate logo of petitioner. It merely identifies the products, as having been manufactured by petitioner, but does not form part of its brand. In fact, it appears not only in petitioner's beer products, but even in its non-beer products.
"San Mig Light" and "Pale Pilsen" do not share a root word.
"San Mig Light" should be considered as one brand name.
Final Assessment Notice
The formal letter of demand and assessment notice shall state the facts, jurisprudence, and law on which the assessment was based; otherwise, these shall be void.
The alleged "factual bases" in the advice, preliminary letter and "audit working papers" did not suffice.
The requirement of Section 228 was substantially complied with although the Final Assessment Notice and demand letter issued to petitioner were not accompanied by a written explanation of the legal and factual bases of the deficiency taxes assessed against the petitioner, the records showed that respondent in its letter dated April 10, 2003 responded to petitioner's October 14, 2002 letter-protest, explaining at length the factual and legal bases of the deficiency tax assessments and denying the protest.
Final Assessment Notice is not valid if it does not contain a definite due date for payment by the taxpayer.
An assessment does not only include a computation of tax liabilities; it also includes a demand for payment within a period prescribed.
Waiver and Prescription
Estoppel applies against a taxpayer who did not only raise at the earliest opportunity its representative's lack of authority to execute two (2) waivers of defense of prescription, but was also accorded, through these waivers, more time to comply with the audit requirements of the Bureau of Internal Revenue.
Nonetheless, a tax assessment served beyond the extended period is void.
For the ten-year period under Section 222(a) to apply, it is not enough that fraud is alleged in the complaint, it must be established by clear and convincing evidence.
Court of Tax Appeals
The Court of Tax Appeals is not bound by the conclusions and findings of the Bureau of Internal Revenue.
Exemption from Local Taxation
Government instrumentalities are exempt from any kind of taxation from local government.
Section 187 of the Local Government Code of 1991
Any question on the constitutionality or legality of tax ordinances or revenue measures may be raised on appeal within thirty (30) days from the effectivity thereof to the Secretary of Justice who shall render a decision within sixty (60) days from the date of receipt of the appeal.
Such appeal shall not have the effect of suspending the effectivity of the ordinance and the accrual and payment of the tax, fee, or charge levied therein.
Within thirty (30) days after receipt of the decision or the lapse of the sixty-day period without the Secretary of Justice acting upon the appeal, the aggrieved party may file appropriate proceedings with a court of competent jurisdiction.
Real Property Taxes
Under Section 234(a), the general rule is that any real property owned by the Republic or its political subdivisions is exempt from the payment of real property tax "except when the beneficial use thereof has been granted, for consideration or otherwise, to a taxable person."
Real property, even if owned by the Republic or any of its political subdivisions, may still be subject to real property tax if the beneficial use of the real property was granted to a taxable person.
Real property granted by the Republic to MIAA, as a government instrumentality, is not subjec to real estate tax. However, portions of the Airport Lands and Buildings that MIAA leases to private entities are not exempt from real estate tax.
The Philippine Fisheries Development Authority was a government instrumentality exercising corporate powers, not a government-owned and controlled corporation. Thus, it was exempt from the payment of real property taxes on the Iloilo Fishing Port Complex, except for those portions that were leased to private entities.
The Government Service Insurance System was a government instrumentality whose properties, being owned by the Republic, cannot be assessed for real property taxes.
Manila International Airport Authority (MIAA), Mactan International Airport Authority, the Philippine Ports Authority (PPA), Philippine Deposit Insurance Corporation (PDIC), Metropolitan Water and Sewerage Services (MWSS), Philippine Rice Research Institute (PRRI), Laguna Lake Development Authority (LLDA), Fisheries Development Authority (FDA), Bases Conversion Development Authority (BCDA), Cebu Port Authority (CPA), Cagayan de Oro Port Authority, and San Fernando Port Authority are exempt from real property taxes.
A government-owned and controlled corporation, on the other hand, is not exempt from real property taxes due to the passage of the Local Government Code.
Republic Act 9480
Taxpayers with pending tax cases may avail themselves of the tax amnesty program under Republic Act No. 9480. Only cases that involve final and executory judgments are excluded from the tax amnesty program as explicitly provided under Section 8 of Republic Act No. 9480.
Republic Act No. 7916 or the Special Economic Zone Act of 1995
Respondent's lease of the physical plant space, infrastructure, and other transmission facilities of PeopleSupport (Philippines), Inc., a Philippine Economic Zone Authority (PEZA)-registered Export Enterprise, is not covered within its registered activities. Thus, income derived from it is subject to the regular corporate income tax.
If the forex gain is attributed to an activity with income tax incentive (Income Tax Holiday or 5% Gross Income Tax), said forex gain shall be covered by the same income tax incentive.
On the other hand, if the forex gain is attributed to an activity without income tax incentive, said forex gain shall likewise be without income tax incentive, i.e., therefore, subject to normal corporate income tax.
Informer's Reward
Under Section 282 of the National Internal Revenue Code of 1997, as amended, an information given by an informer shall merit a reward only when it satisfies certain formal and qualitative parameters.
- As a matter of form and procedure, that information must be voluntarily given, definite, and sworn to.
- Qualitatively, that information must be novel and, subsequently, prove itself effective.
Information is novel when it is "not yet in the possession of the Bureau of Internal Revenue" and "not referring to a case already pending or previously investigated or examined."
Information has shown itself to be effective when there is actual recovery.
Should no revenue, surcharges, or fees be actually recovered or collected, such person shall not be entitled to a reward.
COMMERCIAL LAW
Contract of Insurance
A contract of insurance is, by default, a contract of adhesion. It is prepared by the insurance company and might contain terms and conditions too vague for a layperson to understand.
A protection and indemnity club is an association composed of shipowners generally formed for the specific purpose of providing insurance cover against third-party liabilities of its members.
A protection and indemnity club is a mutual insurance association.
A mutual insurance company is a cooperative enterprise where the members are both the insurer and insured. In it, the members all contribute, by a system of premiums or assessments, to the creation of a fund from which all losses and liabilities are paid, and where the profits are divided among themselves, in proportion to their interest. Additionally, mutual insurance associations, or clubs, provide three types of coverage, namely, protection and indemnity, war risks, and defense costs.
Presumption of Fault in Maritime Law
In the absence of sufficient proof in rebuttal, the presumption of fault attaches to a moving vessel which collides with a fixed object and makes a prima facie case of fault against the vessel.
The Master shall retain overall command of the vessel even on pilotage grounds whereby he can countermand or overrule the order or command of the Harbor Pilot on board. In such event, any damage caused to a vessel or to life and property at ports by reason of the fault or negligence of the Master shall be the responsibility and liability of the registered owner of the vessel concerned without prejudice to recourse against said Master.
Personal Liability of a Corporate Director, Trustee, or Officer
Personal liability of a corporate director, trustee or officer along (although not necessarily) with the corporation may so validly attach, as a rule, only when —
- He assents (a) to a patently unlawful act of the corporation, or (b) for bad faith or gross negligence in directing its affairs, or (c) for conflict of interest, resulting in damages to the corporation, its stockholders or other persons;
- He consents to the issuance of watered stocks or who, having knowledge thereof, does not forthwith file with the corporate secretary his written objection thereto;
- He agrees to hold himself personally and solidarity liable with the corporation; or
- He is made, by a specific provision of law, to personally answer for his corporate action.
Piercing the Corporate Veil
When the separate juridical personality of a corporation is used "to defeat public convenience, justify wrong, protect fraud, or defend crime, the law will regard the corporation as an association of persons."
Piercing the corporate veil in order to hold corporate officers personally liable for the corporation's debts requires that "the bad faith or wrongdoing of the director must be established clearly and convincingly as bad faith is never presumed."
The mere fact that Morning Star has been incurring huge losses and that it has no assets at the time it contracted large financial obligations to IATA, cannot be considered that its officers acted in bad faith or such circumstance would amount to fraud, warranting personal and solidary liability of its corporate officers.
Mere allegations that Morning Star Management Ventures Corporation and Pic 'N Pac Mart, Inc. "were doing relatively well during the time that respondent Morning Star was incurring huge losses" do not establish bad faith or fraud by the individual respondents. Such allegations alone do not prove that the individual respondents were transferring respondent Morning Star's properties in fraud of its creditors.
Neither does the allegation that Morning Star Management Ventures Corporation has title over the land and building where the offices can be found establish bad faith or fraud. Petitioner did not show that this title was originally in respondent Morning Star's name and was later transferred to respondent Morning Star.
This court has held that the "existence of interlocking directors, corporate officers and shareholders is not enough justification to pierce the veil of corporate fiction in the absence of fraud or other public policy considerations.
Control test for the operation of the alter ego doctrine:
- Control, not mere majority or complete stock control, but complete domination, not only of finances but of policy and business practice in respect to the transaction attacked so that the corporate entity as to this transaction had at the time no separate mind, will or existence of its own;
- Such control must have been used by the defendant to commit fraud or wrong, to perpetuate the violation of a statutory or other positive legal duty, or dishonest and unjust act in contravention of plaintiff's legal right; and
- The aforesaid control and breach of duty must have proximately caused the injury or unjust loss complained of.
Authority to Bind the Corporation
The general rule is that, "in the absence of an authority from the board of directors, no person, not even the officers of the corporation, can validly bind the corporation."
A contract entered into by corporate officers who exceed their authority generally does not bind the corporation except when the contract is ratified by the Board of Director.
Considering that the Board of Directors remained silent and the Postmaster Generals continued to approve the payments to Aboitiz One, they are presumed to have substantially ratified respondent's unauthorized acts. Therefore, respondent's action is not considered ultra vires.
Doctrine of Apparent Authority
When a corporation intentionally or negligently clothes its agent with apparent authority to act on its behalf, it is estopped from denying its agent's apparent authority as to innocent third parties who dealt with this agent in good faith.
The doctrine of apparent authority provides that even if no actual authority has been conferred on an agent, his or her acts, as long as they are within his or her apparent scope of authority, bind the principal. However, the principal's liability is limited to third persons who are reasonably led to believe that the agent was authorized to act for the principal due to the principal's conduct.
Apparent authority is determined by the acts of the principal and not by the acts of the agent.
Minutes of Meetings
The minutes of a board meeting are not equivalent to a board resolution.
The minutes of the transactions of a board such as the present, prepared by its secretary or some person named or appointed for the purpose of keeping a record of the proceedings, are generally accepted, once approved by the board, as prima facie evidence of what actually took place during that meeting.
Right to Inspect Books
If the right of the shareholder to inspect the books and records is to be denied, the burden of proof is upon the corporation to show that the purpose of the shareholder is improper, by way of defense.
Inter-corporate Dispute
A conflict between two (2) stockholders of a corporation does not automatically render their dispute as intra-corporate. The nature of the controversy must also be examined.
The existence or inexistence of appraisal rights, pre-emptive rights, the right to inspect books and corporate records, and the issue of refund are intra-corporate disputes.
Intra-corporate controversies are now under the jurisdiction of Regional Trial Courts designated as commercial courts.
The Securities and Exchange Commission retains its jurisdiction to determine if administrative rules and regulations were violated. The Securities and Exchange Commission's regulatory power does not include the authority to order the refund of the purchase price of shares.
In intra-corporate controversies, all orders of the trial court are immediately executory.
Patent
An abandoned patent application may only be revived within four (4) months from the date of abandonment. No extension of this period is provided by the 1962 Revised Rules of Practice.
Possession of a right of priority does not confer any property rights on the applicant in the absence of an actual patent.
A right of priority has no bearing in a case for revival of an abandoned patent application.
Dominancy Test
The dominancy test focuses on the similarity of the prevalent features of the competing trademarks that might cause confusion and deception, thus constituting infringement.
If the competing trademark contains the main, essential, and dominant features of another, and confusion or deception is likely to result, infringement occurs.
Exact duplication or imitation is not required. The question is whether the use of the marks involved is likely to cause confusion or mistake in the mind of the public or to deceive consumers.
"CITY" vs "CITI" Trademark
Applying the dominancy test, this Court sees that the prevalent feature of respondent's mark, the golden lion's head device, is not present at all in any of petitioner's marks.
The only similar feature between respondent's mark and petitioner's collection of marks is the word "CITY" in the former, and the "CITI" prefix found in the latter. This similarity alone is not enough to create a likelihood of confusion.
Copyright
News or the event itself is not copyrightable.
News, as expressed in video footage, is entitled to copyright protection.
The mere act of rebroadcasting without authority from the owner of the broadcast gives rise to the probability that a crime was committed under the Intellectual Property Code.
Infringement under the Intellectual Property Code is malum prohibitum. Good faith, lack of knowledge of the copyright, or lack of intent to infringe is not a defense against copyright infringement.
