RECENT JURISPRUDENCE

January 2013- March 2014

 REMEDIAL LAW

The CA dismissed Castigador’s complaint on the ground that there was no allegation that the petition is
based on extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction. Under Section 5, Rule 47 of the Rules of Court, it is
incumbent that when a court finds no substantial merit in a petition for annulment of judgment, it may
dismiss the petition outright but the “specific reasons for such dismissal” shall be clearly set out.

The petition need not categorically state the exact words extrinsic fraud; rather, the allegations in the
petition should be so crafted to easily point out the ground on which it was based. LORNA CASTIGADOR
v. DANILO M. NICOLAS. G.R. No. 184023, March 4, 2013

Cailipan, et al. filed a petition for certiorari assailing the RTC’s order of default and a Notice of Appeal
questioning the RTC’s decision. It is well-settled that the remedies of appeal and certiorari are mutually
exclusive and not alternative or successive. The simultaneous filing of a petition for certiorari under Rule
65 and an ordinary appeal under Rule 41 of the Revised Rules of Civil Procedure cannot be allowed since
one remedy would necessarily cancel out the other. The existence and availability of the right of appeal
proscribes resort to certiorari because one of the requirements for availment of the latter is precisely that
there should be no appeal.

The Court observes that Cailipan, et al. should have (a) withdrawn their certiorari petition and instead
raised the jurisdictional errors stated therein in their appeal or (b) at the very least, informed the CA’s
Twenty-First Division of the Decision rendered on the main case and the filing of their Notice of Appeal on
January 22, 2011. IRENE VILLAMAR-SANDOVAL v. JOSE CAILIPAN, et al.G.R. 200727, March 4,
2013

An order declared that the Republic was deemed to have abandoned one of the cases of a consolidated
case but trial proceeded for the consolidated cases. There is no rule or law prohibiting the appeal of a
judgment or part of a judgment in one case which is consolidated with other cases. Further, severance is
within the sound discretion of the court for convenience or to avoid prejudice. REPUBLIC OF THE
PHILIPPINES REP. BY THE REGIONAL EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, DENR, REGION III v. HEIRS OF
ENRIQUE ORIBELLO, JR., et al.
G.R. No. 199501, March 6, 2013.

The prosecution needs to establish the identity of the prohibited drugs which constitute the corpus delicti
of the offense. The chain of custody of the seized items must be presented by the prosecution as
unbroken starting from the time the items were confiscated and eventually marked until the time they are
presented in court. It is the burden of the defense, meanwhile, to prove that the chain of custody was
broken. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. JAIME FERNANDEZ Y HERTEZ. G.R. No. 188841, MARCH
6, 2013.

A motion to file a demurrer was granted after the prosecution’s presentation of the testimonies of the
apprehending officers because the prosecution failed to present the testimony of the confidential
informant. It has long been settled that the grant of a demurrer is tantamount to an acquittal. An acquitted
defendant is entitled to the right of repose as a direct consequence of the finality of his acquittal. This rule,
however, is not without exception. The rule on double jeopardy is subject to the exercise of judicial review
by way of the extraordinary writ of certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. The Supreme Court
finds and so holds that the grant of the demurrer for this reason alone was not supported by prevailing
jurisprudence and constituted grave abuse of discretion. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. JUDGE
RAFAEL R. LAGOS, et al. G.R. No. 184658, March 6, 2013.

Cuenca, et al. filed a complaint for damages sustained by the wrongful issuance of a writ of preliminary
injunction and the taking of the properties of Arc Cuisine, Inc. There is no dispute that the properties
subject to the levy on attachment belonged to Arc Cuisine, Inc. alone, not to Cuenca, et al. in their own
right. They were only stockholders of Arc Cuisine, Inc., which had a personality distinct and separate from
that of any or all of them. The damages occasioned to the properties by the levy on attachment, wrongful
or not, prejudiced Arc Cuisine, Inc., not them. As such, only Arc Cuisine, Inc. had the right under the
substantive law to claim and recover such damages. This right could not also be asserted by Cuenca, et
al. unless they did so in the name of the corporation itself. But that did not happen herein, because Arc
Cuisine, Inc. was not even joined in the action either as an original party or as an intervenor.
STRONGHOLD INSURANCE COMPANY, INC. v. TOMAS CUENCA, et al. G.R. No. 173297, March 6,
2013.

Lt. Gen. Ligot, et al. filed a petition for certiorari when the CA extended the freeze order against their
properties. Ligot, et al. should have filed a petition for review on certiorari, and not a petition for certiorari,
to assail the CA resolution which extended the effectivity period of the freeze order over their properties.
RET. LT. GEN. JACINTO C. LIGOT, et al. v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES REPRESENTED BY
THE ANTI-MONEY LAUNDERING COUNCIL
G.R. No. 176944, March 6, 2013.

Senador asserted that the person named as the offended party in the Information is not the same person
who made the demand and filed the complaint. In case of an error in the designation of the offended party
in crimes against property, Rule 110, Sec. 12 of the Rules of Court mandates the correction of the
information, not its dismissal.

If the subject matter of the offense is generic and not identifiable, an error in the designation of the
offended party is fatal and would result in the acquittal of the accused. However, if the subject matter of
the offense is specific and identifiable, an error in the designation of the offended party is immaterial.
RAMONCITA O. SENADOR v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. G.R. No. 201620, March 6, 2013

It is essential in the prosecution of drug cases that the identity of the prohibited drug be established
beyond reasonable doubt. This means that on top of the elements of possession or illegal sale, the fact
that the substance illegally sold or possessed is, in the first instance, the very substance adduced in court
must likewise be established with the same exacting degree of certitude as that required sustaining a
conviction. The chain of custody requirement performs this function in that it ensures that unnecessary
doubts respecting the identity of the evidence are minimized if not altogether removed. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES v. EDGARDO ADRID Y FLORES. G.R. No. 201845, March 6, 2013

Gerry Centeno, Spouses Centeno’s son, bought the property from his parents and remained in
possession. The Bank petitioned the RTC for the issuance of a writ of possession after title to the property
was consolidated in its name. After consolidation of title in the purchaser’s name for failure of the
mortgagor to redeem the property, the purchaser’s right to possession ripens into the absolute right of a
confirmed owner. At that point, the issuance of a writ of possession, upon proper application and proof of
title, to a purchaser in an extrajudicial foreclosure sale becomes merely a ministerial function,  unless it
appears that the property is in possession of a third party claiming a right adverse to that of the
mortgagor. RURAL BANK OF STA. BARBARA (ILOILO), INC. v. GERRY CENTENO. G.R. No.
200667, March 11, 2013.
The practice of requiring convicts to appear before the trial courts for promulgation of the affirmance or
modification by this Court or the CA of judgments of conviction in criminal cases is no longer allowed.
Hence, the absence of the convicts on the day of promulgation of judgment did not affect its validity. The
RTC did not err in denying the Motion for Repromulgation of its judgment. EFREN S. ALMUETE v.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. G.R. No. 179611, March 12, 2013.

The writ of amparo does not envisage the protection of concerns that are purely property or commercial in
nature. Hence, the writ of amparo filed by Spouses Nerio, et al. after Barangay officials raided their
ampalaya farm to search for marijuana plants cannot be issued. SPOUSES NERIO AND SOLEDAD
PADOR AND REY PADOR v. BARANGAY CAPTAIN BERNABE ARCAYAN, et al. G.R. No.
183460, March 12, 2013

The CA dismissed Indoyon’s petition for review on certiorari under Rule 43 for being non-compliant with
the Rules of Court and various Supreme Court Circulars. Under Section 1, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court,
the proper remedy to question the CA’s judgment, final order or resolution is a petition for review on
certiorari. The petition must be filed within fifteen (15) days from notice of the judgment, final order or
resolution appealed from; or of the denial of petitioner’s motion for reconsideration filed in due time after
notice of the judgment.

Under Supreme Court Circular 2-90, an appeal taken to the Supreme Court or to the CA by a wrong or an
inappropriate mode merits outright dismissal. Certiorari cannot be allowed when a party to a case fails to
appeal a judgment despite the availability of that remedy. Certiorari is not a substitute for a lost appeal.
SURIGAO DE SUR v. COURT OF APPEALSG.R. No. 193706, March 12, 2013.

What controls is not the title of the Information or the designation of the offense but the actual facts
recited in the Information. In other words, it is the recital of facts of the commission of the offense, not the
nomenclature of the offense, which determines the crime being charged in the information. Hence, the
fact that Pielago was charged with acts of lasciviousness did not preclude his conviction of rape by sexual
assault. MIKE ALVIN PIELAGO Y ROS v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. G.R. No. 202020, March
13, 2013

Under Section 4, Rule 133 of the Rules of Court, circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction when
the concurrence of the following factors obtain: (a) there is more than one circumstance; (b) the facts from
which the inferences are derived have been proven; and (c) the combination of all the circumstances is
such as would prove the crime beyond reasonable doubt. These circumstances and facts must be
absolutely incompatible with any reasonable hypothesis propounding the innocence of the accused.
However, in the present case, the circumstances presented by the prosecution do not form a solid and
cohesive narrative that proves with moral certainty its contention that Soriano perpetrated these heinous
acts. To synthesize, the only circumstances cited to implicate him in the crime are the following: (a) he
passed through the shortcut to Wao around 3:00 p.m. on 31 December 1998; (b) Vicky did not see
anyone else use that road from 3:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. on that day; and (c) the soiled garments
confiscated from him were identified to have been the same ones he was wearing then. PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES v. GERALD SORIANO ALIAS “PEDRO”. G.R. No. 191271, March 13, 2013.

For the successful prosecution of illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the following essential elements
must be established: (a) the accused is in possession of an item or object that is identified to be a
prohibited or dangerous drug; (b) such possession is not authorized by law; and (c) the accused freely
and consciously possessed the drug. As regards the failure of the police to strictly comply with the
provisions of Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, it is settled that the failure to strictly follow the directives of this
section is not fatal and will not necessarily render the items confiscated from an accused inadmissible.
What is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized
items, as the same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused.
BENEDICTO MARQUEZ Y RAYOS v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. G.R. No. 197207, March 13,
2013
Isabel filed 3 motions for reconsideration which were denied by the RTC. The CA dismissed her petition
on the ground that she lost her right to appeal when she filed a second motion for reconsideration. When
the RTC issues its decision and orders, in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, the proper remedy
therefrom is a Rule 42 petition for review. A second motion for reconsideration is a prohibited pleading
pursuant to Section 5, Rule 37 of the Rules of Court and the right to appeal is lost.

The RTC ruled on the issue of Isabel’s transfer of rights even if it was not raised as an error. Under
Section 18, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court, the RTC is mandated to decide the appeal based on the entire
record of the MTC proceedings and such pleadings submitted by the parties or required by the RTC.
Nonetheless, even without this provision, an appellate court is clothed with ample authority to review
matters, even if they are not assigned as errors on appeal, if it finds that their consideration is necessary
in arriving at a just decision of the case, or is closely related to an error properly assigned, or upon which
the determination of the question raised by error properly assigned is dependent. 

The RTC also denied the motions for reconsideration on the ground that a notice of hearing was not
attached. A motion unaccompanied by a notice of hearing is considered a mere scrap of paper that does
not toll the running of the period to appeal. The requirement of notice of hearing is an integral component
of procedural due process that seeks to avoid "surprises that may be sprung upon the adverse party, who
must be given time to study and meet the arguments in the motion before a resolution by the court.
ISABEL N. GUZMAN v. ANIANO N. GUZMAN AND PRIMITIVA G. MONTEALTO. G.R. No.
172588, March 13, 2013

Before an action can properly be commenced, all the essential elements of the cause of action must be in
existence, that is, the cause of action must be complete. All valid conditions precedent to the institution of
the particular action, whether prescribed by statute, fixed by agreement of the parties or implied by law
must be performed or complied with before commencing the action, unless the conduct of the adverse
party has been such as to prevent or waive performance or excuse non-performance of the condition.
Failure to make a sufficient allegation of a cause of action in the complaint, such as the failure to allege
exhaustion of all legal remedies in the complaint warrants dismissal. ANCHOR SAVINGS BANK
(FORMERLY ANCHOR FINANCE AND INVESTMENT CORPORATION) v. HENRY H. FURIGAY, ET.
AL. G.R. No. 191178, March 13, 2013.