Pactum Commissorium
The transfer of the Asset Pool to Home Guaranty Corporation, without going through foreclosure proceedings, constitutes violation of the rule against pactum commissorium. It is ineffectual and does not divest La Savoie of ownership.
Even if valid payment was made by Home Guaranty Corporation on its guaranty, ownership of the properties comprising the Asset Pool was not vested in it.
As a paying guarantor, Home Guaranty Corporation was subrogated into the rights of La Savoie's creditors and now stands as the latter's own creditor.
It remains so pending the satisfaction of La Savoie's obligation and as the void conveyance made to it by Planters Development Bank failed to terminate the creditor-debtor relationship with La Savoie.
Claims
"Claim" shall include "all claims or demands of whatever nature or character against a debtor or its property, whether for money or otherwise."
"Creditor" shall mean "any holder of a claim."
The claim of petitioners for payment of tuition fees from CAP is included in the definition of "claims" under the Interim Rules.
A pre-need corporation already in default of its obligations to the planholders, could file for rehabilitation.
Venue for a Petition for Voluntary Insolvency Proceeding
The venue for a petition for voluntary insolvency proceeding under the Insolvency Law is the Court of First Instance of the province or city where the insolvent debtor resides.
A corporation is considered a resident of the place where its principal office is located as stated in its Articles of Incorporation.
If there is a conflict between the place stated in the articles of incorporation and the physical location of the corporation's main office, the actual place of business should control.
When it is uncontroverted that the insolvent corporation abandoned the old principal office, the corporation is considered a resident of the city where its actual principal office is currently found.
To determine the venue of an insolvency proceeding, the residence of a corporation should be the actual place where its principal office has been located for six (6) months before the filing of the petition.
Test in Evaluating the Economic Feasibility of the Plan
If there is a real opportunity to rehabilitate the corporation in view of the assumptions made and financial goals stated in the proposed rehabilitation plan, then it may be said that a rehabilitation is feasible.
If there lies no reasonable probability that the distressed corporation could be revived and that liquidation would, in fact, better subserve the interests of its stakeholders, then it may be said that a rehabilitation would not be feasible.
Conversion into Liquidation
The rehabilitation court may convert the proceedings into one for liquidation if the rehabilitation would not be feasible.
Effect of Stay Order
For as long as the Stay Order was in effect, certificate holders were barred from insisting on and receiving payment, whether from the principal debtor, La Savoie, or from the guarantor, Home Guaranty Corporation.
From the point of view of La Savoie and its guarantors and sureties not solidarity liable with it, no payment could have been made by them.
While the corporation is undergoing rehabilitation, all claims, regardless of nature, are suspended from enforcement. However, once the corporation has successfully rehabilitated or finally liquidated, the enforcement of these secured claims takes precedence.
Appeal in Corporate Rehabilitation
In cases involving corporate rehabilitation, all decisions and final orders rendered by the trial court shall be appealed to the Court of Appeals through a petition for review under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court to be filed within fifteen (15) days from notice of the decision or final order of the RTC.
Fiduciary Nature of Banking
The fiduciary nature of banking requires banks to assume a degree of diligence higher than that of a good father of a family.
The standard of diligence required of banks is higher than the degree of diligence of a good father of a family.
Banks must show that they exercised the required due diligence before claiming to be mortgagees in good faith or innocent purchasers for value.
Anyone who deliberately ignores a significant fact that would create suspicion in an otherwise reasonable person cannot be considered as a mortgagee in good faith.
Foreign Investments
The phrase "doing business" shall include . . . opening offices, whether called "liaison" offices or branches.
Arbitration Law and the ADR Law
Arbitral awards will not be vacated "merely on the ground that the arbitral tribunal committed errors of fact, or of law, or of fact and law, as the court cannot substitute its judgment for that of the arbitral tribunal.
Parties are even "precluded from filing an appeal or a petition for certiorari questioning the merits of an arbitral award.
Construction Industry Arbitration Commission
Arbitral awards by the Construction Industry Arbitration Commission may only be appealed via Rule 43 on pure questions of law.
Factual findings of construction arbitrators are final and conclusive and not reviewable by this Court on appeal, except when the petitioner proves affirmatively that:
- the award was procured by corruption, fraud, or other undue means;
- there was evident partiality or corruption of the arbitrators or of any of them;
- the arbitrators were guilty of misconduct in refusing to postpone the hearing upon sufficient cause shown, or in refusing to hear evidence pertinent and material to the controversy;
- one or more of the arbitrators were disqualified to act as such under section nine of Republic Act No. 876 and willfully refrained from disclosing such disqualifications or of any other misbehavior by which the rights of any party have been materially prejudiced; or
- the arbitrators exceeded their powers, or so imperfectly executed them, that a mutual, final, and definite award upon the subject matter submitted to them was not made.
Notably, these exceptions refer to the conduct of the arbitral tribunal and the qualifications of the arbitrator.
Absent any allegation and proof of these exceptions, the factual findings of the Construction Industry Arbitration Commission will be treated by the courts with great respect and even finality.
Commercial Arbitration Tribunals
Commercial arbitration tribunals are not quasi-judicial agencies, but "purely ad hoc bodies operating through contractual consent and as they intend to serve private, proprietary interests." A commercial arbitration tribunal is a "creature of contract" that becomes functus officio once the arbitral award attains finality.
The subject-matter jurisdiction of commercial arbitrators is stipulated by the parties.
CRIMINAL LAW
Conspiracy
For conspiracy to exist, it is essential that there must be a conscious design to commit an offense.
It is necessary that a conspirator should have performed some overt act as a direct or indirect contribution to the execution of the crime committed.
Mere membership in the Board or being President per se does not mean knowledge, approval, and participation in the act alleged as criminal. There must be a showing of active participation, not simply a constructive one.
Facts Showing Implied Conspiracy
The finding of conspiracy was based on the fact that Orozco delivered the initial stabs to Mata's back and that the others chased, held down, and continued attacking him when he attempted to escape.
The trial court correctly observed that conspiracy consisted the following acts of accused appellants: (1) while Magallano was hitting the victim with a dos por dos, Tapar was watching them; (2) they both chased Cristina Varilla; (3) they both returned and continued mauling the victim; (4) Magallano threw stones at the victim while Tapar cornered the victim to prevent him from crawling; (5) they helped each other in loading the victim into the tricycle; and (6) Magallano drove the tricycle while Tapar stayed with the victim inside the tricycle as they fled from the crime scene."
Variance Doctrine
When there is variance between the offense charged in the complaint or information, and that proved or established by the evidence, and the offense as charged is included in or necessarily includes the offense proved, the defendant shall be convicted of the offense proved included in that which is charged, or of the offense charged included in that which is proved."
Effects of Pleading Self-Defense
An accused who pleads a justifying circumstance under Article 11 of the Revised Penal Code admits to the commission of acts, which would otherwise engender criminal liability.
However, he asserts that he is justified in committing the acts.
Conviction follows if the evidence for the accused fails to prove the existence of justifying circumstances.
Elements of Self-Defense
To successfully invoke self-defense, an accused must establish:
- unlawful aggression on the part of the victim;
- reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel such aggression; and
- lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person resorting to self-defense."
Unlawful aggression refers to an attack amounting to actual or imminent threat to the life and limb of the person claiming self-defense.
Without unlawful aggression, self-defense will not have a leg to stand on and this justifying circumstance cannot and will not be appreciated, even if the other elements are present.
Reasonable necessity requires rational equivalence, not material commensurability between the means of attack and defense.
Provocation is sufficient when it is proportionate to the aggression, that is, adequate enough to impel one to attack the person claiming self-defense.
Defense of a Relative
Defense of a relative under Article 11 (2) of the Revised Penal Code requires the same first two (2) requisites as self-defense and, in lieu of the third "in case the provocation was given by the person attacked, that the one making the defense had no part therein."
Defense of Stranger
To properly invoke the justifying circumstance of defense of a stranger, it must be shown
- that there was unlawful aggression on the part of the victim,
- that the means employed to repel the victim were reasonably necessary, and
- that the accused was not induced by revenge, resentment, or other evil motive.
An attack showing the aggressor's intention is enough to consider that unlawful aggression was committed.
State of Mind / Reasonable Means
The state of mind of the accused during the alleged act of self-defense or defense of a stranger must be considered in determining whether a person's means of repelling an aggressor were reasonable.
While it may be true that Pamela, Pia, and Yuki had already gone inside the house at the time of the stabbing, it then appeared to the petitioner that there was no other reasonable means to protect his family except to commit the acts alleged. It is unreasonable for courts to demand conduct that could only have been discovered with hindsight and absent the stress caused by the threats that the petitioner actually faced.
Voluntary Surrender
Voluntary surrender, as a mitigating circumstance, requires an element of spontaneity.
The accused's act of surrendering to the authorities must have been impelled by the acknowledgment of guilt or a desire to "save the authorities the trouble and expense that may be incurred for his or her search and capture."
Treachery
For treachery to be considered, two elements must concur: (1) the employment of means of execution that gives the persons attacked no opportunity to defend themselves or retaliate; and (2) the means of execution were deliberately or consciously adopted.
Treachery is shown by the suddenness of the attack against the unarmed victim, without the slightest provocation on the latter's part and opportunity to defend himself.
The essence of treachery is the swift and unexpected attack on the unarmed victim without the slightest provocation on his part.
A frontal attack, when made suddenly, leaving the victim without any means of defense, is treacherous.
Stabbing the victim while the victim's hands were held by two other persons constitutes treachery.
For treachery to be appreciated, it must exist at the inception of the attack, and if absent and the attack continues, even if present at the subsequent stage, treachery is not a qualifying or generic aggravating circumstance.
Evident Premeditation
For evident premeditation to qualify the killing of a person to the crime of murder, the following must be established by the prosecution "with equal certainty as the criminal act itself":
- the time when the offender determined to commit the crime;
- an act manifestly indicating that the offender clung to his determination; and
- a sufficient interval of time between the determination and the execution of the crime to allow him to reflect upon the. consequences of his act.
It is indispensable for the prosecution to establish "how and when the plan to kill was hatched or how much time had elapsed before it was carried out."
Intoxication
For intoxication to be appreciated as a mitigating circumstance, the intoxication of the accused must neither be habitual nor subsequent to the plan to commit a felony.
Moreover, it must be shown that the mental faculties and willpower of the accused were impaired in such a way that would diminish the accused's capacity to understand the wrongful nature of his or her acts.
Denials and Alibi
It is settled jurisprudence that an alibi "becomes less plausible when it is corroborated by relatives and friends who may not be impartial witnesses".
It is well settled that positive identification by the prosecution witnesses of the accused as perpetrators of the crime is entitled to greater weight than their denials and alibis.
Denial, however, becomes a weak defense against the positive identification by the poseur-buyer and the minor victims.
Kidnapping
In order to prove kidnapping, the prosecution must establish that the victim was "forcefully transported, locked up or restrained."
The act of handcuffing Rizaldo and physically harming him to prevent escape falls under definition of kidnapping.
Apprehension for violation of Republic Act No. 9165 does not automatically negate kidnapping.
Kidnapping by Public officials
Public officials may be prosecuted under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code if they act in their private capacity.
A public officer who detains a person for the purpose of extorting ransom cannot be said to be acting in an official capacity.
Membership in the Philippine National Police does not automatically preclude the filing of an information for kidnapping or serious illegal detention against him.
Slight Illegal Detention
The felony of slight illegal detention has four (4) elements:
- That the offender is a private individual.
- That he kidnaps or detains another, or in any other manner deprives him of his liberty.
- That the act of kidnapping or detention is illegal.
- That the crime is committed without the attendance of any of the circumstances that would render it serious illegal detention.
Prosecution of Rape
The absence of external signs or physical injuries on the complainant's body does not necessarily negate the commission of rape, hymenal laceration not being, to repeat, an element of the crime of rape.
The failure to immediately report the dastardly acts to her family or to the authorities at the soonest possible time or her failure to immediately change her clothes is not enough reason to cast reasonable doubt on the guilt of [accused].
A medical examination is not indispensable to the prosecution of rape as long as the evidence on hand convinces the court that conviction for rape is proper.
Her failures to resist the sexual aggression and to immediately report the incident to the authorities or to her mother do not undermine her credibility.
The silence of the rape victim does not negate her sexual molestation or make her charge baseless, untrue, or fabricated.
Force and intimidation must be appreciated in light of the victim's perception and judgment when the assailant committed the crime.
Qualified Rape
The crime of qualified rape under Article 266-B(1) of the Revised Penal Code consists of the twin circumstances of the victim's minority and her relationship to the perpetrator, both of which must concur and must be alleged in the information.
It is immaterial whether the relationship was proven during trial if that was not specifically pleaded for in the information.
In rape committed by a close kin, such as the victim's father, stepfather, uncle, or the common-law spouse of her mother, it is not necessary that actual force or intimidation be employed; moral influence or ascendancy takes the place of violence or intimidation.
Theft
The uncontested declaration of the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board that Monico Ligtas was a tenant negates a finding of theft beyond reasonable doubt.
Tenants having rights to the harvest cannot be deemed to have taken their own produce.
To sustain a conviction for cattle-rustling, the identity of the stolen cattle must be proven with certainty. Otherwise, the accused must be acquitted on the ground of reasonable doubt.
Estafa
Persons who receive money for investment in a particular company but divert the same to another without the investor's consent may be held criminally liable for other deceits under Article 318 of the Revised Penal Code.
The elements of the crime of other deceits under Article 318 of the Revised Penal Code also constitute one (1) of the elements of estafa by means of deceit under Article 315(2)(d) of the Revised Penal Code.
The crime of other deceits under Article 318 of the Revised Penal Code is necessarily included in the crime of estafa by means of deceit under Article 315(2)(a) of the Revised Penal Code.
Forcible Abduction
Forcible abduction was absorbed in the crime of rape when it was established that the forcible abduction of AAA was for the purpose of raping her.
When the detention continued after the rape had been completed, it cannot be deemed a necessary means for the crime of rape. Note: In People v. Concepcion, the accused was convicted of slight detention
Bigamy
Persons intending to contract a second marriage must first secure a judicial declaration of nullity of their first marriage.
If they proceed with the second marriage without the judicial declaration, they are guilty of bigamy regardless of evidence of the nullity of the first marriage.
Indeterminate Sentence Law
Under the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the maximum term of the penalty that may be imposed on petitioner is that which, in view of the attending circumstances, could be properly imposed under the Revised Penal Code. On the other hand, the minimum term of the penalty shall be within the range of the penalty next lower to that prescribed by the Revised Penal Code for the offense.
The penalty for parricide imposed by Article 246 of the Revised Penal Code is reclusion perpetua to death. Since two mitigating circumstances and no aggravating circumstance have been found to have attended the commission of the offense, the penalty shall be lowered by one (1) degree, pursuant to Article 64 of paragraph 5 of the same Code. The penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium period is imposable, considering that two mitigating circumstances are to be taken into account in reducing the penalty by one degree, and no other modifying circumstances were shown to have attended the commission of the offense. Under the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the minimum of the penalty shall be within the range of that which is next lower in degree — prision mayor — and the maximum shall be within the range of the medium period of reclusion temporal.
Section 3(c) of Republic Act No. 3019
Section 3(c) of Republic Act No. 3019 penalizes both the requesting and receiving of pecuniary or material benefits.
Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019
A conviction under Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019 requires the concurrence of the following elements:
- The accused must be a public officer discharging administrative, judicial or official functions;
- He or she must have acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence;
- That his or her 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.
Causing Undue Injury
An accused is said to have caused undue injury to the government or any party when the latter sustains actual loss or damage, which must exist as a fact and cannot be based on speculations or conjectures.
In a situation where the government could have been defrauded, the law would be inapplicable, there being no actual loss or damage sustained.
Proof of actual injury or damage is required under Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019.
Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019 only covers consummated acts.
This Court finds that petitioners Baraguir and Guiani gave unwarranted benefits and advantage to several contractors by allowing them to deploy their equipment ahead of the scheduled public bidding.
Giving of Unwarranted Benefits
The second punishable act under Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019 is the giving of unwarranted benefits, advantage, or preference to a private party.
This does not require actual damage as it is sufficient that the accused has given "unjustified favor or benefit to another.
Arias Doctrine
Arias v. Sandiganbayan laid down the doctrine that heads of offices may, in good faith, rely to a certain extent on the acts of their subordinates "who prepare bids, purchase supplies, or enter into negotiations."
The application of the doctrine is subject to the qualification that the public official has no foreknowledge of any facts or circumstances that would prompt him or her to investigate or exercise a greater degree of care.
The respondent's failure to submit the computerization project to competitive bidding resulted in injury to the government.
Section 3(g) of Republic Act No. 3019
Elements of this Section 3(g) of Republic Act No. 3019: (1) that the accused is a public officer; (2) that he entered into a contract or transaction on behalf of the government; and (3) that such contract or transaction is grossly and manifestly disadvantageous to the government.
Absence of public bidding does not automatically mean that the purchases are considered grossly or manifestly disadvantageous to the government.
Private persons acting in conspiracy with public officers may be indicted and if found guilty, be held liable for the pertinent offenses under Section 3 of Republic Act No. 3019.
Trafficking in Person
Under Republic Act No. 10364, the elements of trafficking in persons have been expanded to include the following acts:
- The act of "recruitment, obtaining, hiring, providing, offering, transportation, transfer, maintaining, harboring, or receipt of persons with or without the victim's consent or knowledge, within or across national borders[";]
- The means used include "by means of threat, or use of force, or other forms of coercion, abduction, fraud, deception, abuse of power or of position, taking advantage of the vulnerability of the person, or, the giving or receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a person having control over another person"[;]
- The purpose of trafficking includes "the exploitation or the prostitution of others or other forms of sexual exploitation, forced labor or services, slavery, servitude or the removal or sale of organs[.]"
Exploitation of minors, through either prostitution or pornography, is explicitly prohibited under the law.
Knowledge or consent of the minor is not a defense under Republic Act No. 9208.
The crime is considered consummated even if no sexual intercourse had taken place since the mere transaction consummates the crime.
Illegal Sale of Prohibited Drugs
For a plausible conviction under Article II, Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165 or illegal sale of prohibited drugs, the prosecution must ascertain the following: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object of the sale and its consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor.
In illegal sale of dangerous drugs, it is necessary that the sale transaction actually happened and that "the procured object is properly presented as evidence in court and is shown to be the same drugs seized from the accused."
Illegal Possession of Prohibited Drugs
The following elements must be proven in illegal possession of prohibited drugs:
[1] the accused was in possession of dangerous drugs; [2] such possession was not authorized by law; and [3] the accused was freely and consciously aware of being in possession of dangerous drugs.
In both cases involving illegal sale and illegal possession, the illicit drugs confiscated from the accused comprise the corpus delicti of the charges.
Illegal Transportation of Dangerous Drugs
The essential element for the crime of illegal transportation of dangerous drugs is the movement of the dangerous drug from one (1) place to another. To establish the accused's guilt, it must be proven that: (1) the transportation of illegal drugs was committed; and (2) the prohibited drug exists.
Chain of Custody
People v. Nandi expounded on the four (4) links that should be established by the prosecution to constitute an unbroken chain of custody:
- the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer;
- the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer;
- the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and
- the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized from the forensic chemist to the court.
The illegal drug itself constitutes the corpus delicti of the offense. Its existence must be proved beyond reasonable doubt.
In all prosecutions for violations of Republic Act No. 9165, the corpus delicti is the dangerous drug itself. Its existence is essential to a judgment of conviction. Hence, the identity of the dangerous drug must be clearly established.
The marking and identification of the seized dangerous drug is an essential part of the chain of custody.
Non-Compliance with the Chain Custody Rule
Non-compliance with the chain custody rule is tantamount to failure in establishing identity of corpus delicti.
Failure to prove the preservation of the integrity of the corpus delicti in dangerous drugs cases will lead to the acquittal of the accused on the ground of reasonable doubt.
Although it may be true that the place of marking is not an essential element, the failure to establish with certainty where the seized sachets were marked affects the integrity of the chain of custody of the corpus delicti.
The unjustified lapses or noncompliance with Section 21 is tantamount to a substantial gap in the chain of custody.
Failure to comply with the chain of custody requirements in drugs cases will result in an accused's acquittal.
The unjustified absence of an elected public official and DOJ representative during the inventory of the seized item constitutes a substantial gap in the chain of custody. There being a substantial gap or break in the chain, it casts serious doubts on the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti. As such, the petitioner must be acquitted.
In , the accussed was acquited because although the buy-bust team marked and conducted a physical inventory of the seized sachet of shabu, the records do not show that the seized sachet had been photographed. Furthermore, there is absolutely no evidence to show that the physical inventory was done in the presence of accused-appellant or his representative, representatives from the media and the Department of Justice, and an elected public official.
In People v Jaafar, the accused was acquitted of the charge for the illegal sale of 0.0604 grams of shabu, which was seized from him through a buy-bust operation. While the police officers marked the confiscated items, the physical inventory was not done in the presence of the accused or any of the mandated third-party witnesses. Also, no photograph was taken.
In People v. Sagana, photos of the seized items were taken only when the accused was already in the police station. The belated photograph taking was not simultaneously done with the marking and inventory, which was conducted immediately after the items were seized. Also, there was no third-party witness present when the items were seized and inventoried. Accused Sagana was acquitted.
Discrepancy in the markings of the illegal drugs seized from accused-appellant raises doubts if the items presented in court were the exact ones taken from accused-appellant.
As regards the items seized and subjected to marking, Section 21(1) of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act, as amended, requires the performance of two (2) actions: physical inventory and photographing. Section 21(1) is specific as to when and where these actions must be done. As to when, it must be "immediately after seizure and confiscation." As to where, it depends on whether the seizure was supported by a search warrant. If a search warrant was served, the physical inventory and photographing must be done at the exact same place that the search warrant is served. In case of warrantless seizures, these actions must be done "at the nearest police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable."
Moreover, Section 21(1) requires at least three (3) persons to be present during the physical inventory and photographing. These persons are: first, the accused or the person/s from whom the items were seized; second, an elected public official; and third, a representative of the National Prosecution Service. There are, however, alternatives to the first and the third. As to the first (i.e., the accused or the person/s from whom items were seized), there are two (2) alternatives: first, his or her representative; and second, his or her counsel. As to the representative of the National Prosecution Service, a representative of the media may be present in his or her place.
Failure of the authorities to immediately mark the seized drugs would cast reasonable doubt on the authenticity of the corpus delicti.
Mere marking of seized items, instead of a proper physical inventory and photographing done in the presence of the persons specified under Section 21, will not justify a conviction.
The failure of the prosecution to offer the testimonies of the persons who had direct contact with the confiscated items without ample explanation casts doubt on whether the allegedly seized shabu were the very same ones presented in court.
The failure to present the poseur-buyer casts doubt on the charge that an illegal sale of drugs took place. SPO1 Paller and SPO3 Magdadaro's location, the nightfall, and the miniseule amount of the alleged illegal drug further call into question prosecution's claim that SPO1 Paller and SPO3 Magdadaro witnessed the scene.
Justifiable Deviation
Minor deviations from the mandated procedure in handling the corpus delicti must not absolve a guilty defendant.
The alleged non-coordination of the police officers with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency did not render the buy-bust operation invalid.
The arresting officers' non-compliance with Section 21 is not fatal, provided that there is a justifiable reason for their deviation and that the evidentiary worth of the seized drugs or articles was preserved.
Mandatory Policy in Drug-Related Cases
Thus, in order to weed out early on from the courts' already congested docket any orchestrated or poorly built up drug-related cases, the following should henceforth be enforced as a mandatory policy:
- In the sworn statements/affidavits, the apprehending/seizing officers must state their compliance with the requirements of Section 21 (1) of R.A. No. 9165, as amended, and its IRR.
- In case of non-observance of the provision, the apprehending/seizing officers must state the justification or explanation therefor as well as the steps they have taken in order to preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized/confiscated items.
- If there is no justification or explanation expressly declared in the sworn statements or affidavits, the investigating fiscal must not immediately file the case before the court. Instead, he or she must refer the case for further preliminary investigation in order to determine the (non) existence of probable cause.
- If the investigating fiscal filed the case despite such absence, the court may exercise its discretion to either refuse to issue a commitment order (or warrant of arrest) or dismiss the case outright for lack of probable cause in accordance with Section 5, Rule 112, Rules of Court.
Republic Act No. 8484
Under Section 9(a) and (e) of Republic Act No. 8484, the possession and use of an access device is not illegal. Rather, what is prohibited is the possession and use of a counterfeit access device.
The corpus delicti of the crime is not merely the access device, but also any evidence that proves that it is counterfeit.
Republic Act No. 9262
Republic Act No. 9262 specifies three (3) distinct remedies available to victims of acts of "violence against women and their children": first, a criminal complaint; second, a civil action for damages; and finally, a civil action for the issuance of a protection order.
The mere filing of such a criminal complaint, without the subsequent filing of an information in court, does not occasion litis pendentia or res judicata that precludes the filing of a petition for the issuance of a protection order.
The mother of a victim of acts of violence against women and their children is expressly given personality to file a petition for the issuance of a protection order by Section 9(b) of the Anti-VAWC Law.