NLC filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 with the CA without filing a motion for reconsideration
before the RTC. Before a petition for certiorari can prosper, the petitioner must be able to show, among
others, that he does not have any other "plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of
law." This remedy referred to in Section 1 of Rule 65 is a motion for reconsideration of the questioned
order. NOVATEKNIK LAND CORPORATION v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK AND THE REGISTER
OF DEEDS OF MANILA CITY. G.R. No. 194104, March 13, 2013.

Tigaz filed three pleadings assailing the Ombudsman’s decision finding probable cause to indict him for
violation of Sec. 3(b) of R.A. 3019 and the Sandiganbayan’s resolution denying his motion to quash the
information and suspending him pendent lite.

In the determination of probable cause, absolute certainty of evidence is not required, for opinion and
reasonable belief are sufficient. Besides, any other defense contesting the finding of probable cause that
is highly factual in nature must be threshed out in a full-blown trial, and not in a special civil action for
certiorari before this Court. 

A Rule 65 petition is an inappropriate remedy to question the refusal of the Sandiganbayan to quash an
information and, its imposition of suspension pendente lite. The remedy is not the filing of a special civil
action for certiorari, but the continuance of the case in due course. ROLANDO Z. TIGAZ v. OFFICE OF
THE OMBUDSMAN. G.R. No. 180681, March 18, 2013

Villareal was arrested by PO3 de Leon while holding a plastic sachet and because PO3 de Leon
recognized him as someone he arrested for illegal possession before. A previous arrest or existing
criminal record, even for the same offense, will not suffice to satisfy the exacting requirements provided
under Section 5, Rule 113 in order to justify a lawful warrantless arrest. "Personal knowledge" of the
arresting officer that a crime had in fact just been committed is required. To interpret "personal
knowledge" as referring to a person’s reputation or past criminal citations would create a dangerous
precedent and unnecessarily stretch the authority and power of police officers to effect warrantless
arrests based solely on knowledge of a person’s previous criminal infractions, rendering nugatory the
rigorous requisites laid out under Section 5. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. NAZARENO
VILLAREAL y LUALHATI. G.R. No. 201363, March 18, 2013

Section 6, Rule 110 and Section 11, Rule 110 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure provide that when the
date given in the complaint is not of the essence of the offense, it need not be proven as alleged; thus,
the complaint will be sustained if the proof shows that the offense was committed at any date within the
period of the statute of limitations and before the commencement of the action. Hence, the fact that the
Information did not state the precise date of the commission of the crime did not automatically render the
charge against Engr. Zapanta for qualified theft invalid. ENGR. ANTHONY V. ZAPANTA v. PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES. G.R. No. 170863, March 20, 2013

The RTC dismissed the application for land registration of AFP-RSBS for failure to prosecute after it
presented all its evidence and after it decided in its favor. An action may be dismissed for failure to
prosecute in any of the following instances: (1) if the plaintiff fails to appear at the time of trial; or (2) if he
fails to prosecute the action for an unreasonable length of time; or (3) if he fails to comply with the Rules
of Court or any order of the court. Once a case is dismissed for failure to prosecute, this has the effect of
an adjudication on the merits and is understood to be with prejudice to the filing of another action unless
otherwise provided in the order of dismissal. In other words, unless there be a qualification in the order of
dismissal that it is without prejudice, the dismissal should be regarded as an adjudication on the merits
and is with prejudice.

AFP-RSBS presented Ms. Alma Aban as its witness but her testimony was not considered because she
did not present an authorization to testify from AFP-RSBS. There is no substantive or procedural rule
which requires a witness for a party to present some form of authorization to testify as a witness for the
party presenting him or her. No law or jurisprudence would support the conclusion that such omission can
be considered as a failure to prosecute on the part of the party presenting such witness. All that the Rules
require of a witness is that the witness possesses all the qualifications and none of the disqualifications
provided therein. ARMED FORCES OF THE PHIL. RETIREMENT AND SEPARATION BENEFITS
SYSTEM v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES. G.R. No. 188956, March 20, 2013

Courts do not reverse the Secretary of Justice’s findings and conclusions on the matter of probable cause
except in clear cases of grave abuse of discretion. The CA correctly ruled that no prima facie evidence
existed that sufficiently indicated Philip and Teodora’s involvement in the commission of the crime. The
circumstantial evidence linking Philip to the killing of Chase was derived from the bare recollections of
Ariane, and of Guray and Corpus. For circumstantial evidence to be sufficient to support a conviction, all
the circumstances must be consistent with one another and must constitute an unbroken chain leading to
one fair and reasonable conclusion that a crime has been committed and that Philip and Teodora are
probably guilty thereof.

Out of the total of 16 statements/affidavits corresponding to the respective witnesses, only nine were
sworn to before a competent officer. The lack of the requisite certifications from the affidavits of most of
the other witnesses was in violation of Section 3, Rule 112 of the Rules of Court. The rule was designed
to avoid self-serving and unreliable evidence from being considered for purposes of the preliminary
investigation, the present rules for which do not require a confrontation between the parties and their
witnesses; hence, the certifications were mandatory. MARIE CALLO-CLARIDAD v. PHILIP RONALD P.
ESTEBAN AND TEODORA ALYN ESTEBAN. G.R. No. 191567, March 20, 2013

The chain of custody provided for in Section 21(1), Art. II of R.A. 9165, to wit: (1) there must be a showing
that a physical inventory was conducted in the presence of the accused or his/her representative or
counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public
official; and (2) there must be photograph(s) of the seized items taken in the presence of the above-
enumerated representatives. It was ruled that omission(s) in strictly following the provision are not fatal to
the prosecution’s case as long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are preserved
and established with moral certainty. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ZENAIDA SORIANO AND
MYRNA SAMONTE. G.R. No. 189843, March 20, 2013.

The Republic has been actively involved in the trial for the recovery of ill-gotten wealth for two decades
but was absent for one hearing. Due to this single absence, the Sandiganbayan dismissed the case. Rule
17, Section 3 of the Rules of Court, provides that the court may dismiss a complaint in case there are no
justifiable reasons that explain the plaintiff's absence during the presentation of the evidence in chief. The
word "may" in Rule 17, Section 3 of the Rules of Court, operates to confer on the court the discretion  to
decide between the dismissal of the case on technicality vis-à-vis the progressive prosecution.

The Sandiganbayan denied the Republic’s Motion for Reconsideration on the ground that it failed to
observe the three day notice requirement. Rule 15, Section 4 of the Rules of Court, does not require that
the court receive the notice three days prior to the hearing date. Rule 13, Section 3 of the Rules of Court,
states that the date of the mailing of motions through registered mail shall be considered the date of their
filing in court, it follows that the Republic filed the motion to the court 10 days in advance of the hearing
date. In so doing, it observed the 10-day requirement under Rule 15, Section 5 of the Rules of Court,
which provides that the time and date of the hearing must not be later than ten days after the filing of the
motion. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v. TRINIDAD DIAZ-ENRIQUEZ, ET. AL. G.R. No.
181458, March 20, 2013

In rape cases, the moral character of the victim is immaterial. Physical resistance need not be established
in rape when threats and intimidation are employed, and the victim submits herself to her attacker
because of fear. Physical resistance is not an essential element of rape. Also, delay in revealing the
commission of a crime such as rape does not necessarily render such charge unworthy of belief. This is
because the victim may choose to keep quiet rather than expose her defilement to the cruelty of public
scrutiny. Only when the delay is unreasonable or unexplained may it work to discredit the complainant.
Neither does an inconclusive medical report negate the finding of rape. A medical examination of the
victim is not indispensable in a prosecution for rape inasmuch as the victim’s testimony alone, if credible,
is sufficient to convict the accused of the crime and the medical certificate will then be rendered as merely
corroborative. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. GILBERT PENILLA Y FRANCIA
G.R. No. 189324, March 20, 2013

Spouses Martires filed a Second Motion for Reconsideration and reckoned the 15 day period for filing an
appeal with the Supreme Court from the date the CA denied the Second Motion for Reconsideration.

Section 2, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court provides that a petition for review on certiorari under the said
Rule "shall be filed within fifteen (15) days from notice of the judgment or final order or resolution
appealed from or of the denial of the petitioner's motion for new trial or reconsideration filed in due time
after notice of the judgment." Relative thereto, Section 2, Rule 52 of the same Rules provides that "no
second motion for reconsideration of a judgment or final resolution by the same party shall be
entertained." Since a second motion for reconsideration is not allowed, then unavoidably, its filing does
not toll the running of the period to file an appeal by certiorari.

The validity of the contents and the regularity of the notarization of the Deed of Transfer were challenged.
A defective notarization will strip the document of its public character and reduce it to a private
instrument. When there is a defect in the notarization of a document, the clear and convincing evidentiary
standard normally attached to a duly-notarized document is dispensed with, and the measure to test the
validity of such document is preponderance of evidence. While indeed a notarized document enjoys the
presumption of regularity, the fact that a deed is notarized is not a guarantee of the validity of its contents.
The validity of the contents and execution of the subject Deed of Transfer were challenged in the
proceedings where its prima facie validity was subsequently overthrown by the questionable
circumstances attendant in its supposed execution. SPOUSES LEHNER AND LUDY MARTIRES v.
MENELIA CHUA. G.R. No. 174240, March 20, 2013.
Spouses Dinglasan filed an action for cancellation of title involving real property valued at Php. 4,000.00
with the RTC. Where the ultimate objective of the plaintiffs is to obtain title to real property, it should be
filed in the proper court having jurisdiction over the assessed value of the property subject thereof. Since
the amount alleged in the Complaint by Spouses Dinglasan for the disputed lot is only P4,000.00, the
MTC and not the RTC has jurisdiction over the action. Therefore, all proceedings in the RTC are null and
void. EDITHA PADLAN v. ELENITA DINGLASAN and FELISIMO DINGLASAN. G.R. No.
180321, March 20, 2013

It is to be noted that in case of substituted service, there should be a report indicating that the person who
received the summons in the defendant's behalf was one with whom the defendant had a relation of
confidence, ensuring that the latter would actually receive the summons.

It was not shown that the security guard who received the summons in behalf of Chu was authorized and
possessed a relation of confidence that Chu would definitely receive the summons. This is not the kind of
service contemplated by law. Thus, service on the security guard could not be considered as substantial
compliance with the requirements of substituted service. SIXTO N. CHU v. MACH ASIA TRADING
CORPORATION. G.R. No. 184333, April 1, 2013.

It is necessary for the petitioning government agency or its authorized representatives to certify against
forum shopping, because they, and not the OSG, are in the best position to know if another case is
pending before another court. If the OSG is compelled by circumstances to verify and certify the pleading
in behalf of a client agency, the OSG should at least endeavor to inform the courts of its reasons for doing
so, beyond simply citing cases where the Court allowed the OSG to sign the certification. CIVIL SERVICE
COMMISSION v. ARLIC ALMOJUELA. G.R. No. 194368, April 2, 2013

A petition for mandamus was filed to compel the Secretary of Justice to charge Dalandag for multiple
murder in relation to the Maguindanao massacre despite his admission to the Witness Protection
Program of the DOJ. In matters involving the exercise of judgment and discretion, mandamus cannot be
used to direct the manner or the particular way the judgment and discretion are to be exercised.
Consequently, the Secretary of Justice may be compelled by writ of mandamus to act on a letter-request
or a motion to include a person in the information, but may not be compelled by writ of mandamus to act
in a certain way, i.e., to grant or deny such letter-request or motion. DATU ANDAL AMPATUAN, JR. v.
SEC. LEILA DE LIMA, AS SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, et al. G.R. No. 197291,
April 3, 2013.