Section 10(a) of Republic Act No. 7610
Section 10(a) of Republic Act No. 7610 punishes four (4) distinct offenses:
- child abuse,
- child cruelty,
- child exploitation, and
- being responsible for conditions prejudicial to the child's development.
Strangulating, severely pinching, and beating an eight (8)-year-old child to cause her to limp are intrinsically cruel and excessive. These acts of abuse impair the child's dignity and worth as a human being and infringe upon her right to grow up in a safe, wholesome, and harmonious place.
Petitioner's act of whipping AAA on the neck with a wet t-shirt is an act that debases, degrades, and demeans the intrinsic worth and dignity of a child. It is a form of cruelty. Being smacked several times in a public place is a humiliating and traumatizing experience for all persons regardless of age.
It must be stressed that the crime under Republic Act No. 7610 is malum prohibitum. Hence, the intent to debase, degrade, or demean the minor is not the defining mark. Any act of punishment that debases, degrades, and demeans the intrinsic worth and dignity of a child constitutes the offense.
Section 5(a) of Republic Act No. 7610
Correlatively, Sec. 5(a) of RA 7610 punishes acts pertaining to or connected with child prostitution wherein the child is abused primarily for profit.
On the other hand, paragraph (b) punishes sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct committed on a child subjected to other sexual abuse.
Section 5(b) of Republic Act No. 7610
Under Section 5(b), the elements of sexual abuse are:
- The accused commits the act of sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct;
- The said act is performed with a child exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse; and
- The child, whether male or female, is below 18 years of age.
The fact that a child is under the coercion and influence of an adult is sufficient to satisfy this second element and will classify the child victim as one subjected to other sexual abuse.
Inserting a finger in a 12-year-old girl's vagina and mashing her breasts are not only acts of lasciviousness but also amount to child abuse punished under Republic Act No. 7610.
Victim is Below 12 years Old
When the victim is under twelve (12) years of age, the perpetrators shall be prosecuted under Article 335, paragraph 3, for rape and Article 336 of Act No. 3815, as amended, the Revised Penal Code, for rape or lascivious conduct, as the case may be.
The penalty for lascivious conduct when the victim is under twelve (12) years of age shall be reclusion temporal in its medium period.
Section 5(b) of Republic Act No. 7610 provides for the penalty of reclusion perpetua if the rape victim is below 12 years old while the penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium period is imposed if the victim of lascivious conduct is also below 12 years old.
REMEDIAL LAW
Jurisdiction
Jurisdiction is the power and authority of a court to hear, try and decide a case brought before it for resolution.
Courts exercise the powers conferred on them with binding effect if they acquire jurisdiction over: "(a) the cause of action or the subject matter of the case; (b) the thing or the res; (c) the parties; and (d) the remedy."
Jurisdiction over the Res
Jurisdiction over the thing or the res is a court's authority over the object or subject of litigation.
The court obtains jurisdiction or actual custody over the object through the seizure of the object under legal process or the institution of legal proceedings which recognize the power and authority of the court.
Jurisdiction over the Parties
Jurisdiction over the parties is the court's power to render judgment that are binding on the parties.
The courts acquire jurisdiction over the plaintiffs when they file their initiatory pleading, while the defendants come under the court's jurisdiction upon the valid service of summons or their voluntary appearance in court.
Jurisdiction over the Subject Matter
Jurisdiction over the cause of action or subject matter of the case is the court's authority to hear and determine cases within a general class where the proceedings in question belong.
This power is conferred by law and cannot be acquired through stipulation, agreement between the parties, or implied waiver due to the silence of a party.
It is settled that the authority to issue writs of certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus involves the exercise of original jurisdiction which must be expressly conferred by the Constitution or by law. It is never derived by implication.
Jurisdiction over the subject matter of a complaint is conferred by law. It cannot be lost through waiver or estoppel.
Jurisdiction by Estoppel
It is only when the circumstances in Tijam are present that a waiver or an estoppel in questioning jurisdiction is appreciated. Tijam applies to a party claiming lack of subject matter jurisdiction when:
- there was a statutory right in favor of the claimant.
- the statutory right was not invoked.
- an unreasonable length of time had lapsed before the claimant raised the issue of jurisdiction.
- the claimant actively participated in the case and sought affirmative relief from the court without jurisdiction.
- the claimant knew or had constructive knowledge of which forum possesses subject matter jurisdiction;
- irreparable damage will be caused to the other party who relied on the forum and the claimant's implicit waiver.
Estoppel by laches bars a party from invoking lack of jurisdiction in an unjustly belated manner especially when it actively participated during trial.
After voluntarily submitting a cause and encountering an adverse decision on the merits, it is too late for the loser to question the jurisdiction or power of the court.
How Jurisdiction is Determined
What determines the nature of an action as well as which court has jurisdiction over it, are the allegations in the complaint and the character of the relief sought.
The pleas or theories set up by a defendant in its answer or motion to dismiss do not affect the court's jurisdiction.
Docket Fees
The Court acquires jurisdiction over any case only upon the payment of the prescribed docket fee.
Rules concerning the payment of filing fees (G.R. No. 205068):
1. It is not simply the filing of the complaint or appropriate initiatory pleading, but the payment of the prescribed docket fee, that vests a trial court with jurisdiction over the subject matter or nature of the action. Where the filing of the initiatory pleading is not accompanied by payment of the docket fee, the court may allow payment of the fee within a reasonable time but in no case beyond the applicable prescriptive or reglementary period.
2. The same rule applies to permissive counterclaims, third-party claims and similar pleadings, which shall not be considered filed until and unless the filing fee prescribed therefor is paid. The court may also allow payment of said fee within a reasonable time but also in no case beyond its applicable prescriptive or reglementary period.
3. Where the trial court acquires jurisdiction over a claim by the filing of the appropriate pleading and payment of the prescribed filing fee but, subsequently, the judgment awards a claim not specified in the pleading, or if specified the same has been left for determination by the court, the additional filing fee therefor shall constitute a lien on the judgment. It shall be the responsibility of the Clerk of Court or his duly authorized deputy to enforce said lien and assess and collect the additional fee.
Moreover, the filing party must show that there was no intention to defraud the government of the appropriate filing fees due it.
Payment of the correct amount of filing fees should not be made contingent on the result of a case.
An amendment of the complaint or similar pleading will not thereby vest jurisdiction in the Court, much less the payment of the docket fee based on the amounts sought in the amended pleading.
For actions involving recovery of money or damages, the aggregate amount claimed should be the basis for assessment of docket fees.
Where the action is purely for the recovery of money or damages, the docket fees are assessed on the basis of the aggregate amount claimed, exclusive only of interests and costs. In this case, the complaint or similar pleading should, according to Circular No. 7 of this Court, "specify the amount of damages being prayed for not only in the body of the pleading but also in the prayer, and said damages shall be considered in the assessment of the filing fees in any case."
Two situations may arise.
One is where the complaint or similar pleading sets out a claim purely for money or damages and there is no precise statement of the amounts being claimed. In this event the rule is that the pleading will "not be accepted nor admitted, or shall otherwise be expunged from the record."
The other is where the pleading does specify the amount of every claim, but the fees paid are insufficient; and here again, the rule now is that the court may allow a reasonable time for the payment of the prescribed fees, or the balance thereof, and upon such payment, the defect is cured and the court may properly take cognizance of the action, unless in the meantime prescription has set in and consequently barred the right of action.
Venue
The venue of an action depends on whether the action is a real or personal action.
Real Action
Should the action affect title to or possession of real property, or interest therein, it is a real action.
The action should be filed in the proper court which has jurisdiction over the area wherein the real property involved, or a portion thereof, is situated.
If the primary cause of action is based on a claim of ownership or a claim of legal right to control, possess, dispose, or enjoy such property, the action is a real action involving title to real property.
Personal Action
If the action is a personal action, the action shall be filed with the proper court at the election of the plaintiff:
- where the plaintiff or any of the principal plaintiffs resides, or
- where the defendant or any of the principal defendants resides, or
- in the case of a non-resident defendant where he may be found.
Parties are allowed to constitute any stipulation on the venue or mode of dispute resolution as part of their freedom to contract under Article 1306 of the Civil Code of the Philippines.
It has been consistently held that an action for collection of sum of money is a personal action.
For a corporation, its residence is considered the place where its principal office is located as stated in its Articles of Incorporation.
Note: To determine the venue of an insolvency proceeding, the residence of a corporation should be the actual place where its principal office has been located for six (6) months before the filing of the petition.
Effect of Improper Venue
Wrong venue is merely a procedural infirmity, not a jurisdictional impediment.
When the venue of a civil action is improperly laid, the court cannot motu proprio dismiss the case.
Incapable of Pecuniary Estimation
Section 19(1) of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as amended, provides Regional Trial Courts with exclusive, original jurisdiction over "all civil actions in which the subject of the litigation is incapable of pecuniary estimation."
The nature of an action is determined by the principal relief sought in the complaint.
If the principal relief is for the recovery of a sum of money or real property, then the action is capable of pecuniary estimation.
However, if the principal relief sought is not for the recovery of sum of money or real property, even if a claim over a sum of money or real property results as a consequence of the principal relief, the action is incapable of pecuniary estimation.
Where the money claim is only a consequence of the remedy sought, the action is said to be one incapable of pecuniary estimation.
An action for cancellation of mortgage has a subject that is incapable of pecuniary estimation.
An action questioning the validity of a mortgage is one incapable of pecuniary estimation.
Hierarchy of Courts
Concurrence of jurisdiction does not allow unrestricted freedom of choice of the court forum. A direct invocation of the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction to issue this writ should be allowed only when there are special and important reasons, clearly and specifically set out in the petition.
Immediate resort to this Court may be allowed when any of the following grounds are present:
- when genuine issues of constitutionality are raised that must be addressed immediately;
- when the case involves transcendental importance;
- when the case is novel;
- when the constitutional issues raised are better decided by this Court;
- when time is of the essence;
- when the subject of review involves acts of a constitutional organ;
- when there is no other plain, speedy, adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law;
- when the petition includes questions that may affect public welfare, public policy, or demanded by the broader interest of justice;
- when the order complained of was a patent nullity; and
- when the appeal was considered as an inappropriate remedy.
Doctrine of Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies
Under this doctrine, courts will hold off from determining a controversy involving a question within the jurisdiction of an administrative agency, particularly when its resolution demands the "special knowledge, experience, and services of the administrative tribunal to determine technical and intricate matters of fact."
Under the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies, the concerned administrative agency must be given the opportunity to decide a matter within its jurisdiction before an action is brought before the courts, otherwise, the action will be declared premature.
Parties are generally precluded from immediately seeking the intervention of courts when the law provides for remedies against the action of an administrative board, body, or officer.
Principle of exhaustion of administrative remedies may be dispensed in the following instances:
- when there is a violation of due process;
- when the issue involved is purely a legal question;
- when the administrative action is patently illegal and amounts to lack or excess of jurisdiction;
- when there is estoppel on the part of the administrative agency concerned;
- when there is irreparable injury;
- when the respondent is a department secretary whose acts, as an alter ego of the President, bears the implied and assumed approval of the latter;
- when to require exhaustion of administrative remedies would be unreasonable;
- when it would amount to a nullification of a claim;
- when the subject matter is a private land in land case proceedings;
- when the rule does not provide a plain, speedy and adequate remedy;
- when there are circumstances indicating the urgency of judicial intervention; and unreasonable delay would greatly prejudice the complainant;
- when no administrative review is provided by law;
- where the rule of qualified political agency applies; and
- when the issue of non-exhaustion of administrative remedies has been rendered moot.
Cause of Action
A complaint states a cause of action if it sufficiently avers the existence of the three (3) essential elements of a cause of action, namely:
- a right in favor of the plaintiff by whatever means and under whatever law it arises or is created;
- an obligation on the part of the named defendant to respect or not to violate such right; and
- an act or omission on the part of the named defendant violative of the right of the plaintiff or constituting a breach of the obligation of defendant to the plaintiff for which the latter may maintain an action for recovery of damages.
To sufficiently state a cause of action, the Complaint should have alleged facts showing that the trial court could grant its prayer based on the strength of its factual allegations.
Splitting of Cause of Action
Only one suit may be instituted for a single cause of action.
There is nothing in Republic Act No. 8975 or in Presidential Decree No. 1818 that allows the simultaneous availment of legal remedies before the Regional Trial Court and the Supreme Court.
Republic Act No. 8975, even when read with Presidential Decree No. 1818, does not sanction the splitting of a cause of action in order for a party to avail itself of the ancilliary remedy of a temporary restraining order from this court. Also, this law covers only national government infrastructure projects.
Moot and Academic
Courts will not render judgment on a moot and academic case unless any of the following circumstances exists: (1) grave constitutional violations; (2) exceptional character of the case; (3) paramount public interest; (4) the case presents an opportunity to guide the bench, the bar, and the public; or (5) the case is capable of repetition yet evading review.
A case is moot and academic when it ceases to present a justiciable controversy because of supervening events so that a declaration would be of no practical use or value.
An appeal of the outright dismissal of a petition for certiorari against an interlocutory order of a lower court becomes moot and academic where, during its pendency, judgment on the merits has been rendered in the main case and has become final and executory.
Real Party in Interest
Actions must be instituted by the real parties in interest. Otherwise, the action may be dismissed for lack of cause of action.
A real party in interest is the party who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit, or the party entitled to the avails of the suit.
The presence of indispensable parties is a condition for the exercise of juridical power and when an indispensable party is not before the court, the action should be dismissed. In contrast, a necessary party's presence is not imperative, and his or her absence is not debilitating.
Having exercised substitute parental authority, the respondent suffered actual loss and is, thus, a real party in interest in this case.
It was the beneficial users who were awarded damages due to the unjust disconnection of the electric supply, even though the service contract with Meralco was registered in the name of another person.
Compulsory Counterclaim
A compulsory counterclaim is a defendant's claim for money or other relief which arises out of, or is necessarily connected with, the subject matter of the complaint.
Verification
A pleading required to be verified which contains a verification based on "information and belief'', or upon "knowledge, information and belief', or lacks a proper verification, shall be treated as an unsigned pleading.
A pleading wherein the Verification is merely based on the party's knowledge and belief produces no legal effect, subject to the discretion of the court to allow the deficiency to be remedied.
Verification is merely a formal, not jurisdictional, requirement.
The signing of the verification by some petitioners already served the purpose contemplated by the verification. However, when it comes to the certification against forum shopping, the non-signing petitioners shall be dropped from the petition.
Forum Shopping
Forum shopping is a ground for summary dismissal of both initiatory pleadings.
Failure to comply with the Rule 7, Section 5 of the Rules of Court shall not be curable by mere amendment of the complaint or other initiatory pleading but shall be cause for the dismissal of the case without prejudice; unless otherwise provided, upon motion and after hearing.
Forum shopping is the practice of resorting to multiple fora for the same relief, to increase the chances of obtaining a favorable judgment.
Forum shopping exists when parties seek multiple judicial remedies simultaneously or successively, involving the same causes of action, facts, circumstances, and transactions, in the hopes of obtaining a favorable decision.
To determine whether a party violated the rule against forum shopping, the most important factor to ask is whether the elements of litis pendentia are present, or whether a final judgment in one case will amount to res judicata in another; otherwise stated, the test for determining forum shopping is whether in the two (or more) cases pending, there is identity of parties, rights or causes of action, and reliefs sought.
Simultaneously pursuing an appeal (or motion for reconsideration) and a petition for annulment of judgment is an act of forum shopping.
Forum shopping exists where a party attempts to obtain a preliminary injunction in another court after failing to obtain the same from the original court.
The filing of a Complaint for disbarment before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and the filing of this Petition for contempt under Rule 71 do not constitute forum shopping.
The certificate of non-forum shopping must be signed by all the plaintiffs in a case and the signature of only one of them is insufficient, still, when all the petitioners share a common interest and invoke a common cause of action or defense, the signature of only one of them in the certification against forum shopping substantially complies with the rules.
Non-Compliance with Verification / Forum Shopping
Jurisprudential pronouncements respecting non-compliance with the requirements on, or submission of defective, verification and certification against forum shopping:
1) A distinction must be made between non-compliance with the requirement on or submission of defective verification, and non- compliance with the requirement on or submission of defective certification against forum shopping.
2) As to verification, non-compliance therewith or a defect therein does not necessarily render the pleading fatally defective. The court may order its submission or correction or act on the pleading if the attending circumstances are such that strict compliance with the Rule may be dispensed with in order that the ends of justice may be served thereby.
3) Verification is deemed substantially complied with when one who has ample knowledge to swear to the truth of the allegations in the complaint or petition signs the verification, and when matters alleged in the petition have been made in good faith or are true and correct.
4) As to certification against forum shopping, non-compliance therewith or a defect therein, unlike in verification, is generally not curable by its subsequent submission or correction thereof, unless there is a need to relax the Rule on the ground of "substantial compliance" or presence of "special circumstances or compelling reasons".
5) The certification against forum shopping must be signed by all the plaintiffs or petitioners in a case; otherwise, those who did not sign will be dropped as parties to the case. Under reasonable or justifiable circumstances, however, as when all the plaintiffs or petitioners share a common interest and invoke a common cause of action or defense, the signature of only one of them in the certification against forum shopping substantially complies with the Rule.
6) Finally, the certification against forum shopping must be executed by the party-pleader, not by his counsel. If, however, for reasonable or justifiable reasons, the party-pleader is unable to sign, he must execute a Special Power of Attorney designating his counsel of record to sign on his behalf.
Summons
Summons is a procedural tool. It is a writ by which the defendant is notified that an action was brought against him or her.
Failure to serve summons means that the court did not acquire jurisdiction over the person of the defendant. Violation of due process is a jurisdictional defect.
A decision rendered without proper service of summons suffers a jurisdictional infirmity.
The filing of an answer and other subsequent pleadings is tantamount to voluntary appearance.
Absent proper service of summons, the court cannot acquire jurisdiction over the defendant unless there is voluntary appearance.
Defects of summons are cured by voluntary appearance and by the filing of an answer to the complaint.
Jurisprudence has long settled that, with respect to residents temporarily out of the Philippines, the availability of extraterritorial services does not preclude substituted service.
Service
When a party's counsel serves a notice of change in address upon a court, and the court acknowledges this change, service of papers, processes, and pleadings upon the counsel's former address is ineffectual.
Service upon the parties' counsels of record is tantamount to service upon the parties themselves, but service upon the parties themselves is not considered service upon their lawyers.
The reglementary period (e.g., the 15-day period in appeal) must be reckoned from the date when service was made at the updated address.
Appropriate Marks in Amended Pleadings
The procedural rule, which requires that amendments to a pleading be indicated with appropriate marks, has for its purpose the convenience of the Court and the parties. It allows the reader to be able to immediately see the modifications.
However, failure to use the appropriate markings for the deletions and intercalations will not affect any substantive right. Certainly, its absence cannot cause the denial of any substantive right.
Dismissal Due to the Fault of the Plaintiff
While under the present Rules, it is now the duty of the clerk of court to set the case for pre-trial, this does not relieve the plaintiff of his own duty to prosecute the case diligently.
A plaintiff's failure to vigilantly pursue his or her case also affects respondent's right to speedy trial.
Failure to diligently pursue its case and comply with the rules warrants an outright dismissal of the Complaint.
Deposition
Deposition serves the double function of a method of discovery—with use on trial not necessarily contemplated—and a method of presenting testimony.
Depositions may be taken at any time after the institution of any action, whenever necessary or convenient.
Rule 23, Section 4(c)(2) of the Rules of Court allows the use of a deposition taken when a witness is "out of the Philippines" even if the latter was not suffering from any impairment.
Production of Documents
A motion for production of documents may be availed of even beyond the pre-trial stage, upon showing of good cause as required under Rule 27.
The production of documents after judgment defeats the purpose of modes of discovery in expediting case preparation and shortening trials.
Judgment
The Constitution requires that a court must state the factual and legal grounds on which its decisions are based. Any decision that fails to adhere to this mandate is void.
A judgment, once final, is immutable and unalterable.
This Court's final and executory decision cannot be amended. It cannot be done by the trial court, much less by its sheriff.
The doctrine of immutability of judgment, however, is not an ironclad rule. It is subject to several exceptions, namely:
- the correction of clerical errors;
- the so-called nunc pro tunc entries which cause no prejudice to any party;
- void judgments; and
- whenever circumstances transpire after the finality of the decision rendering its execution unjust and inequitable.
Res Judicata
The doctrine of res judicata applies only to judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings, and not to the exercise of administrative powers.
The elements of res judicata, also known as bar by prior judgment, are: (a) the former judgment must be final; (b) the court which rendered it had jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties; (c) it must be a judgment on the merits; and (d) there must be, between the first and second actions, identity of parties, subject matter, and causes of action.
Litis Pendentia
The requisites of litis pendentia are: (a) the identity of parties, or at least such as representing the same interests in both actions; (b) the identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for, the relief being founded on the same facts; and (c) the identity of the two cases such that judgment in one, regardless of which party is successful, would amount to res judicata in the other.
Execution
The prevailing party may move for the execution of a final and executory judgment as a matter of right within five (5) years from the entry of judgment.
Execution issues as a matter of right only "upon the expiration of the period to appeal ... if no appeal has been duly perfected."
If no motion is filed within this period, the judgment is converted to a mere right of action and can only be enforced by instituting a complaint for the revival of judgment in a regular court within 10 years from finality of judgment.
In computing the time limited for suing out of an execution, although there is authority to the contrary, the general rule is that there should not be included the time when execution is stayed, either by agreement of the parties for a definite time, by injunction, by the taking of an appeal or writ of error so as to operate as a supersedeas, by the death of a party, or otherwise.
Any interruption or delay occasioned by the debtor will extend the time within which the writ may be issued without scire facias.
Quashal of a Writ of Execution
Writ of execution that alters or varies the judgment is void.
The writ of execution derives its validity from the judgment it seeks to enforce and must essentially conform to the judgment's terms. It can neither be wider in scope nor exceed the judgment that gives it life. Otherwise, it has no validity.
The writ of execution ordering the sale of the judgment debtor's mortgaged property was declared void because the judgment sought to be executed was for a sum of money.
The Court set aside the writ of execution issued by the trial court which ordered the payment of compounded interest because the judgment sought to be enforced ordered the payment of simple interest only.
A writ of execution may be stayed or quashed when "facts and circumstances transpire" after judgment has been rendered that would make "execution impossible or unjust.
Payment or satisfaction of the judgment debt also constitutes as a ground for the quashal of a writ of execution.
A writ of execution may also be set aside or quashed when it appears from the circumstances of the case that the writ "is defective in substance," "has been improvidently issued," issued without authority, or was "issued against the wrong party."
The manner of execution of a judgment cannot depend upon the choice or discretion of a party.
Courts can neither amend nor modify the terms and conditions of a compromise validly entered into by the parties. A writ of execution that varies the respective obligations of the parties under a judicially approved compromise agreement is void.
Sheriffs' Duty in Execution
The sheriffs execution of judgment is a purely ministerial phase of adjudication. In implementing the writ, the sheriff must strictly conform to the letter of the judge's order.
Sheriffs have no capacity to vary the judgment and deviate from the judge's decision based on their own interpretation thereof.
The only portion of the decision that becomes the subject of execution is that ordained in the dispositive portion.
Errors of Judgment vs Jurisdiction
An error of judgment is one which the court may commit in the exercise of its jurisdiction. An error of jurisdiction renders an order or judgment void or voidable.
Errors of jurisdiction are reviewable on certiorari; errors of judgment, only by appeal.
Motion for Reconsideration
Lack of jurisdiction may be invoked as a ground in a motion for reconsideration.
A motion for reconsideration cannot be used as a vehicle to introduce new evidence.
Second Motion for Reconsideration
Where a tribunal renders a decision substantially reversing itself on a matter, a motion for reconsideration seeking reconsideration of this reversal, for the first time, is not a prohibited second motion for reconsideration.
The Amended Decision is an entirely new decision which supersedes the original decision, for which a new motion for reconsideration may be filed again.
New Trial
Mistakes of attorneys as to the competency of a witness, the sufficiency, relevancy, materiality, or immateriality of certain evidence, the proper defense, or the burden of proof are not proper grounds for a new trial.
Parties are bound by the acts, omissions, and mistakes of their counsel. The acts of counsel are deemed acts of the client.
Appeal
A change of theory on appeal offends due process and fair play.
A factual question may not be raised for the first time on appeal.
Consistent with the principle of finality of judgments, it follows that no appeal may be taken from orders of execution of judgments.
It is elementary that appeal is not a matter of right but a mere statutory privilege.
There are three modes of appeal from a decision or final order from the Regional Trial Court.
- The first mode is an ordinary appeal to the Court of Appeals in cases decided by the trial court in the exercise of its original jurisdiction. This is done by filing a notice of appeal with the trial court.
- The second mode is through a petition for review with the Court of Appeals in cases decided in the exercise of the trial court's appellate jurisdiction.
- The third mode is by filing a petition for review on certiorari with this Court if the appeal involves only questions of law.