Under the established jurisprudence on litis pendentia, the following considerations predominate in the
ascending order of importance in determining which action should prevail: (1) the date of filing, with
preference generally given to the first action filed to be retained; (2) whether the action sought to be
dismissed was filed merely to preempt the later action or to anticipate its filing and lay the basis for its
dismissal; and (3) whether the action is the appropriate vehicle for litigating the issues between the
parties. There can be no doubt Civil Case No. CEB-35529 is the appropriate vehicle to determine the
rights of FDCP and SM Prime. FILM DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL OF THE PHILIPPINES v. SM PRIME
HOLDINGS, INC. G.R. No. 197937, April 3, 2013.

The mere failure to attach copies of the pleadings and other material portions of the record as would
support the allegations of the petition for review is not necessarily fatal as to warrant the outright denial of
due course when the clearly legible duplicate originals or true copies of the judgments or final orders of
both lower courts, certified correct by the clerk of court of the RTC, and other attachments of the petition
sufficiently substantiate the allegations. SEGUNDINA A. GALVEZ v. SPS. HONORIO C. MONTAÑO
AND SUSANA P. MONTAÑO, et al. G.R. No. 157445, April 3, 2013.

It has been consistently ruled that an accused is estopped from assailing any irregularity of his arrest if he
fails to raise this issue or to move for the quashal of the information against him on this ground before
arraignment. Any objection involving a warrant of arrest or the procedure by which the court acquired
jurisdiction over the person of the accused must be made before he enters his plea; otherwise, the
objection is deemed waived. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. WELVIN DIU y KOTSESA, et al. G.R.
No. 201449, April 3, 2013.

Spouses Ugay filed an action for quieting of title while Firaza, Jr. filed a counterclaim. Such counterclaim
is a permissible direct attack to the validity of the adverse party’s torrens title. As such counterclaim, it
involves a cause of action separate from that alleged in the complaint; it has for its purpose the
vindication of a right in as much as the complaint similarly seeks the redress of one. NEMESIO FIRAZA,
SR., v. SPS. CLAUDIO AND EUFRECENA UGAY. G.R. No. 165838, April 3, 2013.

A case which has been suspended for 8 years due to LBP’s opposition to the admission of an amended
and supplemental complaint may be continued. It is incumbent that trial should continue to settle the
issues between the parties once and for all. Court litigation which is primarily a search for truth must
proceed; and a liberal interpretation of the rules by which both parties are given the fullest opportunity to
adduce proofs is the best way to ferret out such truth. SPS. WELTCHIE RAYMUNDO AND EMILY
RAYMUNDO v. LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES., substituted by ASSET ASIA PACIFIC (SPV-
AMC) 2, INC. G.R. No. 195317, April 3, 2013.

In administrative cases involving the concurrent jurisdiction of two or more disciplining authorities, the
body where the complaint is filed first, and which opts to take cognizance of the case, acquires jurisdiction
to the exclusion of other tribunals exercising concurrent jurisdiction. In instances where a complaint
against a Punong Barangay is filed with the Ombudsman first, the Office of the Ombudsman exercises
jurisdiction over the complaint to the exclusion of the Sandiganbayan, which exercises concurrent
jurisdiction. FRANKLIN ALEJANDRO v. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN FACT-FINDING AND
INTELLIGENCE BUREAU. G.R. No. 173121, April 3, 2013.

Under the 1964 Rules of Court, notice of the execution sale to the judgment obligor was not required, or
was merely optional; publication and posting sufficed. It was only in 1987 that the Court, via Circular No. 8
amending Rule 39, Section 18 of the Rules of Court, required that written notice be given to the judgment
debtor. MARCELINO AND VITALIANA DALANGIN v. CLEMENTE PEREZ, et al. G.R. No. 178758,
April 3, 2013.

Objection to evidence cannot be raised for the first time on appeal; when a party desires the court to
reject the evidence offered, he must so state in the form of an objection. Without such objection, he
cannot raise the question for the first time on appeal. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. GERRY
OCTAVIO y FLORENDO and REYNALDO CARIÑO y MARTI. G.R. No. 199219, April 3, 2013.

The purchaser remains entitled to a writ of possession, without prejudice, of course, to the eventual
outcome of the pending annulment case. Otherwise stated, the issuance of the writ of possession
remains the ministerial duty of the RTC until the issues raised in the annulment case are, once and for all,
decided by a court of competent jurisdiction. SPS. MONTANO T. TOLOSA AND MERLINDA TOLOSA v.
UNITED COCONUT PLANTERS BANK. G.R. No. 183058, April 3, 2013.

The testimony of a rape victim must be given weight and credence. When the issue focuses on the
credibility of the witnesses or the lack of it, the assessment of the trial court is controlling because of its
unique opportunity to observe the witness and the latter’s demeanor, conduct, and attitude especially
during the cross-examination unless cogent reasons dictate otherwise. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
v. EDMUNDO VITERO. G.R. No. 175327, April 3, 2013.

The indeterminateness of the identities of the individuals who could have handled the sachet of shabu
after PO1 Dimla’s marking broke the chain of custody, and tainted the integrity of the shabu ultimately
presented as evidence to the trial court. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ALBERTO GONZALES y
SANTOS aka TAKYO. G.R. No. 182417, April 3, 2013

The non-joinder of indispensable parties is not a ground for the dismissal of an action. At any stage of a
judicial proceeding and/or at such times as are just, parties may be added on the motion of a party or on
the initiative of the tribunal concerned. If the plaintiff refuses to implead an indispensable party despite the
order of the court, that court may dismiss the complaint for the plaintiff’s failure to comply with the order.
The remedy is to implead the non-party claimed to be indispensable. HEIRS OF FAUSTINO MESINA
and GENOVEVA S. MESINA, rep. by NORMAN MESINA v. HEIRS OF DOMINGO FIAN, SR., rep. by
THERESA FIAN YRAY, et al.
G.R. No. 201816, April 8, 2013

An order for extrajudicial foreclosure given by an executive judge in the exercise of her administrative
function is not a civil action of the Regional Trial Courts that may be the proper subject of an action for
annulment of judgment under Rule 47 of the Rules of Court.

A petition for the issuance of a writ of possession cannot be consolidated with an action for annulment of
mortgage where title to the property has already been consolidated in favor of the mortgagor following the
expiration of the one year redemption period except when title has not yet consolidated in favor of the
mortgagor and this presumed right of ownership is contested and made the basis of another action, in
which case, the actions must be consolidated.

It suffices, according to Altres v. Empleo, that the verification and certification was signed by at least one
of Ingles, et al.who was competent to do so. The certiorari petition was verified by Josefina and Hector F.
Ingles—both of whom the Court finds competent to attest to the truth of the allegations of their petition,
considering that they are unquestionably principal parties-in-interest to their certiorari petition. JOSEFINA
F. INGLES, et al. v. HON. ESTRELLA T. ESTRADA, etc., et al./JOSEFINA F. INGLES, et al. v. HON.
ARSENIO J. MAGPALE, etc., et al./JOSEFINA F. INGLES, et al. v. CHARLES J. ESTEBANG.R. No.
141809/G.R. No. 147186/G.R. No. 173641, April 8, 2013

Findings of fact of the trial court are not to be disturbed on appeal since conclusions as to the credibility of
witnesses in rape cases depends heavily on the sound judgment of the trial court which is in a better
position to decide the question, having heard the witnesses and observed their deportment and manner of
testifying. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. MANUEL TOLENTINO y CATACUTAN. G.R. No. 187740,
April 10, 2013.

In instances where appeals are filed out of time, appeal fees paid on the day of promulgation of a
resolution, or when issues not raised in the pleadings are admitted, the Revised Rules on Administrative
Cases in the Civil Service themselves provide that administrative investigations shall be conducted
without strict recourse to the technical rules of procedure and evidence applicable to judicial
proceedings. FRANCISCO C. ADALIM v. ERNESTO TANINAS, et al. G.R. No. 198682, April 10, 2013.

The Heirs of Lazaro Gallardo are immediate relatives, who share a common interest in the property
subject of the action and the fact that only one of the heirs executed the verification or certification of non-
forum shopping will not deter the court from proceeding with the action. HEIRS OF LAZARO
GALLARDO, et al. v. PORFERIO SOLIMAN, et al.G.R. No. 178952, April 10, 2013.

Boardwalk’s appeal was not perfected because of its failure to timely file the Petition and to pay the
docket and other lawful fees before the proper court which is the CA. The perfection of an appeal in the
manner and within the period set by law is not only mandatory but jurisdictional as well, hence failure to
perfect the same renders the judgment final and executory. BOARDWALK BUSINESS VENTURES, INC.
v. ELVIRA A. VILLAREAL (deceased) substituted by REYNALDO P. VILLAREAL, JR., et al. G.R. No.
181182, April 10, 2013.

The obligation of a court to issue a writ of possession in favor of the purchaser in an extrajudicial
foreclosure sale ceases to be ministerial, once it appears that there is a third party who is in possession of
the property and is claiming a right adverse to that of the debtor/mortgagor. ROYAL SAVINGS BANK,
formerly COMSAVINGS BANK, now GSIS FAMILY BANK v. FERNANDO ASIA, et al. G.R. No.
183658, April 10, 2013

Although the RTC has legal basis under A.M. No. 01-10-5-SC-PHILJA in relation to Section 5, Rule 18 of
the Rules of Court to order the dismissal of the case, the Court finds this sanction too severe to be
imposed on PMMA where the records of the case is devoid of evidence of willful or flagrant disregard of
the rules on mediation proceedings. SANDOVAL SHIPYARDS, INC., and RIMPORT INDUSTRIES, INC.,
represented by ENGR. REYNALDO G. IMPORTANTE v. PHILIPPINE MERCHANT MARINE
ACADEMY (PMMA) G.R. No. 188633, April 10, 2013.

No appeal can be had of the trial court's judgment in a summary proceeding for the declaration of
presumptive death of an absent spouse under Article 41 of the Family Code. It goes without saying,
however, that an aggrieved party may file a petition for certiorari to question abuse of discretion
amounting to lack of jurisdiction. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ROBERT P. NARCEDA. G.R. No.
182760, April 10, 2013

Non-compliance with Sec. 21, R.A. 9165 does not necessarily render the arrest illegal or the items seized
inadmissible because what is essential is that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are
preserved which would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused. PEOPLE
OF THE PHILIPPINES v. LOLITA QUESIDO y BADARANG. G.R. No. 189351, April 10, 2013

To allow the presentation of evidence on a piece-meal basis, thereby needlessly causing a delay in the
resolution of the case would be anathema to the purpose of delivering justice. ALBERT CHUA, JIMMY
CHUA CHI LEONG and SPOUSES EDUARDO SOLIS and GLORIA VICTA v. B.E. SAN DIEGO,
INC./LORENZANA FOOD CORPORATION v. B.E. SAN DIEGO, INC. G.R. No. 165863/G.R. No.
165875. April 10, 2013

Jurisprudence dictates that an affidavit is merely hearsay evidence where its affiant/maker did not take
the witness stand. The affidavit was not identified and its averments were not affirmed by affiant Ignacio.
Accordingly, Exhibit "3" must be excluded from the judicial proceedings being an inadmissible hearsay
evidence. Exhibit "4," on the other hand, is considered secondary evidence being a mere photocopy
which, in this case, cannot be admitted to prove the contents of the purported undated handwritten
receipt. ROGELIO DANTIS v. JULIO MAGHINANG, JR. G.R. No. 191696, April 10, 2013.

Under Section 17, Rule 132 of the 1997 Rules of Court, when part of a writing or record is given in
evidence by one party, the whole of the same subject may be inquired into by the other, and when a
detached writing or record is given in evidence, any other writing or record necessary to its understanding
may also be given in evidence. EAGLERIDGE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, MARCELO N.
NAVAL and CRISPIN I. OBEN v. CAMERON GRANVILLE 3 ASSET MANAGEMENT, INC. G.R. No.
204700, April 10, 2013.

A preliminary injunction is proper only when the plaintiff appears to be clearly entitled to the relief sought
and has substantial interest in the right sought to be defended. Factually, there must exist a right to be
protected and that the acts against which the writ is to be directed are violative of the said right.  As the
Supreme Court has previously ruled, while the existence of the right need not be conclusively established,
it must be clear. THE SPECIAL AUDIT TEAM, COMMISSION ON AUDIT v. COURT OF APPEALS AND
GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM. G.R. No. 174788, April 11, 2013

The doctrine of res judicata applies only to judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings, and not to the exercise of
administrative powers. Administrative powers here refer to those purely administrative in nature, as
opposed to administrative proceedings that take on a quasi-judicial character. CARLITO C. ENCINAS v.
PO1 ALFREDO P. AGUSTIN, JR., and PO1 JOEL S. CAUBANG. G.R. No. 187317, April 11, 2013

A complaint for the consignation of a loan payment of a subdivision lot does not fall within the jurisdiction
of the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board. Consignation is necessarily judicial, as the Civil Code
itself provides that consignation shall be made by depositing the thing or things due at the disposal of
judicial authority. SPOUSES OSCAR AND THELMA CACAYORIN v. ARMED FORCES AND POLICE
MUTUAL BENEFIT ASSOCIATION, INC. G.R. No. 171298, April 15, 2013.

A petition filed under Rule 45 required the evaluation of the factual findings of the RTC and the CA. The
question, to be one of law, must rest solely on what the law provides on the given set of circumstances
and should avoid the scrutiny of the probative value of the parties’ evidence. Once the issue invites a
review of the factual findings of the RTC and of the CA, as in this case, the question posed is one of fact
that is proscribed in a Rule 45 petition. RICARDO CHU, JR. and DY KOK ENG v. MELANIA CAPARAS
and SPOUSES RUEL AND HERMENEGILDA PEREZ. G.R. No. 175428, April 15, 2013.

A person who occupies the land of another at the latter’s tolerance or permission, without any contract
between them, is bound by an implied promise that he will vacate the same upon demand, failing which a
summary action for ejectment is the proper remedy against him. REY CASTIGADOR CATEDRILLA v.
MARIO and MARGIE LAURON. G.R. No. 179011, April 15, 2013.

An Arbitration Committee rendered a decision which was contested by the other party as a judgment or a
final order under the Labor Code, hence the Rules of Court do not apply. A decision or award of a
voluntary arbitrator is appealable to the CA via a petition for review under Rule 43. Upon receipt of
the Voluntary Arbitrator’s Resolution denying RPWU’s motion for reconsideration, RPWU should have
filed with the CA, within the fifteen (15)-day reglementary period, a petition for review, not a petition for
certiorari. ROYAL PLANT WORKERS UNION v. COCA-COLA BOTTLERS PHILIPPINES, INC. G.R.
No. 198783, April 15, 2013

The writ of amparo’s curative role is an acknowledgment that the violation of the right to life, liberty, and
security may be caused not only by a public official’s act, but also by his omission. Accountability may
attach to Arroyo, et al. who are imputed with knowledge relating to the enforced disappearance and who
carry the burden of disclosure; or those who carry, but have failed to discharge, the burden of
extraordinary diligence in the investigation of the enforced disappearance. The duty to investigate must
be undertaken in a serious manner and not as a mere formality preordained to be ineffective. N THE
MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR THE WRIT OF AMPARO AND HABEAS DATA IN FAVOR OF
NORIEL RODRIGUEZ: NORIEL RODRIGUEZ v. GLORIA MACAPAGAL ARROYO, et al. G.R. No.
191805/G.R. No. 193160, April 16, 2013.

Intervention of a rival candidate in a disqualification case is proper when

there has not yet been any proclamation of the winner. CASAN MACODE MAQUILING v. COMMISSION
ON ELECTIONS, ROMMEL ARNADO y CAGOCO, LINOG G. BALUA
G.R. No. 195649, April 16, 2013.

A direct invocation of the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction is allowed only when there are special and
important reasons that are clearly and specifically set forth in a petition. A disregard of the doctrine of
hierarchy of courts warrants, as a rule, the outright dismissal of a petition. EMMANUEL A. DE CASTRO
v. EMERSON S. CARLOS. G.R. No. 194994, April 16, 2013
CJ Sereno

The Supreme Court’s jurisdiction to review decisions and orders of electoral tribunals is exercised only
upon showing of grave abuse of discretion committed by the tribunal. Otherwise, the Supreme Court shall
not interfere with the electoral tribunal’s exercise of its discretion or jurisdiction. AGAPAY NG
INDIGENOUS PEOPLE RIGHTS ALLIANCE (A-IPRA) v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, et al. G.R.
No. 204591, April 16, 2013

Issues raised for the first time in a motion for reconsideration before the Supreme Court are deemed
waived, because these should have been brought up at the first opportunity. PAGLAUM MANAGEMENT
& DEVELOPMENT CORP. AND HEALTH MARKETING TECHNOLOGIES, INC. v. UNION BANK OF
THE PHILIPPINES, NOTARY PUBLIC JOHN DOE, AND REGISTER OF DEEDS OF CEBU CITY AND
CEBU PROVINCE; J. KING & SONS. CO., INC. G.R. No. 179018, April 17, 2013.

Funds coming from private sources become impressed with the characteristics of public funds when they
are under official custody. In Mamba v. Lara, it has been held that a taxpayer need not be a party to the
contract to challenge its validity; as long as taxes are involved, people have a right to question contracts
entered into by the government. LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES v. EDUARDO M. CACAYURAN.
G.R. No. 191667, April 17, 2013
Under the Dead Man's Statute Rule, if one party to the alleged transaction is precluded from testifying by
death, insanity, or other mental disabilities, the other party is not entitled to the undue advantage of giving
his own uncontradicted and unexplained account of the transaction. Thus, the alleged admission of the
deceased Pedro Caparas that he entered into a sharing of leasehold rights with Modesta Garcia and
Cristina Salamat cannot be used as evidence against Dominga Caparas as the latter would be unable to
contradict or disprove the same. APOLONIO GARCIA, in substitution of his deceased mother,
Modesta Garcia, and CRISTINA SALAMAT v. DOMINGA ROBLES vda de CAPARAS. G.R. No.
180843, April 17, 2013.

Stare decisis simply means that for the sake of certainty, a conclusion reached in one case should be
applied to those that follow if the facts are substantially the same, even though the parties may be
different. Thus, where the same questions relating to the same event have been put forward by the
parties similarly situated as in a previous case litigated and decided by a competent court, the rule of
stare decisis is a bar to any attempt to relitigate the same issue. AMELIA AQUINO, et al. v. PHILIPPINE
PORTS AUTHORITY. G.R. No. 181973, April 17, 2013.

It is well-settled that the sole issue in ejectment cases is physical or material possession of the subject
property, independent of any claim of ownership by the parties. The argument of Spouses Abacan that
they subsequently acquired ownership of the subject property cannot be considered as a supervening
event that will bar the execution of the questioned judgment, as unlawful detainer does not deal with the
issue of ownership. HOLY TRINITY REALTY AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. SPOUSES
CARLOS ABACAN AND ELIZABETH ABACAN. G.R. No. 183858, April 17, 2013

It must be stated that the purpose of an action of forcible entry and detainer is that, regardless of the
actual condition of the title to the property, the party in peaceable quiet possession shall not be turned out
by strong hand, violence or terror. SPOUSES ARMANDO SILVERIO, SR. and REMEDIOS SILVERIO v.
SPOUSES RICARDO and EVELYN MARCELO/SPOUSES EVELYN and RICARDO MARCELO v.
SPOUSES ARMANDO SILVERI, SR. and REMEDIOS SILVERIO. G.R. Nos. 184079/184490, April 17,
2013.

The existence of doubt or obscurity in the title of the person or persons claiming ownership of the
properties to be expropriated would not preclude the commencement of the action nor prevent the court
from assuming jurisdiction thereof. The Rules merely require, in such eventuality, that the entity
exercising the right of eminent domain should state in the complaint that the true ownership of the
property cannot be ascertained or specified with accuracy. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES,
represented by the DEPARTMENT FO THE PUBLIC WORKS AND HIGHWAYS (DPWH) v. SPOUSES
WILLIAM AND REBECCA GENATO. G.R. No. 187677, April 17, 2013.

The failure of police officers to mark the items seized from an accused in illegal drugs cases immediately
upon its confiscation at the place of arrest does not automatically impair the integrity of the chain of
custody and render the confiscated items inadmissible in evidence. Marking upon immediate confiscation
contemplates even marking at the nearest police station or office of the apprehending team. PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES v. DANTE L. DUMALAG. G.R. No. 180514, April 17, 2013

The granduncle, or more specifically the brother of the victim’s grandfather, is a relative of the victim in
the fourth civil degree, and is thus not covered by Article 266-B, paragraph 5(1) of the Revised Penal
Code. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ALBERTO DELIGERO y BACASMOT. G.R. No. 189280,
April 17, 2013

Despite the failure of the apprehending officers to make an inventory of and to photograph the items
seized from Aguilar, they were nevertheless able to prove that the integrity and evidentiary value of the
evidence had been preserved, the chain of custody of such items, having been adequately established in
the case at bar. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. MARILYN AGUILAR y MANZANILLO. G.R. No.
191396, April 17, 2013
In the absence of objection, and as a matter of convenience to all parties, a court may properly treat all or
any part of the original record of a case filed in its archives as read into the record of a case pending
before it, when, with the knowledge of the opposing party, reference is made to it for that purpose, by
name and number or in some other manner by which it is sufficiently designated; or when the original
record of the former case or any part of it, is actually withdrawn from the archives by the court's direction,
at the request or with the consent of the parties, and admitted as a part of the record of the case then
pending. SPOUSES FELIX CHINGKOE and ROSITA CHINGKOE v. SPOUSES FAUSTINO CHINGKOE
and GLORIA CHINGKOE. G.R. No. 185518, April 17, 2013.

Fujiki, Marinay’s first spouse, filed an action for recognition of a foreign judgment nullifying the second
bigamous marriage of her marriage to Maekara. The recognition of the foreign judgment nullifying a
bigamous marriage is a subsequent event that establishes a new status, right and fact  that needs to be
reflected in the civil registry.

However, the recognition of a foreign judgment nullifying a bigamous marriage is without prejudice to
prosecution for bigamy under Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code. The recognition of a foreign
judgment nullifying a bigamous marriage is not a ground for extinction of criminal liability under Articles 89
and 94 of the Revised Penal Code. Moreover, under Article 91 of the Revised Penal Code, "the term of
prescription of the crime of bigamy shall not run when the offender is absent from the Philippine
archipelago." MINORU FUJIKI v. MARIA PAZ GALELA MARINAY, SHINICHI MAEKARA, LOCAL
CIVIL REGISTRAR OF QUEZON CITY, and the ADMINISTRATOR AND CIVIL REGISTRAR
GENERAL OF THE NATIONAL STATISTICS OFFICE. G.R. No. 196049, June 26, 2013

After Mercado was granted immunity and placed under the witness protection program, the
Sandiganbayan refused to recognize his immunity by declining to discharge him from the information as a
state witness. The authority to grant immunity is not an inherent judicial function. Indeed, Congress has
vested such power in the Ombudsman as well as in the Secretary of Justice. Besides, the decision to
employ an accused as a state witness must necessarily originate from the public prosecutors whose
mission is to obtain a successful prosecution of the several accused before the courts. Courts should
generally defer to the judgment of the prosecution and deny a motion to discharge an accused so he can
be used as a witness only in clear cases of failure to meet the requirements of Section 17, Rule 119.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. THE HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN (FOURTH DIVISION),
ANTONIO P. BELICENA, ULDARICO P. ANDUTAN, JR., RAUL C. DE VERA, ROSANNA P. DIALA
and JOSEPH A. CABOTAJE. G.R. Nos. 185729-32, June 26, 2013. J. Abad

For a question to be one of law, it must not involve an examination of the probative value of the evidence
presented by the parties or any of them. Otherwise stated, there is a question of law when the issue
arises as to what the law is on a certain state of facts; there is a question of fact when the issue involves
the truth or falsehood of alleged facts. In the present case, the controversy arises not from the findings
made by Hammonia and Dorchester’s physicians which contradict the fit-to-work certification of the
company-designated physician; it arises from the application of the law and jurisprudence on the
conflicting assessments of the two sets of physicians. PHILIPPINE HAMMONIA SHIP AGENCY, INC.
and DORCHESTER MARINE, LTD. v. EULOGIO DUMADAG. G.R. No. 194362, June 26, 2013.