Court of Appeals
Under Section 3, Rule 6 of the Internal Rules of the CA, the CA may receive evidence in the following cases:
- In actions falling within its original jurisdiction, such as (1) certiorari, prohibition and mandamus, (2) annulment of judgment or final order, (3) quo warranto, (4) habeas corpus, (5) amparo, (6) habeas data, (7) anti money laundering, and (8) application for judicial authorization under the Human Security Act of 2007;
- In appeals in civil cases where the Court grants a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence, pursuant to Sec. 12, Rule 53 of the Rules of Court;
- In appeals in criminal cases where the Court grants a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence, pursuant to Sec. 12, Rule 124 of the rules of Court; and
- In appeals involving claims for damages arising from provisional remedies.
The Court of Appeals is not bound by the rules of procedure in administrative agencies.
If an administrative agency's procedural rules expressly prohibit an intervention by third parties, the prohibition is limited only to the proceedings before the administrative agency. Once the matter is brought before the Court of Appeals in a petition for review, any prior prohibition on intervention does not apply.
Rule 42
Under Rule 42, Section 1 of the Rules of Court, the remedy from an adverse decision rendered by a Regional Trial Court exercising its appellate jurisdiction is to file a verified petition for review with the Court of Appeals.
Procedural guideposts on required attachment under Rule 42:
- First, not all pleadings and parts of case records are required to be attached to the petition. Only those which are relevant and pertinent must accompany it.
- Second, even if a document is relevant and pertinent to the petition, it need not be appended if it is shown that the contents thereof can also be found in another document already attached to the petition. Thus, if the material allegations in a position paper are summarized in a questioned judgment, it will suffice that only a certified true copy of the judgment is attached.
- Third, a petition lacking an essential pleading or part of the case record may still be given due course or reinstated (if earlier dismissed) upon showing that petitioner later submitted the documents required, or that it will serve the higher interest of justice that the case be decided on the merits.
The foregoing procedural guideposts also apply to Rule 45.
Rule 42 enables not just one (1) but two (2) extensions of 15 days each. An initial extension may be given, provided that it is sought through a proper motion, docket and lawful fees are paid, and a deposit for costs is made before the expiration of the reglementary period.
After this initial extension, Rule 42 permits a second extension of another 15 days. This second extension shall, however, only be "for the most compelling reason."
Rule 45
This Court is not a trier of facts.
Only questions of law may be raised in a petition for review under Rule 45.
Factual questions are not the proper subject of an appeal by certiorari.
Rule 65 is intended to correct errors of jurisdiction. Rule 45, on the other hand, is a mode of appeal intended to correct errors of judgment.
Factual findings of the Court of Appeals are generally "final and conclusive, and cannot be reviewed on appeal by this court, provided they are borne out by the record or based on substantial evidence."
Findings of fact by the Court of Appeals may be passed upon and reviewed by this Court in the following instances:
- When the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculation, surmises or conjectures (Joaquin v. Navarro, 93 Phil. 257 [1953]);
- When the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible (Luna v. Linatok, 74 Phil. 15 [1942]);
- Where there is a grave abuse of discretion (Buyco v. People, 95 Phil. 453 [1955]);
- When the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts (Cruz v. Sosing, L-4875, Nov. 27, 1953);
- When the findings of fact are conflicting (Casica v. Villaseca, L-9590 Ap. 30, 1957; unrep.);**
- When the Court of Appeals, in making its findings, went beyond the issues of the case and the same is contrary to the admissions of both appellant and appellee (Evangelista v. Alto Surety and Insurance Co., 103 Phil. 401 [1958]);
- The findings of the Court of Appeals are contrary to those of the trial court (Garcia v. Court of Appeals, 33 SCRA 622 [1970]; Sacay v. Sandiganbayan, 142 SCRA 593 [1986]);**
- When the findings of fact are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based (Ibid.,);
- When the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioner's main and reply briefs are not disputed by the respondents (Ibid.,); and
- The finding of fact of the Court of Appeals is premised on the supposed absence of evidence and is contradicted by the evidence on record (Salazar v. Gutierrez, 33 SCRA 242 [1970]).[81]
Parties must demonstrate by convincing evidence that the case clearly falls under the exceptions to the rule.
For the Court of Appeals' factual findings to be reviewed by this Court, it must be shown that it gravely abused its discretion in appreciating the parties' respective evidence.
Grave abuse of discretion refers not merely to palpable errors of jurisdiction; or to violations of the Constitution, the law and jurisprudence. It refers also to cases which, for various reasons, there has been a gross misapprehension of facts.
Rule 45 petitions engendered by prior Rule 65 petitions for certiorari and/or prohibition are bound by the same basic issue at the crux of the prior Rule 65 petition, that is, "issues of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion."
Filing a "petition on final execution and settlement" is not a remedy provided by the Rules of Court. Nor can we treat the Petition on Final Execution and Settlement as a petition for review.
Factual findings of Construction Industry Arbitration Commission are accorded respect and even finality, particularly when they are affirmed by an appellate court.
Allegations in the petition of grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Court of Appeals do not ipso facto render the intended remedy that of certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.
A petitioner may file a verified petition for review directly with this Court if only questions of law are at issue; however, if both questions of law and of facts are present, the correct remedy is to file a petition for review with the Court of Appeals.
Question of Law
A question of law, on the other hand, arises when "the appeal raises doubt as to the applicable law on a certain set of facts."
The question of whether intervention is proper is a question of law.
The issue of jurisdiction is a pure question of law.
The question of whether or not the conclusions drawn from these facts are correct is a question of law.
Where an interpretation of the true agreement between the parties is involved in an appeal, the appeal is in effect an inquiry of the law between the parties, its interpretation necessarily involves a question of law.
The resolution of the validity or voidness of the contracts remains a legal or judicial question as it requires the exercise of judicial function. It requires the ascertainment of what laws are applicable to the dispute, the interpretation and application of those laws, and the rendering of a judgment based thereon.
Question of Fact
A question of fact arises when there is doubt as to the truth or falsity of certain facts.
A determination of whether a matter has been established by a preponderance of evidence is a question of fact.
Whether or not there was a causal connection between the given set of facts and the damage suffered by the private complainant or whether or not the act from which civil liability might arise exists are questions of fact.
A determination of the causes of and circumstances relating to vehicular accidents is a factual matter.
Questions regarding the cause of the accident and the persons responsible for it are factual issues.
The argument that the prosecution was unable to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt is a question of fact.
If the question posed requires a re evaluation of the credibility of witnesses, or the existence or relevance of surrounding circumstances and their relationship to each other, the issue is factual.
The issue of whether respondents committed grave abuse of discretion in preparing, enacting, and approving City Ordinance No. 558, s-2012 requires the presentation of evidence on the procedure undertaken by the City Government of Tagum.
The issue which involves the alleged blanket classification of real properties, is likewise factual in nature.
To determine whether the schedule of fair market values conforms to the principle of actual use requires evidence from the person or persons who prepared it are questions of fact.
The determination of whether or not an employee is guilty of abandonment is a factual matter.
The determination of agency is ultimately factual in nature.
The executive determination of probable cause is a highly factual matter.
The presence or absence of bad faith is a matter of evidence.
The determination of the existence or nonexistence of fraud is a factual matter.
The assessment of the credibility of witnesses is a factual matter.
The review of a finding of negligence involves a question of fact.
The probative value of the Certificate of Acceptance of the Report of Divorce is a question of fact.
Whether there was sufficient evidence to find petitioner liable of grave misconduct is also an evidentiary matter.
The issue on the amount of damages is a factual question.
The question of prescription of an action is a factual matter.
The existence of novation and prescription of an action is a question of fact not cognizable under a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
Rule 47
If indeed summons was not properly served on petitioner, then his remedy was to file a petition for annulment of judgment under Rule 47 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.
Rule 47, Section 2 of the Rules of Civil Procedure provides only two (2) grounds for an action for annulment or judgment: extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction.
Nonetheless, extrinsic fraud cannot be considered a valid ground in an action under Rule 47 if it was availed of, or could have been availed of, in a motion for new trial or petition for relief.
An allegation of a trial court's lack of jurisdiction to render the assailed judgment, final order, or resolution must be brought in a separate action for annulment of judgment under Rule 47 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.
Interlocutory Order
An order is interlocutory if the order simply resolves matters incidental to the main case and still leaves something to be done on the part of the court relating to the merits of the case.
Note: An order is final if the order or judgment ends the litigation in the lower court.
An interlocutory order may not be questioned on appeal except only as part of an appeal that may eventually be taken from the final judgment rendered in the case.
An interlocutory order may be appealed in an appeal of the judgment itself.
Extrinsic Fraud
Forgery of documents and evidence for use at the trial and perjury in court testimony have been regarded as not preventing the participation of any party in the proceedings, and are not, therefore, constitutive of extrinsic fraud.
When fraud is employed by a party precisely to prevent the participation of any other interested party then the fraud is extrinsic, regardless of whether the fraud was committed through the use of forged documents or perjured testimony during the trial.
Preliminary Attachment
The allegation that the Cabuyao property was registered under the names of respondents—minors at the time of registration—is sufficient to allege that the Cabuyao property was concealed, thus satisfying Rule 57, Section 1(c) of the Rules of Court.
Preliminary Injunction
For a writ of preliminary injunction to be issued, the applicant must show, by prima facie evidence, an existing right before trial, a material and substantial invasion of this right, and that a writ of preliminary injunction is necessary to prevent irreparable injury.
An injunction must fail where there is no clear showing of both an actual right to be protected and its threatened violation, which calls for the issuance of an injunction.
A Writ of Preliminary Injunction is issued to prevent threatened or continuous irremediable injury to some of the parties before their claims can be thoroughly studied and adjudicated.
Absent the showing of an existing right to be protected, a party's application for an injunctive relief must necessarily be denied.
Parties applying for a writ of preliminary injunction need not set out their claims by complete and conclusive evidence. Prima facie evidence suffices.
No preliminary injunction shall be granted without hearing and prior notice to the party or person sought to be enjoined
An ancillary writ of remedy cannot affect non-parties to a case.
An action for injunction filed by a corporation generally does not lie to prevent the enforcement by a stockholder of his or her right to inspection.
Republic Act No. 8975
Although Presidential Decree No. 1818 prohibits any court from issuing injunctions in cases involving infrastructure projects, the prohibition extends only to the issuance of injunctions or restraining orders against administrative acts in controversies involving facts or the exercise of discretion in technical cases.
This prohibition shall not apply when the matter is of extreme urgency involving a constitutional issue, such that unless a temporary restraining order is issued, grave injustice and irreparable injury will arise.
The recall of an improperly issued Writ of Possession is not the same as an injunction.
Section 3 of Republic Act No. 8975 contemplates only the issuance of an injunctive writ by lower courts.
What is expressly prohibited by the statute is the issuance of the provisional reliefs of temporary restraining orders, preliminary injunctions, and preliminary mandatory injunctions. It does not preclude the lower courts from assuming jurisdiction over complaints or petitions that seek as ultimate relief the nullification or implementation of a national government infrastructure project.
It is well settled that despite the provisions of Republic Act No. 8975, trial courts still retain jurisdiction over the main cause of action to nullify or implement a national government contract.
Section 78 of the Electric Power Industry Reform Act of 2001 (EPIRA)
A petition for injunction under Section 78 of the Electric Power Industry Reform Act of 2001 (EPIRA) is filed only to restrain or enjoin the implementation of any provision of the law.
It may not be invoked to enjoin the implementation of contracts alleged to be against the law. Moreover, the petition must be filed by a real party in interest. Otherwise, it may be dismissed for lack of cause of action.
Carpio-Morales dealt only with temporary restraining orders, not permanent injunctions. The injunction contemplated in EPIRA is not a mere interlocutory action by a court but a permanent remedy. Thus, Section 78 of EPIRA can still apply to this case.
Inherent power to issue TRO / Writs of Preliminary Injunction
Under Rule 58 of the Rules of Court, all courts have the inherent power to issue temporary restraining orders or writs of preliminary injunction.
The authority of the Congress to define, prescribe, and apportion the jurisdiction of the various courts under Section 2, Article VIII supra, as well as to create statutory courts under Section 1, Article VIII supra, does not result in an abnegation of the Court's own power to promulgate rules of pleading, practice, and procedure under Section 5 (5), Article VIII supra.
When Congress creates a court and delimits its jurisdiction, the procedure for which its jurisdiction is exercised is fixed by the Court through the rules it promulgates.
Temporary Restraining Order
A temporary restraining order may be issued by a trial court in only two (2) instances:
- when great or irreparable injury would result to the applicant even before the application for writ of preliminary injunction can be heard; and
- if the matter is of extreme urgency and the applicant will suffer grave injustice and irreparable injury.
In both instances, the temporary restraining order may be issued ex parte.