Abdul was convicted despite the evidentiary gaps in the testimonies of the police officers. The chain-of-
custody rule is a method of authenticating evidence, by which the corpus delicti presented in court is
shown to be one and the same as that which was retrieved from the accused or from the crime scene.
Two crucial links must be complied with. First, the seized illegal drug must be marked in the presence of
the accused and immediately upon confiscation. This marking must be supported by details on how,
when, and where the marking was done, as well as the witnesses to the marking. Second, the turnover of
the seized drugs at every stage – from confiscation from the accused, transportation to the police station,
conveyance to the chemistry lab, and presentation to the court  must be shown and substantiated.

It was a grave error for the CA to rule that there was an unbroken chain of custody simply because the
plastic sachet had been marked, inventoried, sent to the crime laboratory for analysis, and found positive
for shabu, despite the fact that the integrity of the confiscated item throughout the entire process had
never been established. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. DATU NOT ABDUL. G.R. No. 186137, June
26, 2013.

The CIAC rendered an arbitral award that was appealed to the CA through a Petition for Review under
Rule 43. With the amendments introduced by R.A. No. 7902 and promulgation of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure, as amended, the CIAC was included in the enumeration of quasijudicial agencies whose
decisions or awards may be appealed to the CA in a petition for review under Rule 43. Such review of the
CIAC award may involve either questions of fact, of law, or of fact and law. J PLUS ASIA
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. UTILITY ASSURANCE CORPORATION. G.R. No. 199650, June
26, 2013.

A petition was filed to assail a CA decision rendered under Rule 65 where it failed to pass upon the
intrinsic correctness of the NLRC decision. In reviewing the legal correctness of a CA decision rendered
under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, the Court examines the CA decision from the prism of whether it
correctly determined the presence or absence of grave abuse of discretion in the NLRC decision before it,
and not strictly on the basis of whether the NLRC decision under review is intrinsically
correct. POSEIDON INTERNATIONAL MARITIME SERVICES, INC. v. TITO R. TAMALA, FELIPE S.
SAURIN, JR. ARTEMIO A. BO-OC and JOEL S. FERNANDEZ. G.R. No. 186475, June 26, 2013

Under the requirements, it is clear that only fifteen (15) days may initially be requested, not the thirty (30)
days petitioner requested. The petitioner cannot also assume that his motion has been granted if the CA
did not immediately act.In any case, the late response cannot be used as an excuse to delay the filing of
its pleading as a party cannot make any assumption on how his motion would be resolved. Precisely, a
motion is submitted to the court for resolution and we cannot allow any assumption that it would be
granted. WILSON T. GO v. BPI FINANCE CORPORATION. G.R. No. 199354, June 26, 2013
The Supreme Court has been regular in its declaration that "inconsistencies in a rape victim’s testimony
do not impair her credibility, especially if the inconsistencies refer to trivial matters that do not alter the
essential fact of the commission of rape."Besides, the task of evaluating the credibility of the witnesses
and their testimonies is best left to the RTC, which had the opportunity to scrutinize the witnesses directly
during the trial. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ROMAN ZAFRA y SERRANO.G.R. No. 197363,
June 26, 2013.

Determination of probable cause may be either executive or judicial. The first is made by the public
prosecutor, during a preliminary investigation, where he is given broad discretion to determine whether
probable cause exists for the purpose of filing a criminal information in court.The second is one made by
the judge to ascertain whether a warrant of arrest should be issued against the accused. VIRGINIA DE
LOS SANTOS-DIO, as authorized representative of H.S. EQUITIES, LTD., and WESTDALE ASSETS,
LTD. v. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, JUDGE RAMON S. CAGUIOA, in his capacity as
Presiding Judge of Branch 74, Regional Trial Court, Olongapo City, and TIMOTHY J. DESMOND
G.R. No. 178947, June 26, 2013PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. TIMOTHY J. DESMOND. G.R. No.
179079, June 26, 2013.

When the witness rendered a clear and direct narration of the details of the buy-bust operation from the
moment the team was organized, upon receipt of the information from the confidential informant, to the
time the shabu was marked and turned over to the crime laboratory for examination, andabsent any
showing of ill-motive or bad faith on the part of the arresting officers, as in this case where accused-
appellant testified that he did not know any of the members of the team, the doctrine of presumption of
regularity in the performance of official duty finds application. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. PETER
LINDA y GEROLAGA G.R. No. 200507, June 26, 2013

The defense of the accused that she was arrested without a valid warrant, thus making the seized items
the fruit of the poisonous tree, should fail, especially when the arrest falls under the instances when a
valid warrantless arrest can be made. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. MONICA MENDOZA y
TRINIDAD. G.R. No. 191267, June 26, 2013

We have reiterated in jurisprudence that when the credibility of a witness is in issue, the findings of fact of
the trial court, its calibration of the testimonies of the witnesses and its assessment of the probative
weight thereof, as well as its conclusions anchored on said findings are accorded high respect if not
conclusive effect. This is more true if such findings were affirmed by the appellate court, since it is settled
that when the trial court’s findings have been affirmed by the appellate court, said findings are generally
binding upon this Court. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. RAMIL MORES. G.R. No. 189846, June 26,
2013.

A written admission, even if given without the assistance of counsel, can be admitted in evidence. More
so in this case, as petitioner’s written statement was given during an administrative inquiry conducted by
his employer in connection with an anomaly/irregularity he allegedly committed in the course of his
employment, and not during custodial investigation. CARLOS L. TANENGGEE v. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES. G.R. No. 179448, June 26, 2013

The allegation of petitioners that they are not the owners of the subject property, thus making them
unable to remove the installed surveillance cameras on the corporation’s building, cannot be upheld
especially when the corporation who is managed by the family of petitioners. They are thus considered
parties-in-interest in the present case. SPOUSES BILL AND VICTORIA HING v. ALEXANDER
CHOACHUY, SR. and ALLAN CHOACHUY. G.R. No. 179736, June 26, 2013.

Respondent had no right to claim prescription because a CLT had already been issued in favor of
petitioner. The farm is considered expropriated and placed under the coverage of the land reform law. As
such, respondent had neither the right to evict petitioner nor to claim prescription. RAYMUNDO
CODERIAS, as represented by his Attorney-In-Fact, MARLON M. CODERIAS v. ESTATE OF JUAN
CIDOCO, represented by its Administrator, DR. RAUL R. CARAG. G.R. No. 180476, June 26, 2013
It must be emphasized that the COMELEC is not bound to strictly adhere to the technical rules of
procedure in the presentation of evidence. Under Section 2 of Rule I, the COMELEC Rules of Procedure
"shall be liberally construed in order x xx to achieve just, expeditious and inexpensive determination and
disposition of every action and proceeding brought before the Commission." In view of the fact that the
proceedings in a petition to deny due course or to cancel certificate of candidacy are summary in nature,
then the "newly discovered evidence" was properly admitted by respondent COMELEC. REGINA
ONGSIAKO REYES v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and JOSEPH SOCORRO B. TAN. G.R. No.
207264, June 25, 2013

In order for the Court to acquire jurisdiction over an administrative case, the complaint must be filed
during the incumbency of the respondent. Once jurisdiction is acquired, it is not lost by reason of
respondent’s cessation from office. Respondent’s cessation from office x x x does not warrant the
dismissal of the administrative complaint filed against him while he was still in the service nor does it
render said administrative case moot and academic. The Court’s jurisdiction at the time of the filing of the
administrative complaint is not lost by the mere fact that the respondent had ceased in office during the
pendency of the case. OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. RETIRED JUDGE GUILLERMO
ANDAYA. A.M. No. RTJ-09-2181, June 25, 2013.

Inspite of its designation as a family court, the RTC of Bacolod City remains possessed of authority as a
court of general original jurisdiction to pass upon all kinds of cases whether civil, criminal, special
proceedings, land registration, guardianship, naturalization, admiralty or insolvency. It is settled that
RTCs have jurisdiction to resolve the constitutionality of a statute, "this authority being embraced in the
general definition of the judicial power to determine what are the valid and binding laws by the criterion of
their conformity to the fundamental law." JESUS C. GARCIA v. THE HONORABLE RAY ALAN T.
DRILON, Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court-Branch 41, Bacolod City, and ROSALIE JAYPE-
GARCIA, for herself and in behalf of minor children, namely: JO-ANN, JOSEPH EDUARD, JESSE
ANTHONE, all surnamed GARCIA. G.R. No. 179267, June 25, 2013.

While the share was bought by Sime Darby and placed under the name of Mendoza, his title is only
limited to the usufruct, or the use and enjoyment of the club’s facilities and privileges while employed with
the company.Despite being informed by Sime Darby to stop using the facilities and privileges of the club
share, Mendoza continued to do so. Thus, in order to prevent further damage and prejudice to itself, Sime
Darby properly sought injunction in this case. SIME DARBY PILIPINAS, INC. v. JESUS B.MENDOZA.
G.R. No. 202247, June 19, 2013

In a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, only questions of law may be put into issue while in a
petition for certiorari under Rule 65, only questions of jurisdiction may be inquired into. CENTURY IRON
WORKS, INC. and BENITO CHUA v. ELETO B. BANAS. G.R. No. 184116, June 19, 2013.

PD 27 encompasses only rice and corn land, i.e., agricultural lands primarily devoted to rice and corn
under a system of sharecrop or lease-tenancy. In the instant case, since the landholdings cultivated by
respondents are primarily devoted to vegetable production, it is definitely outside the coverage, and
necessarily cannot properly be placed under the umbrella, of PD 27. Thus, as the RARAD found, the
landholdings cultivated by respondents which are portions of the subject lot were improperly placed under
PD 27 through OLT. CONRADA O. ALMAGRO v. SPS. MANUEL AMAYA, SR. and LUCILA
MERCADO, JESUS MERCADO, SR., and RICARDO MERCADO G.R. No. 179685, June 19, 2013

The finding of the credibility of the testimonies of the arresting officers should prevail over the testimonies
of the accused-appellant and his friend-witnesses especially so when their respective testimonies were
inconsistent on material points. Even assuming that these were not substantial enough to doubt the
credibility of the testimonies of the defense witnesses, we cannot simply disregard the contradicting
testimonies of the accused-appellant on one hand and his witnesses on the other as to the place where
the arrest was made. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. FERDINAND CASTRO. G.R. No. 195777,
June 19, 2013.
The question as to what part of the body of the accused did the police officers recover the money does
not dissolve the elements of illegal sale and possession as minor inconsistencies do not negate or
dissolve the eyewitnesses’ positive identification of the appellant as the perpetrator of the crime. Minor
inconsistencies in the narration of the arresting officers do not detract from their essential credibility as
long as their testimony on the whole is coherent and intrinsically believable. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES v. BENEDICT HOMAKY LUCIO. G.R. No. 191391, June 19, 2013.

The law of the case has been defined as the opinion delivered on a former appeal. It means that whatever
is once irrevocably established the controlling legal rule of decision between the same parties in the same
case continues to be the law of the case whether correct on general principles or not, so long as the facts
on which such decision was predicated continue to be the facts of the case before the court. SPOUSES
MANUEL SY AND VICTORIA SY v. GENALYN D. YOUNG. G.R. No. 169214, June 19, 2013.

The clarification provided in A.M. 00-2-14-SC actually covers a situation where the due date falls on a
Saturday, Sunday, or holiday. Precisely, what such clarification wanted to address is the erroneous claim
that "the period of extension" in such a case "is to be reckoned from the next working day and not from
the original expiration of the period." The correct rule, according to the clarification, is that "any extension
of time to file the required pleading should x x x be counted from the expiration of the period regardless of
the fact that said due date is a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday." REINIER PACIFIC INTERNATIONAL
SHIPPING, INC. and NEPTUNE SHIP MANAGEMENT SVCS, PTE., LTD. v. CAPTAIN FRANCISCO
B.GUEVARRA. G.R. No. 157020, June 19, 2013.

The trial court did not commit grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it
denied the motion to dismiss filed by the respondent. Since respondent’s motion to dismiss was filed
after petitioner has completed the presentation of its evidence in the trial court, we can say that the filing
of the motion to dismiss was a mere ploy on the part of respondent to delay the prompt resolution of the
case against her. BOSTON EQUITY RESOURCES, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS AND LOLITA G.
TOLEDO. G.R. No. 173946, June 19, 2013.

In petitions for review under Rule 45, only questions of law must be raised.It is elementary rule that the
Supreme Court is not a trier of facts and this doctrine applies with greater force in labor cases. Here, the
findings of the Labor Arbiter, on one hand, and the NLRC and the Court of Appeals, on the other, are
conflicting, thus we are constrained to determine the facts of the case. CONCRETE SOLUTIONS,
INC./PRIMARY STRUCTURES CORPORATION, represented by ANASTACIO G. ARDIENTE, JR. v.
ARTHUR CABUSAS. G.R. No. 177812, June 19, 2013.

The CA can grant a petition when the factual findings complained of are not supported by the evidence on
record; when it is necessary to prevent a substantial wrong or to do substantial justice; when the findings
of the NLRC contradict those of the LA; and when necessary to arrive at a just decision of the case. Thus,
contrary to the contention of petitioner, the CA can review the finding of facts of the NLRC and the
evidence of the parties to determine whether the NLRC gravely abused its discretion in finding that there
was no illegal dismissal against respondent. UNIVAC DEVELOPMENT INC. v. WILLIAM M. SORIANO.
G.R. No. 182072, June 19, 2013.

The disputable presumptions provided under Rule 131, Sec. 3 operate against an adversary who has not
introduced proof to rebut them. They create the necessity of presenting evidence to rebut the prima facie
case they created, and which, if no proof to the contrary is presented and offered, will prevail. The burden
of proof remains where it is but, by the presumption, the one who has that burden is relieved for the time
being from introducing evidence in support of the averment, because the presumption stands in the place
of evidence unless rebutted. HOSPICIO D. ROSAROSO, ANTONIO D. ROSAROSO, MANUEL D.
ROSAROSO, ALGERICA D. ROSAROSO, and CLEOFE R. LABINDAO v. LUCILA LABORTE SORIA,
SPOUSES HAM SOLUTAN and LAILA SOLUTAN, and MERIDIAN REALTY CORPORATION. G.R.
No. 194846, June 19, 2013.

Courts of law are precluded from disturbing the findings of public prosecutors and the DOJ on the
existence or non-existence of probable cause for the purpose of filing criminal informations, unless such
findings are tainted with grave abuse of discretion, amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. The
rationale behind the general rule rests on the principle of separation of powers. On the other hand, the
courts could intervene in the Secretary of Justice’s determination of probable cause only through a
special civil action for certiorari. That happens when the Secretary of Justice acts in a limited sense like a
quasi-judicial officer of the executive department exercising powers akin to those of a court of law. But the
requirement for such intervention was still for the petitioner to demonstrate clearly that the Secretary of
Justice committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. IRIS KRISTINE
BALOIS ALBERTO and BENJAMIN D. BALOIS v. THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS, ATTY.
RODRIGO A. REYNA, ARTURO S. CALIANGA, GIL ANTHONY M. CALIANGA, JESSEBEL
CALIANGA, and GRACE EVANGELISTA. G.R. No. 182130, June 19, 2013. THE SECRETARY OF
JUSTICE, THE CITY PROSECUTOR OF MUNTINLUPA, THE PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE REGIONAL
TRIAL COURT OF MUNTINLUPA CITY, BENJAMIN D. BALOIS, and IRIS KRISTINE BALOIS
ALBERTO v. ATTY. RODRIGO A. REYNA, ARTURO S. CALIANGA, GIL ANTHONY M. CALIANGA,
JESSEBEL CALIANGA, and GRACE EVANGELISTA. G.R. No. 182132, June 19, 2013.

The test for determining whether the supposed error was one of "law" or "fact" is not the appellation given
by the parties raising the same; rather, it is whether the reviewing court can resolve the issues raised
without evaluating the evidence, in which case, it is a question of law; otherwise, it is one of fact. In other
words, where there is no dispute as to the facts, the question of whether or not the conclusions drawn
from these facts are correct is a question of law. BASES CONVERSION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
v. ROSA REYES, CENANDO, REYES and CARLOS REYES. G.R. No. 194247, June 19, 2013.

As to the credibility of witnesses, the trial judge can better determine if witnesses are telling the truth,
being in the ideal position to weigh conflicting testimonies. Unless certain facts of substance and value
were overlooked which, if considered, might affect the result of the case, its assessment must be
respected for it had the opportunity to observe the conduct and demeanor of the witnesses while testifying
and detect if they were lying. Moreover, even if there are no eyewitnesses to the commission of the
crime, especially so if the crime is rape, circumstantial evidence may be resorted to by the courts.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. BERNESTO DELA CRUZ @ BERNING. G.R. No. 183091, June 19,
2013.

A finding of guilt in an administrative case would have to be sustained for as long as it is supported by
substantial evidence that the respondent has committed the acts stated in the complaint or formal charge.
As defined, substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind may accept as
adequate to support a conclusion.PHILIPPINE AMUSEMENT and GAMING CORPORATION
(PAGCOR) v. ARIEL R. MARQUEZ. G.R. No. 191877, June 18, 2013. IRENEO M. VERDILLO v.
PHILIPPINE AMUSEMENT and GAMING CORPORATION (PAGCOR). G.R. No. 192287, June 18,
2013.

The distinction between an appeal under Rule 45 and a special civil action under Rule 64 in relation to
Rule 65 could not be anymore overstated in remedial law. Indeed, by restricting the review of judgments
or resolutions of the COA only thru a special civil action for certiorari before this Court, the Constitution
and the Rules of Court precisely limits the permissible scope of inquiry in such cases only to errors of
jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion. Hence, unless tainted with grave abuse of discretion, simple
errors of judgment committed by the COA cannot be reviewed—even by this Court. ROBERTO B.
REBLORA v. ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES G.R. No. 195842, June 18, 2013.

There are two modes of appealing an RTC decision or resolution on issues of fact and law. The first
mode is an ordinary appeal under Rule 41 in cases where the RTC exercised its original jurisdiction. It is
done by filing a Notice of Appeal with the RTC. The second mode is a petition for review under Rule 42 in
cases where the RTC exercised its appellate jurisdiction over MTC decisions. It is done by filing a Petition
for Review with the CA. Simply put, the distinction between these two modes of appeal lies in the type of
jurisdiction exercised by the RTC in the Order or Decision being appealed. DARMA MASLAG v.
ELIZABETH MONZON, WILLIAM GESTON, and REGISTRY OF DEEDS OF BENGUET. G.R. No.
174908, June 17, 2013.
Prosecution's failure to prove the second and third elements of the violation of BP 22, it can be deduced
that the prosecution was able to establish the presence of the first and fourth elements, i.e., (1) a person
draws and issues a check and (4) the check is dishonored by the bank for insufficiency of funds or credit.
Hence, the fact that petitioner was proven to have drawn and issued a check and that the same was
subsequently dishonored for inadequate funds leads to the logical conclusion that the fact from which her
civil liability might arise, indeed, exists. As such, the RTC correctly entertained the respondent’s appeal
of the civil aspect of the case. LUCILLE DOMINGO v. MERLINDA COLINA. G.R. No. 173330, June 17,
2013.

A supervening event is an exception to the execution as a matter of right of a final and immutable
judgment rule, only if it directly affects the matter already litigated and settled, or substantially changes
the rights or relations of the parties therein as to render the execution unjust, impossible or inequitable. A
supervening event consists of facts that transpire after the judgment became final and executory, or of
new circumstances that develop after the judgment attained finality, including matters that the parties
were not aware of prior to or during the trial because such matters were not yet in existence at that time.
SIMPLICIA O. ABRIGO and DEMETRIO ABRIGO v. JIMMY F. FLORES, EDNA F. FLORES, DANILO
FLORES, BELINDA FLORES, HECTOR. FLORES, MARITES FLORES, HEIRS OF MARIA F. FLORES,
JACINTO FAYLONA, ELISA FAYLONA MAGPANTAY, MARIETTA FAYLONA CARTACIANO, and
HEIRS of TOMASA BANZUELA VDA. DE FAYLONA. G.R. No. 160786, June 17, 2013.

The fact that petitioner failed to account for, upon demand, the funds of the association of the year 2000
which were received by him in trust, already constitutes circumstantial evidence of misappropriation or
conversion of said properties to petitioner’s own personal use. ABELARDO JANDUSAY v. PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES. G.R. No. 185129, June 17, 2013.

The arrest of the appellants was lawful. Under Section 13, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court, "[a] person
lawfully arrested may be searched for dangerous weapons or anything which may have been used or
constitute proof in the commission of an offense without a search warrant." The factual milieu of this case
clearly shows that the search was made after appellants were lawfully arrested. Pursuant to the above-
mentioned rule, the subsequent search and seizure made by the police officers were likewise valid.
Hence, appellants’ claim of unreasonable search and seizure must fail. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
v. MARCELINO COLLADO Y CUNANAN, MYRA COLLADO Y SENICA, MARK CIPRIANO Y
ROCERO, SAMUEL SHERWIN LATARIO Y ENRIQUE, AND REYNALDO RANADA Y ALAS. G.R. No.
185719, June 17, 2013

The general rule is that a motion for reconsideration is a condition sine qua non before a certiorari petition
may lie, its purpose being to grant an opportunity for the court a quo to correct any error attributed to it by
re-examination of the legal and factual circumstances of the case. However, this rule is not absolute as
jurisprudence has laid down several recognized exceptions permitting a resort to the special civil action
for certiorari without first filing a motion for reconsideration. REPUBLIC GAS CORPORATION, ARNEL
U. TY, MARI ANTONETTE N. TY, ORLANDO REYES, FERRER SUAZO and ALVIN U. TY v. PETRON
CORPORATION, PILIPINAS SHELL PETROLEUM CORPORATION, and SHELL INTERNATIONAL
PETROLEUM COMPANY LIMITED. G.R. No. 194062, June 17, 2013

Res judicata exists when as between the action sought to be dismissed and the other action these
elements are present, namely; (1) the former judgment must be final; (2) the former judgment must have
been rendered by a court having jurisdiction of the subject matter and the parties; (3) the former judgment
must be a judgment on the merits; and (4) there must be between the first and subsequent actions (i)
identity of parties or at least such as representing the same interest in both actions; (ii) identity of subject
matter, or of the rights asserted and relief prayed for, the relief being founded on the same facts; and, (iii)
identity of causes of action in both actions such that any judgment that may be rendered in the other
action will, regardless of which party is successful, amount to res judicata in the action under
consideration. HEIRS OF MARCELO SOTTO, REPRESENTED BY: LOLIBETH SOTTO NOBLE,
DANILO C. SOTTO, CRISTINA C. SOTTO, EMMANUEL C. SOTTO, and FILEMON C. SOTTO; and
SALVACION BARCELONA, AS HEIR OF DECEASED MIGUEL BARCELONA v. MATILDE S.
PALICTE. G.R. No. 159691, June 13, 2013
The nature of the proceeding for reconstitution of a certificate of title under R.A. No. 26 denotes a
restoration of the instrument, which is supposed to have been lost or destroyed, in its original form and
condition. The purpose of such a proceeding is merely to have the certificate of title reproduced, after
proper proceedings, in the same form it was in when its loss or destruction occurred. The same R.A. No.
26 specifies the requisites to be met for the trial court to acquire jurisdiction over a petition for
reconstitution of a certificate of title. Failure to comply with any of these jurisdictional requirements for a
petition for reconstitution renders the proceedings null and void. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v.
EDWARD M. CAMACHO. G.R. No. 185604, June 13, 2013

The ‘material inconsistencies’ asserted by the accused-appellant which allegedly create grave doubts are,
on the contrary, too minor, trivial and inconsequential to affect the credibility of the prosecution witnesses,
the inconsistencies having been fully and sufficiently explained during trial by the witnesses themselves,
and their explanations having been accepted by the Trial Court. Besides, it has been held, time and
again, that minor inconsistencies and contradictions in the declarations of witnesses do not destroy the
witnesses' credibility but even enhance their truthfulness as they erase any suspicion of a rehearsed
testimony. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. JOEL REBOTAZO y ALEJANDRA. G.R. No. 192913,
June 13, 2013.