However, in the first instance, the temporary restraining order has an effectivity of only 20 days to be counted from service to the party sought to be enjoined. Likewise, within those 20 days, the court shall order the enjoined party to show why the injunction should not be granted and shall then determine whether or not the injunction should be granted.
In the second instance, when there is extreme urgency and the applicant will suffer grave injustice and irreparable injury, the court shall issue a temporary restraining order effective for only 72 hours upon issuance. Within those 72 hours, the court shall conduct a summary hearing to determine if the temporary restraining order shall be extended until the application for writ of preliminary injunction can be heard. However, in no case shall the extension exceed 20 days.
If the application for preliminary injunction is denied or not resolved within the given periods, the temporary restraining order is automatically vacated and the court has no authority to extend or renew it on the same ground of its original issuance.
Replevin
Replevin is an action for the recovery of personal property. It is both a principal remedy and a provisional relief.
Forfeiture of the replevin bond, therefore, requires first, a judgment on the merits in the defendant's favor, and second, an application by the defendant for damages.
A surety bond remains effective until the action or proceeding is finally decided, resolved, or terminated, regardless of whether the applicant fails to renew the bond. The applicant will be liable to the surety for any payment the surety makes on the bond, but only up to the amount of this bond.
Rule 65
The remedy against an interlocutory order not subject of an appeal is an appropriate special civil action under Rule 65.
Rule 65 likewise requires that there be "no appeal or any . . . plain, speedy, [or] adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law."
The Supreme Court acts on petitions for extraordinary writs under Rule 65 "only when absolutely necessary or when serious and important reasons exist to justify an exception to the policy."
Appending a copy of an original complaint is not required under Rule 65.
The issuance of the department order cannot be assailed by a petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus. Petitions for certiorari and prohibition are directed only to tribunals that exercise judicial or quasi-judicial functions. The issuance of the department order was a purely administrative or executive function of the Secretary of Justice.
Certiorari
The requisites for the issuance of a writ of certiorari are settled:
- the petition must be directed against a tribunal, Board, or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions;
- the tribunal, Board, or officer must have acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction; and
- there is no appeal, nor any plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.
The proper recourse to a court action from decisions of the BAC is to file a certiorari not before the Supreme Court but before the regional trial court which is vested by R.A. No. 9184 with jurisdiction to entertain the same.
Unlike an appeal, a pending petition for certiorari shall not stay the judgment or order that it assails.
Unless a restraining order or writ of preliminary injunction is issued, the assailed decision lapses into finality. Thereafter, it can no longer be disturbed, altered, or modified, and execution may ensue.
Well-settled is the rule that a petition for certiorari cannot be used as a substitute for a lost appeal "especially if one's own negligence or error in one's choice of remedy occasioned such loss or lapse."
Grave Abuse of Discretion
By grave abuse of discretion is meant such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. It refers also to cases in which, for various reasons, there has been a gross misapprehension of facts.
The trial court's failure to comply with procedural rules constitutes grave abuse of discretion and may be the subject of a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals.
Non-compliance with the Rules of Court is not, as the Office of the Solicitor General asserts, a mere error of judgment. It constitutes grave abuse of discretion.
This manifest disregard of the basic rules and procedures constitutes a grave abuse of discretion.
Lack of Jurisdiction
Without jurisdiction denotes that the tribunal, board, or officer acted with absolute lack of authority.
There is excess of jurisdiction when the public respondent exceeds its power or acts without any statutory authority.
Material Dates
There are three material dates that must be stated in a petition for certiorari brought under Rule 65.
- the date when notice of the judgment or final order or resolution was received;
- the date when a motion for new trial or for reconsideration was filed; and
- the date when notice of the denial thereof was received.
Mandamus
A writ of mandamus may issue in either of two (2) situations:
- when any tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person unlawfully neglects the performance of an act which the law specifically enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or station;
- when any tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person . . . unlawfully excludes another from the use and enjoyment of a right or office to which such other is entitled.
The duty subject of mandamus must be ministerial rather than discretionary.
Mandamus will not issue to establish a right, but only to enforce one that is already established.
Mandamus will not lie to control the exercise of discretion of an inferior body or officer.
The grant of an informer's reward for the discovery, conviction, and punishment of tax offenses is a discretionary quasi-judicial matter that cannot be the subject of a writ of mandamus.
Expropriation
The expropriation case is not automatically dismissed when the property ceases to be for public use.
When the taking of private property is no longer for a public purpose, the state must first file the appropriate Motion to Withdraw before the trial court having jurisdiction over the proceedings. The grant or denial of any Motion to Withdraw in an expropriation proceeding is always subject to judicial discretion.
Republic Act No. 8974
A Writ of Possession may be issued only upon full compliance with Section 4 of Republic Act No. 8974.
Under Section 4 of Republic Act No. 8974, the implementing agency must, upon filing of the expropriation complaint, immediately pay the property owner an amount equivalent to 100% of the value of the property based on the current relevant zonal valuation by the Bureau of Internal Revenue and the value of any improvements or structure on a replacement cost method. The law further mandates that courts may issue a Writ of Possession only upon the presentation by the implementing agency of a certificate of availability of funds.
[T]he law plainly requires direct payment to the property owner, and not a mere deposit with the authorized government depositary. Without such direct payment, no writ of possession may be obtained.
While the provisional value is based on the current relevant zonal valuation, just compensation is based on the prevailing fair market value of the property.
The determination of "just compensation" in eminent domain cases is a judicial function.
Once the amount of just compensation has been determined, the Government, then, must pay the proper amount of just compensation, instead of the provisional value in order to enter and take the private property.
Presidential Decree No. 957
Delineated roads and streets, whether part of a subdivision or segregated for public use, remain private and will remain as such until conveyed to the government by donation or through expropriation proceedings.
As there is no such thing as an automatic cession to government of subdivision road lots, an actual transfer must first be effected by the subdivision owner: "subdivision streets belonged to the owner until donated to the government or until expropriated upon payment of just compensation."
Forcible Entry / Unlawful Detainer
It is settled that the only issue that must be settled in an ejectment proceeding is physical possession of the property involved.
There is a case for unlawful detainer if the complaint states the following:
- initially, possession of property by the defendant was by contract with or by tolerance of the plaintiff;
- eventually, such possession became illegal upon notice by plaintiff to defendant of the termination of the latter's right of possession;
- thereafter, the defendant remained in possession of the property and deprived the plaintiff of the enjoyment thereof; and
- within one year from the last demand on defendant to vacate the property, the plaintiff instituted the complaint for ejectment.
Contempt
Contempt of court is willful disobedience to the court and disregard or defiance of its authority, justice, and dignity.
All courts are given the inherent power to punish contempt.
Publicity does not, in and of itself, impair court proceedings.
The general rule is that publicly disclosing disbarment proceedings may be punished with contempt.
A non-litigant may be cited in contempt if he or she acted in conspiracy with the parties in violating the court order.
Direct Contempt
If the acts of the party or his counsel clearly constitute willful and deliberate forum shopping, the same shall be ground for summary dismissal with prejudice and shall constitute direct contempt, as well as a cause for administrative sanctions.
Indirect Contempt
The submission of a false certification or non-compliance with any of the undertakings therein shall constitute indirect contempt of court, without prejudice to the corresponding administrative and criminal actions.
A disbarred lawyer's name cannot be part of a firm's name. A lawyer who appears under a firm name that contains a disbarred lawyer's name commits indirect contempt of court.
Notice of Sale, Foreclosure
The requirement for publication of a Notice of Sale in an extrajudicial foreclosure is complied with when the publication is circulated at least in the city where the property is located.
Section 3 of Act No. 3135 requires that the Notice of Sale be a) physically posted in three (3) public places and b) be published once a week for at least three (3) consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation in the city where the property is situated.
What is important is that a paper should be in general circulation in the place where the properties to be foreclosed are located in order that publication may serve the purpose for which it was intended.
The crucial factor is not where the newspaper is printed but whether the newspaper is being circulated in the city where the property is located.
To be a newspaper of general circulation, it is enough that "it is published for the dissemination of local news and general information; that it has a bona fide subscription list of paying subscribers; that it is published at regular intervals" . . . The newspaper need not have the largest circulation so long as it is of general circulation.
Writ of Possession
The purchaser in a public auction sale of a foreclosed property is entitled to a writ of possession during the redemption period.
It is ministerial upon the trial court to issue such writ upon an ex parte petition of the purchaser.
When the foreclosed property is in the possession of a third party, the issuance of a writ of possession in favor of the purchaser ceases to be ministerial and may no longer be done ex parte. However, for this exception to apply, the property must be held by the third party adversely to the mortgagor.
Any question regarding the validity of the mortgage or its foreclosure cannot be a legal ground for the refusal to issue a writ of possession.
Redemption
The period to redeem a property sold in an extrajudicial foreclosure sale is not extendible.
A pending action to annul the foreclosure sale does not toll the running of the one (1)-year period of redemption under Act No. 3135.
The "date of the sale" referred to in Section 6 is the date the certificate of sale is registered with the Register of Deeds. This is because the sale of registered land does not "'take effect as a conveyance, or bind the land' until it is registered."
The right of redemption being statutory, the mortgagor may compel the purchaser to sell back the property within the one (1)-year period under Act No. 3135. If the purchaser refuses to sell back the property, the mortgagor may tender payment to the Sheriff who conducted the foreclosure sale.
Habeas Corpus
Habeas corpus is the proper remedy for a person deprived of liberty due to mistaken identity. In such cases, the person is not under any lawful process and is continuously being illegally detained.
Changing the name of the accused appearing in the Information and/or Warrant of Arrest from "Butukan S. Malang" to "Datukan Malang Salibo" will not cure the lack of preliminary investigation in this case.
A motion for reinvestigation will' not cure the defect of lack of preliminary investigation. The Information and Alias Warrant of Arrest were issued on the premise that Butukan S. Malang and Datukan Malang Salibo are the same person. There is evidence, however, that the person detained by virtue of these processes is not Butukan S. Malang but another person named Datukan Malang Salibo.
When a superior court issues a writ of habeas corpus, the superior court only resolves whether the respondent should be ordered to show cause why the petitioner or the person in whose behalf the petition was filed was being detained or deprived of his or her liberty.
However, once the superior court makes the writ returnable to a lower court as allowed by the Rules of Court, the lower court designated "does not thereby become merely a recommendatory body, whose findings and conclusions are devoid of effect." The decision on the petition for habeas corpus is a decision of the lower court, not of the superior court.
Although the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus may be suspended in cases of invasion, rebellion, or when the public safety requires it, the writ itself may not be suspended.
The writ of habeas corpus will not be allowed in the following cases if a person alleged to be restrained of his liberty is in the custody of an officer under process issued by a court or judge, and that the court or judge had jurisdiction to issue the process or make the order, or if such person is charged before any court.
In such cases, instead of availing themselves of the extraordinary remedy of a petition for habeas corpus, persons restrained under a lawful process or order of the court must pursue the orderly course of trial and exhaust the usual remedies. This ordinary remedy is to file a motion to quash the information or the warrant of arrest.
Processual Presumption
The party invoking the application of a foreign law has the burden of proving the law.
Where a foreign law is not pleaded or, even if pleaded, is not proved, the presumption is that foreign law is the same as ours.
Criminal Procedure
In Co v. People, et al.,103 this court held that "the doctrine of conclusiveness of judgment also applies in criminal cases." (G.R. No. 200751)
Res judicata is a doctrine of civil law and thus has no bearing on criminal proceedings (G.R. No. 181489).
Res judicata, as found in Rule 39 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, is a principle in civil law and has no bearing on criminal proceedings.
Preliminary Investigation
Jurisprudence has long settled that preliminary investigation does not form part of trial.
Preliminary investigation is not part of trial and is conducted only to establish whether probable cause exists. Consequently, it is not subject to the same due process requirements that must be present during trial.
For the dismissal of a case during preliminary investigation does not constitute double jeopardy, preliminary investigation not being part of the trial.
The admissibility or inadmissibility of evidence cannot be ruled upon in a preliminary investigation.
The prosecutor in a preliminary investigation does not determine the guilt or innocence of the accused. He does not exercise adjudication nor rule-making functions. Preliminary investigation is merely inquisitorial, and is often the only means of discovering the persons who may be reasonably charged with a crime and to enable the fiscal to prepare his complaint or information.
During preliminary investigation, the Ombudsman is not required to furnish a respondent with the counter-affidavits of his co-respondents.
Probable Cause
Probable cause, for purposes of filing a criminal information, has been defined as such facts as are sufficient to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and that the private respondent is probably guilty thereof.
Probable cause has been defined as an actual belief or reasonable grounds of suspicion.
Absence of direct evidence does not preclude a finding of probable cause.
Probable cause is not synonymous with guilt.