The assertion by petitioner that parts of onw of the witness’ testimony were inconsistent with that of the
other witnesses cannot be given credence. It should be noted that the witnesses saw the incident from
different vantage points, the former being a passive eyewitness, and latter being direct witnesses to the
incident. As such, the latter were able to observe events that the latter might have overlooked or failed to
see. JOSELITO RAMOS v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES G.R. No. 194384, June 13, 2013

Mandamus will not issue to control or review the exercise of discretion by a public officer on whom the law
imposes the right or duty to exercise judgment in reference to any matter in which the officer is required to
act. Neither can mandamus be issued unless a clear right of the bidder is shown. Mandamus does not
lie if the right is doubtful.PRIVATIZATION and MANAGEMENT OFFICE v. STRATEGIC
DEVELOPMENT and/or PHILIPPINE ESTATE CORPORATION. G.R. No. 200402, June 13, 2013

While the provisions of the Rules of Court apply to Special Agrarian Court proceedings, it is clear that,
unlike in expropriation proceedings under the Rules of Court, the appointment of a commissioner or
commissioners is discretionary on the part of the court or upon the instance of one of the parties.And
since neither party objected to the appointment of commissioners, the proper fees to be paid to them
should likewise be governed by the Rules of Court. LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ATTY.
RICARDO D. GONZALEZ. G.R. No. 185821, June 13, 2013

The jurisdiction of the PARAD and the DARAB is only limited to cases involving agrarian disputes,
including incidents arising from the implementation of agrarian laws. Basic is the rule that the "jurisdiction
of a tribunal, including a quasi-judicial office or government agency, over the nature and subject matter of
a petition or complaint is determined by the material allegations therein and the character of the relief
prayed for irrespective of whether the petitioner or complainant is entitled to any or all such reliefs.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM, as represented by Fritzi C. Pantoja, in her capacity as the
Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer, DAR-Laguna v. PARAMOUNT HOLDINGS EQUITIES, INC.,
JIMMY CHUA, ROJAS CHUA, BENJAMIN SIM, SANTOS C. TAN, WILLIAM C. LEE and STEWART C.
LIM. G.R. No. 176838, June 13, 2013

Denial is intrinsically a weak defense which must be buttressed by strong evidence of non-culpability to
merit credibility. To be sure, it is negative, self-serving evidence that cannot be given evidentiary weight
greater than that of credible witnesses who testify on affirmative matters. Time-tested is the rule that
between the positive assertions of prosecution witnesses and the negative averments of the accused, the
former indisputably deserves more credence and evidentiary weight. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v.
PERCIVAL DELA ROSA y BAYER. G.R. No. 201723, June 13, 2013
In a Rule 45 review, we consider the correctness of the assailed CA decision, in contrast with the review
for jurisdictional error that we undertake under Rule 65. Furthermore, Rule 45 limits us to the review of
questions of law raised against the assailed CA decision. ST. JOSEPH ACADEMY OF VALENZUELA
FACULTY ASSOCIATION (SJA VFA)-FUR CHAPTER-TUCP v. ST. JOSEPH ACADEMY OF
VALENZUELA and DAMASO D. LOPEZ. G.R. No. 182957, June 13, 2013

Although Rule 19 is explicit on the period when a motion to intervene may be filed, interventions have
been allowed even beyond the period prescribed in the Rule, when demanded by the higher interest of
justice. Interventions have also been granted to afford indispensable parties, who have not been
impleaded, the right to be heard even after a decision has been rendered by the trial court, when the
petition for review of the judgment has already been submitted for decision before the Supreme Court,
and even where the assailed order has already become final and executory.DEOGENES O.
RODRIGUEZ v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS and PHILIPPINE CHINESE CHARITABLE
ASSOCIATION, INC. G.R. No. 184589, June 13, 2013

In the absence of any clear showing that it overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied some facts or
circumstances of weight and substance that would have affected the result of the case, the trial court’s
findings on the matter of credibility of witnesses will not be disturbed on appeal. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES v. ABEL DIAZ. G.R. No. 200882, June 13, 2013

The CA, therefore, could grant the petition for certiorari if it finds that the NLRC, in its assailed decision or
resolution, committed grave abuse of discretion by capriciously, whimsically, or arbitrarily disregarding
evidence that is material to or decisive of the controversy; and it cannot make this determination without
looking into the evidence of the parties. PHILIPPINE TRANSMARINE CARRIERS, INC. v. LEANDRO
LEGASPI. G.R. No. 202791, June 10, 2013

What is truly important to consider in determining whether forum shopping exists or not is the vexation
caused the courts and parties-litigants by a party who asks different courts and/or administrative agencies
to rule on the same or related causes and/or grant the same or substantially the same reliefs, in the
process creating the possibility of conflicting decisions being rendered by different fora upon the same
issues. KAPISANANG PANGKAUNLARAN NG KABABAIHANG POTRERO, INC. and MILAGROS H.
REYES v. REMEDIOS BARRENO, LILIBETH AMETIN, DRANREV F. NONAY, FREDERICK D.
DIONISIO and MARITES CASIO. G.R. No. 175900, June 10, 2013

Out-of-court identifications, when the same is not supported by detailed narrations, cannot be given
weight. For no way exists for the courts to evaluate the factors used in determining the admissibility and
reliability of out-of-court identifications, such as the level of certainty demonstrated by the witness at the
identification; the length of time between the crime and the identification; and the suggestiveness of the
identification procedure. The absence of an independent in-court identification by Zaldy additionally
justifies our strict treatment and assessment of Lino’s testimony.

That being said, there can be conviction if the prosecution can establish the appellants’ participation in the
crime through credible and sufficient circumstantial evidence that leads to the inescapable conclusion that
the accused, and none other, committed the imputed crime, and such was done in this case. PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES v. JOSE ARMANDO CERVANTES CACHUELA and BENJAMIN JULIAN CRUZ
IBANEZ, Accused. BENJAMIN JULIAN CRUZ IBANEZ, Accused-Appellant. G.R. No. 191752, June
10, 2013.

The "equiponderance of evidence" rule states that when the scale shall stand upon an equipoise and
there is nothing in the evidence which shall incline it to one side or the other, the court will find for the
defendant. Under this principle, the plaintiff must rely on the strength of his evidence and not on the
weakness of the defendant's claim; even if the evidence of the plaintiff may be stronger than that of the
defendant, there is no preponderance of evidence on his side if such evidence is insufficient in itself to
establish his cause of action. VALBUECO, INC. v. PROVINCE OF BATAAN, represented by its
Provincial Governor ANTONIO ROMAN; EMMANUEL M. AQUINO, in his official capacity as
Registrar of the Register of Deeds of Balanga, Bataan; and PASTOR P. VICHUACO, in his official
capacity as Provincial Treasurer of Balanga, Bataan. G.R. No. 173829, June 10, 2013

It is the swearing of a person before the Notary Public and the latter’s act of signing and affixing his seal
on the deed that is material and not the submission of the notarial report. Parties who appear before a
notary public to have their documents notarized should not be expected to follow up on the submission of
the notarial reports. They should not be made to suffer the consequences of the negligence of the Notary
Public in following the procedures prescribed by the Notarial Law. Such notarization gives prima facie
evidence of the due execution of the releases, waivers, and quitclaims; and since such were not refuted
nor disputed by complainants herein, thus, we have no recourse but to uphold their due execution.
BENIGNO M. VIGILLA, ALFONSO M. BONGOT, ROBERTO CALLESA, LINDA C. CALLO, NILO B.
CAMARA, ADELIA T. CAMARA, ADOLFO G. PINON, JOHN A. FERNANDEZ, FEDERICO A. CALLO,
MAXIMA P. ARELLANO, JULITO B. COST ALES, SAMSON F. BACHAR, EDWIN P. DAMO, RENA TO
E. FERNANDEZ, GENARO F.CALLO, JIMMY C. ALETA, and EUGENIO SALINAS v. PHILIPPINE
COLLEGE OF CRIMINOLOGY INC. and/or GREGORY ALAN F. BAUTISTA. G.R. No. 200094, June
10, 2013

In termination cases, the burden of proof rests on the employer to show that the dismissal is for a valid
cause. Failing in which, the law considers the matter a case of illegal dismissal. In this relation, the
quantum of proof which the employer must discharge is substantial evidence which, as defined in case
law, means that amount of relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support
a conclusion, even if other minds, equally reasonable, might conceivably opine otherwise.SURIGAO DEL
NORTE ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC., and/or DANNY Z. ESCALANTE v. TEOFILO GONZAGA
G.R. No. 187722, June 10, 2013.

The solo performance by SPO1 Dela Victoria of all the acts necessary for the prosecution of the offense
is unexplained and puts the proof of corpus delicti, which is the illegal object itself, in serious doubt. No
definite answer can be established regarding the question as to who possessed what from the time of the
alleged apprehension until the trial of the case. We are left in doubt whether or not the sachet of shabu
allegedly seized from Calumbres was the very same object offered in court as the corpus delicti, or if a
sachet of anything was in fact seized from Calumbres.SPO1 Dela Victoria’s claim that the sachet of
shabu presented in court was the same one confiscated from Calumbres, cannot be taken at its face
value, solely on the presumption of regularity of one’s performance of duty. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES v. GLORIA CALUMBRES y AUDITOR. G.R. No. 194382, June 10, 2013

Appeals from decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative disciplinary cases should be
taken to the Court of Appeals under the provisions of Rule 43, in line with the regulatory philosophy
adopted in appeals from quasi-judicial agencies in the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil
Procedure.Jurisprudence accords a different treatment with respect to an appeal in a criminal case filed
with the Office of the Ombudsman and that remedy is to file with this Court a petition for certiorari under
Rule 65. AMANDO P. CONTES v. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN (VISAYAS), VICTORY M.
FERNANDEZ, JULIO E. SUCGANG and NILO IGTANLOC. G.R. Nos. 187896-97, June 10, 2013

Concurrent jurisdiction is that which is possessed over the same parties or subject matter at the same
time by two or more separate tribunals. When the law bestows upon a government body the jurisdiction to
hear and decide cases involving specific matters, it is to be presumed that such jurisdiction is exclusive
unless it be proved that another body is likewise vested with the same jurisdiction, in which case, both
bodies have concurrent jurisdiction over the matter. Where concurrent jurisdiction exists in several
tribunals, the body that first takes cognizance of the complaint shall exercise jurisdiction to the exclusion
of the others. ALBERTO PAT-OG, SR. v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION. G.R. No. 198755, June 5,
2013

First level courts are clothed with the power to preliminarily resolve questions on the ownership of real
property, if necessary, to arrive at the proper and complete determination of the question on physical
possession or possession de facto. Thus, as correctly ruled by the CA, the MTCC should have taken
cognizance of the complaint as it was well within its jurisdiction to do so. Moreover, considering that B.P.
Blg. 129, as amended, has distinctly defined and granted the MTCC with jurisdiction, it is the trial court’s
duty and obligation to exercise the same when properly invoked.. MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY vs.
HEIRS OF SPOUSES DIONISIO DELOY and PRAXEDES MARTONITO, represented by POLICARPIO
DELOY. G.R. No. 192893, June 5, 2013.