Executive determination of probable is one made during preliminary investigation by public prosecutor who has the quasi-judicial authority to determine whether or not a criminal case must be filed in court.
Note: Preliminary investigation is merely inquisitorial. Some decisions characterized the public prosecutor's power to conduct a preliminary investigation as quasi-judicial in nature. Still, this characterization is true only to the extent that the public prosecutor, like a quasi-judicial body, is an officer of the executive department exercising powers akin to those of a court of law. [G.R. No. 209330]
The determination of probable cause for purposes of filing an information is lodged with the public prosecutor. It is not reviewable by courts unless it is attended by grave abuse of discretion.
The judicial determination of probable cause, on the other hand, is one made by the judge to ascertain whether a warrant of arrest should be issued against the accused.
Filing of the Information
Upon filing of the information, the trial court judge has the following options:
- (1) dismiss the case if the evidence on record clearly fails to establish probable cause;
- (2) issue a warrant of arrest or a commitment order if findings show probable cause; or (3) order the prosecutor to present additional evidence if there is doubt on the existence of probable cause.
It is a valid information signed by a competent officer which, among other requisites, confers jurisdiction on the court over the person of the accused (herein petitioner) and the subject matter of the accusation.
Amendment
Before an accused enters his or her plea, either formal or substantial amendment of the complaint or information may be made without leave of court.
After an entry of plea, only a formal amendment can be made provided it is with leave of court and it does not prejudice the rights of the accused.
After arraignment, there can be no substantial amendment except if it is beneficial to the accused.
Formal Amendments
The following are mere formal amendments:
- new allegations which relate only to the range of the penalty that the court might impose in the event of conviction;
- an amendment which does not charge another offense different or distinct from that charged in the original one;
- additional allegations which do not alter the prosecution's theory of the case so as to cause surprise to the accused and affect the form of defense he has or will assume; and
- an amendment which does not adversely affect any substantial right of the accused, such as his right to invoke prescription.
Allegation of conspiracy does not alter the basic theory of the prosecution; hence, is merely formal.
Substantial Amendment
A substantial amendment consists of the recital of facts constituting the offense charged and determinative of the jurisdiction of the court."
Motion to Quash
A defect in the complaint filed before the fiscal is not a ground to quash an information. On the other hand, lack of authority to file an information is a proper ground.
A motion to quash should be based on a defect in the information which is evident on its face.
For an information to be quashed based on the prosecutor's lack of authority to file it, the lack of the authority must be evident on the face of the information.
Lack of authority of the officer signing it, cannot be cured by silence, acquiescence, or even by express consent.
Good faith is not among the grounds for quashing an information as enumerated in Rule 117, Section 3 of the Rules of Court. It is not apparent on the face of the Informations, and what is not apparent cannot be the basis for quashing them.
"The claim of the accused . . . that the letter is privileged communication is not a ground for a motion to quash. It is a matter of defense which must be proved after trial of the case on the merits."
Curable Defect
When a motion to quash an information is based on a defect that may be cured by amendment, courts must provide the prosecution with the opportunity to amend the information.
If it is based on the ground that the facts charged do not constitute an offense, the prosecution shall be given by the court an opportunity to correct the defect by amendment.
Incurable Defect
An information which is void ab initio cannot be amended to obviate a ground for quashal. An amendment which operates to vest jurisdiction upon the trial court is likewise impermissible.
The absence of any allegations in the Informations that the offended party was actually residing in Baguio City, where the crimes charged were allegedly committed, is a substantial defect and cannot be cured by amendment to vest jurisdiction upon the court.
Remedy in Case Lack of Authority is not Apparent
The Informations here do not allege that the venue of the offense was other than Morong, Bataan. Thus, it is not apparent on the face of the Informations that the prosecutor did not have the authority to file them.
The proper remedy is to give the prosecution the opportunity to amend the Informations. If the proper venue appears not to be Morong, Bataan after the Informations have been amended, then the trial court may dismiss the case due to lack of jurisdiction, as well as lack of authority of the prosecutor to file the information.
Denial of Motion to Quash
As a general rule, the denial of a motion to quash is not appealable as it is merely interlocutory.
Likewise, it cannot be the subject of a petition for certiorari. The denial of the motion to quash can still be raised in the appeal of a judgment of conviction.
Order Granting Motion to Withdraw
An order granting the withdrawal of an information based on the prosecutor's findings of lack of probable cause must show that the judge did not rely solely on the prosecution's conclusions but had independently evaluated the evidence on record and the merits of the case.
Once a case has been filed with the court, it is that court, no longer the prosecution, which has full control of the case, so much so that the information may not be dismissed without its approval.
Once a motion to dismiss or withdraw the information is filed, the court may grant or deny it, in the faithful exercise of judicial discretion. Otherwise, the order granting the withdrawal of the information is void.
The grant of the Motion to Withdraw Information dismissed the criminal case.
Appealing the Withdrawal of an Information
An order granting a motion to withdraw an information and dismissing a criminal case is final, and the remedy to question this final order is an appeal.
Appealing the withdrawal of an information does not violate the right of the accused against being placed in double jeopardy.
The Court has nonetheless recognized that if the criminal case is dismissed by the trial court or if there is an acquittal, the appeal on the criminal aspect of the case must be instituted by the Solicitor General on behalf of the State.
Arrest
The right to question the validity of an arrest may be waived if the accused, assisted by counsel, fails to object to its validity before arraignment.
The invalidity of an arrest leads to several consequences among which are: (a) the failure to acquire jurisdiction over the person of an accused; (b) criminal liability of law enforcers for illegal arrest; and (c) any search incident to the arrest becomes invalid thus rendering the evidence acquired as constitutionally inadmissible.
Lack of jurisdiction over the person of an accused as a result of an invalid arrest must be raised through a motion to quash before an accused enters his or her plea. Otherwise, the objection is deemed waived and an accused is "estopped from questioning the legality of his or her arrest."
Failure to timely object to the illegality of an arrest does not preclude an accused from questioning the admissibility of evidence seized.
Warrantless Arrest
For a warrantless arrest of in flagrante delicto to be affected, two elements must concur: (1) the person to be arrested must execute an overt act indicating that he or she has just committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit a crime; and (2) such overt act is done in the presence or within the view of the arresting officer.
Hot pursuit arrest requires that an offense has just been committed. It connotes "immediacy in point of time." That a crime was in fact committed does not automatically bring the case under this rule.
Law enforcers need not personally witness the commission of a crime. However, they must have personal knowledge of facts and circumstances indicating that the person sought to be arrested committed it.
Law enforcers must have personal knowledge of facts, based on their observation, that the person sought to be arrested has just committed a crime.
Reliable information alone is insufficient to support a warrantless arrest absent any overt act from the person to be arrested indicating that a crime has just been committed, was being committed, or is about to be committed.
A hearsay tip by itself does not justify a warrantless arrest.
Bail
The first order denying bail, as an interlocutory order, is not barred by res judicata.
The bail shall be deemed automatically cancelled upon acquittal of the accused, dismissal of the case, or execution of the judgment of conviction.
Suspension of Arraignment
Suspension of an arraignment in case of a pending petition for review before the Department of Justice does not suspend the execution of a warrant of arrest for the purpose of acquiring jurisdiction over the person of an accused.
Appeal in a Criminal Case
It is a well-settled rule that an appeal in a criminal case throws the whole case wide open for review and that it becomes the duty of the Court to correct such errors as may be found in the judgment appealed from, whether they are assigned as errors or not.
Evidence
When evidence has "such a relation to the fact in issue as to induce belief in its existence or non-existence," it is said to be relevant. When evidence is not excluded by law or by the Rules, it is said to be competent.
A witness can testify only on the facts that he knows of his own personal knowledge, i.e., those which are derived from his own perception. A witness may not testify on what he merely learned, read, or heard from others.
Admissibility considers factors such as competence and relevance of submitted evidence. On the other hand, weight is concerned with the persuasive tendency of admitted evidence.
Parol Evidence
Two (2) things must be established for parol evidence to be admitted:
- that the existence of any of the four (4) exceptions has been put in issue in a party's pleading or has not been objected to by the adverse party; and
- that the parol evidence sought to be presented serves to form the basis of the conclusion proposed by the presenting party.
Hearsay
A traffic accident investigation report prepared by a police officer relying solely on the account of a supposed eyewitness and not on his or her personal knowledge is not evidence that is admissible as an exception to the Hearsay Rule.
Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt
An inconsistency, which has nothing to do with the elements of a crime, is not a ground to reverse a conviction.
Clear and Convincing Evidence
The imputation of fraud (whether dolo incidente and dolo causante) in a civil case requires the presentation of clear and convincing evidence.
Substantial Evidence
Well-established is the rule that factual findings of administrative agencies are conclusive and binding on the Court when supported by substantial evidence.
Complainants in administrative proceedings carry the burden of proving their allegations with substantial evidence or such "relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion."
Circumstantial Evidence
Direct evidence proves a challenged fact without drawing any inference. Circumstantial evidence, on the other hand, "indirectly proves a fact in issue, such that the fact-finder must draw an inference or reason from circumstantial evidence."
The identity of the perpetrator of a crime and a finding of guilt may rest solely on the strength of circumstantial evidence.
Offer and Objection
All evidence must be formally offered. Otherwise, the court cannot consider them.
However, testimonial evidence not formally offered but not timely objected to by an opposing party may be still be considered by the court.
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
Practice of Law
Work in government that requires the use of legal knowledge is considered practice of law.
By preparing the pleadings of and giving legal advice to complainant, respondent practiced law.
Negligence in Practice of Law
Filing a demurrer to evidence despite the Sandiganbayan's denial of the motion for leave to file it is considered as gross negligence.
Negligence of the clerks and employees of a lawyer binds the latter.
Canon 1
Lawyers are required to secure special authority from their clients when entering into a compromise agreement that dispenses with litigation.
Lawyers cannot, without special authority, compromise their client's litigation, or receive anything in discharge of a client's claim but the full amount in cash.
Canon 3
Maintaining a disbarred lawyer's name in the firm name is different from using a deceased partner's name in the firm name. Canon 3, Rule 3.02 allows the use of a deceased partner's name as long as there is an indication that the partner is deceased. This ensures that the public is not misled.
On the other hand, the retention of a disbarred lawyer's name in the firm name may mislead the public into believing that the lawyer is still authorized to practice law.
Canon 9
A lawyer who allows a non-member of the Bar to misrepresent himself as a lawyer and to practice law is guilty of violating Canon 9 and Rule 9.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility,
Canon 16
Any money collected for the client or other trust property coming into the lawyer's possession should promptly be reported by him or her.
Without the client's consent, the lawyer has no authority to apply the client's money for his fees, but he should instead return the money to his client, without prejudice to his filing a case to recover his unsatisfied fees.
Disciplinary proceedings are limited to a determination of whether or not the attorney is still fit to be allowed to continue as a member of the Bar. Moreover, the rule excluding civil liability determination from disciplinary proceedings "remains applicable only to claimed liabilities which are purely civil in nature.
Canon 17
A champertous contract is defined as a contract between a stranger and a party to a lawsuit, whereby the stranger pursues the party's claim in consideration of receiving part or any of the proceeds recovered under the judgment;
There is no such thing as an irrevocable attorney-client relationship.
Notary Public
Notaries public who fail to indicate in notarized documents that the affiants are personally known to them or have presented competent evidence of their identities violate not only the Notarial Rules, but also Canon 1, Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
2004 Rules on Notarial Practice
SECTION 1. Acknowledgment. - "Acknowledgment" refers to an act in which an individual on a single occasion:
- appears in person before the notary public and presents an integrally complete instrument or document;
- is attested to be personally known to the notary public or identified by the notary public through competent evidence of identity as defined by these Rules; and
- represents to the notary public that the signature on the instrument or document was voluntarily affixed by him for the purposes stated in the instrument or document, declares that he has executed the instrument or document as his free and voluntary act and deed, and, if he acts in a particular representative capacity, that he has the authority to sign in that capacity.
SECTION 6. Jurat. - "Jurat" refers to an act in which an individual on a single occasion:
- appears in person before the notary public and presents an instrument or document;
- is personally known to the notary public or identified by the notary public through competent evidence of identity as defined by these Rules;
- signs the instrument or document in the presence of the notary; and
- takes an oath or affirmation before the notary public as to such instrument or document.
Rule II, Section 12 was eventually amended by A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC. As amended, it specifically rebukes the validity of a community tax certificate as a competent evidence of identity
Inhibition
This Court will not require a judge to inhibit himself in the absence of clear and convincing evidence to overcome the presumption that he will dispense justice in accordance with law and evidence. This Court will also not allow itself to become an instrument to paper over fatal errors done by the petitioner and the prosecution in the lower court.
REFERENCE: https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/