Through estoppel, an admission or representation is rendered conclusive upon the person making it, and
cannot be denied or disproved as against the person relying on it. This doctrine is based on the grounds
of public policy, fair dealing, good faith, and justice and its purpose is to forbid one to speak against his
own act, representations or commitments to the injury of one to whom they were directed and who
reasonably relied on it. Thus, in order for this doctrine to operate, a representation must have been made
to the detriment of another who relied on it. In other words, estoppel would not lie against one who, in the
first place, did not make any representation. SPOUSES RUBIN AND PORTIA HOJAS v. PHILIPPINE
AMANAH BANK AND RAMON KUE. G.R. No. 193453, June 5, 2013

An action for declaration of nullity of title and recovery of ownership of real property, or re-conveyance, is
a real action but it is an action in personam, for it binds a particular individual only although it concerns
the right to a tangible thing. Any judgment therein is binding only upon the parties properly impleaded.No
one shall be affected by any proceeding to which he is a stranger, and strangers to a case are not bound
by any judgment rendered by the court. In the same manner, a writ of execution can be issued only
against a party and not against one who did not have his day in court. Only real parties in interest in an
action are bound by the judgment therein and by writs of execution and demolition issued pursuant
thereto.GREEN ACRES HOLDINGS, INC. v. VICTORIA P. CABRAL, SPS. ENRIQUE T. MORAGA and
VICTORIA SORIANO, FILCON READY MIXED, INC., DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM
ADJUDICATION BOARD (DARAB), and REGISTRY OF DEEDS OF BULACAN, MEYCAUA YAN
BRANCH. G.R. No. 175542, June 5, 2013. VICTORIA P. CABRAL v. PROVINCIAL ADJUDICATOR,
JOSEPH NOEL C. LONGBOAN I OFFICE OF THE AGRARIAN REFORM ADJUDICATOR, GREEN
ACRES HOLDINGS, INC., SPOUSES ENRIQUE T. MORAGA and VICTORIA SORIANO and FILCON
READY MIXED, INC. G.R. No. 183205, June 5, 2013

This Court has emphasized the import of Section 21 as a matter of substantive law that mandates strict
compliance. It was laid down by Congress as a safety precaution against potential abuses by law
enforcement agents who might fail to appreciate the gravity of the penalties faced by those suspected to
be involved in the sale, use or possession of illegal drugs. Under the principle that penal laws are strictly
construed against the government, stringent compliance therewith is fully justified. RODRIGO RONTOS y
DELA TORRE v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. G.R. No. 188024, June 5, 2013

Settled is the rule that alibi and denial cannot prevail over the positive and categorical testimony and
identification of an accused by the complainant. Positive identification where categorical and consistent
and without any showing of ill motive on the part of the eyewitness testifying on the matter, prevails over a
denial which, if not substantiated by clear and convincing evidence, is negative and self-serving evidence
undeserving of weight in law. They cannot be given greater evidentiary value over the testimony of
credible witnesses who testify on affirmative matters. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ERNESTO
GANI y TUPAS. G.R. No. 195523, June 5, 2013.

The settled rule is that a motion for reconsideration is a condition sine qua non for the filing of a petition
for certiorari. Its purpose is to grant an opportunity for the court to correct any actual or perceived error
attributed to it by the re-examination of the legal and factual circumstances of the case. REPUBLIC OF
THE PHILIPPINES, represented by ABUSAMA M. ALID, Officer-in-Charge, DEPARTMENT OF
AGRICULTURE - REGIONAL FIELD UNIT XII (DA-RFU XII) vs. ABDULWAHAB A. BAYAO, OSMEÑA
I. MONTAÑER, RAKMA B. BUISAN, HELEN M. ALVAREZ, NEILA P. LIMBA, ELIZABETH B. PUSTA,
ANNA MAE A. SIDENO, UDTOG B. TABONG, JOHN S. KAMENZA, DELIA R. SUBALDO, DAYANG
W. MACMOD, FLORENCE S. TAYUAN, in their own behalf and in behalf of the other officials and
employees of DA-RFU XII. G.R. No. 179492, June 5, 2013
Jurisdiction over the person, or jurisdiction in personam –the power of the court to render a personal
judgment or to subject the parties in a particular action to the judgment and other rulings rendered in the
action – is an element of due process that is essential in all actions, civil as well as criminal, except in
actions in rem or quasi in rem. Jurisdiction over the defendant in an action in rem or quasi in rem is not
required, and the court acquires jurisdiction over an actionas long as it acquires jurisdiction over the
resthat is thesubject matter of the action. The purpose of summons in such action is not the acquisition of
jurisdiction over the defendant but mainly to satisfy the constitutional requirement of due process. ALLEN
A. MACASAET, NICOLAS V. QUIJANO, JR., ISAIAS ALBANO, LILY REYES, JANET BAY, JESUS R.
GALANG, AND RANDY HAGOS vs. FRANCISCO R. CO, JR. G.R. No. 156759, June 5, 2013

In administrative cases, the quantum of evidence necessary to find an individual administratively liable is
substantial evidence. Section 5, Rule 133 of the Rules of Court defines substantial evidence as that
amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion.
The settled rule provides that factual findings of the Office of the Ombudsman are conclusive when
supported by substantial evidence and are accorded due respect and weight, especially when they are
affirmed by the CA. Furthermore, only questions of law may be raised in petitions filed under Rule 45 of
the Rules of Court; the Court is not a trier of facts and it is not its function to review evidence on record
and assess the probative weight thereof. DR. ZENAIDA P. PIA v. HON. MARGARITO P. GERVACIO,
JR., Overall Deputy Ombudsman, Formerly Acting Ombudsman, Office of the Ombudsman, Dr.
OFELIA M. CARAGUE, Formerly PUP President, Dr. ROMAN R. DANNUG, Formerly Dean, College
of Economics, Finance and Politics (CEFP), now Associate Professor, CEFP Polytechnic
University of the Philippines (PUP), Sta. Mesa, Manila. G.R. No. 172334, June 5, 2013

The ultimate purpose of the writ of habeas corpus is to relieve a person from unlawful restraint. The writ
exists as a speedy and effectual remedy to relieve persons from unlawful restraint and as an effective
defense of personal freedom. It is issued only for the lone purpose of obtaining relief for those illegally
confined or imprisoned without sufficient legal basis. It is not issued when the person is in custody
because of a judicial process or a valid judgment. MR. ALEXANDER "LEX" ADONIS, represented by
the CENTER FOR MEDIA FREEDOM AND RESPONSIBILITY (CMFR), through its Executive
Director, MRS. MELINDA QUINTOS-DE JESUS; and the NATIONAL UNION OF JOURNALISTS OF
THE PHILIPPINES (NUJP), through its Chairperson, MR. JOSE TORRES, JR. v.
SUPERENTENDENT VENANCIO TESORO, DIRECTOR, DAVAO PRISONS AND PENAL FARM,
PANABO CITY, DIGOS DAVAO DEL NORTE. G.R. No. 182855, June 5, 2013

"AAA’s" momentary inaction will neither diminish nor affect her credibility. "The filing of complaints of rape
months, even years, after their commission may or may not dent the credibility of witness and of
testimony, depending on the circumstances attendant thereto." "It does not diminish the complainant’s
credibility or undermine the charges of rape when the delay can be attributed to the pattern of fear
instilled by the threats of bodily harm, specially by one who exercises moral ascendancy over the victim."
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. GUILLERMO LOMAQUE. G.R. No. 189297, June 5, 2013

The chain of custody rule requires that the admission of an exhibit be preceded by evidence sufficient to
support a finding that the matter in question is what the proponent claims it to be. This rule is, however,
not established solely by compliance with the prescribed physical inventory and photographing of the
seized drugs in the presence of the enumerated persons. Though there are deviations from the required
procedure, what is essential is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized
items, as the same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. MYLENE TORRES. G.R. No. 191730, June 05, 2013

The Court has held that although there may be inconsistencies in the testimonies of witnesses on minor
details, they do not impair their credibility where there is consistency in relating the principal occurrence
and positive identification of the assailant. The prosecution witnesses’ positive identification prevails over
the mere denial of appellant. Denial is an intrinsically weak defense. When unsubstantiated by clear and
convincing evidence, it is negative and self-serving and merits no weight in law and cannot be given
greater evidentiary value than the testimony of credible witnesses who testified on affirmative matters.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ARIEL CALARA. G.R. No. 197039, June 05, 2013
Contempt of court is defined as a disobedience to the court by acting in opposition to its authority, justice,
and dignity. It signifies not only a willful disregard or disobedience of the court’s order, but such conduct
which tends to bring the authority of the court and the administration of law into disrepute or, in some
manner, to impede the due administration of justice. To constitute contempt, the act must be done willfully
and for an illegitimate or improper purpose. Respondent admittedly ceased or suspended the giving of
monthly support pendente lite granted by the trial court, which is immediately executory.
However,respondent’s act was not contumacious considering that he had not been remiss in actually
providing for the needs of his children. SUSAN LIM-LUA v. DANILO Y. LUA. G.R. Nos. 175279-80,
June 05, 2013

In a prosecution for rape, the accused may be convicted solely on the basis of the testimony of the victim
that is credible, convincing, and consistent with human nature and the normal course of things. Moreover,
it is well-settled that denial, if unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence, is a self-serving
assertion that deserves no weight in law because denial cannot prevail over the positive, candid and
categorical testimony of the complainant, and as between the positive declaration of the complainant and
the negative statement of the appellant, the former deserves more credence. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES vs. ROMEO BUSTAMANTE. G.R. No. 189836, June 05, 2013

Testimonies of child-victims are normally given full weight and credit, since when a girl, particularly if she
is a minor, says that she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape has in
fact been committed. When the offended party is of tender age and immature, courts are inclined to give
credit to her account of what transpired, considering not only her relative vulnerability but also the shame
to which she would be exposed if the matter to which she testified is not true. Youth and immaturity are
generally badges of truth and sincerity. Considering her tender age, AAA could not have invented a
horrible story.

As between a categorical testimony which has a ring of truth on one hand, and a mere denial and alibi on
the other, the former is generally held to prevail. Moreover, for the defense of alibi to prosper, the
appellant must prove that he was somewhere else when the offense was committed and that he was so
far away that it was not possible for him to have been physically present at the place of the crime or at its
immediate vicinity at the time of its commission. In the case at bar, accused-appellant was in the
immediate vicinity of the locus criminis at the time of commission of the crime. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES vs. RICARDO PIOSANG. G.R. No. 200329, June 05, 2013.

A claim of excusable negligence does not loosely warrant a relaxation of the rules. Verily, the party
invoking such should be able to show that the procedural oversight or lapse is attended by a genuine
miscalculation or unforeseen fortuitousness which ordinary prudence could not have guarded against so
as to justify the relief sought. The standard of care required is that which an ordinarily prudent man
bestows upon his important business. In this accord, the duty rests on every counsel to see to adopt and
strictly maintain a system that will efficiently take into account all court notices sent to him. HENRY L. SY
v. LOCAL GOVERNMENT OF QUEZON CITY. G.R. No. 202690, June 5, 2013.

It is well settled that the evaluation of the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies is a matter best
undertaken by the trial court because of its unique opportunity to observe the witnesses firsthand and to
note their demeanor, conduct, and attitude under grilling examination. These are important in determining
the truthfulness of witnesses and in unearthing the truth, especially in the face of conflicting testimonies.
For, indeed, the emphasis, gesture, and inflection of the voice are potent aids in ascertaining the witness’
credibility, and the trial court has the opportunity and can take advantage of these aids. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES v. MOISES CAOILE. G.R. No. 203041, June 5, 2013

Settled is the rule that a party who adopts a certain theory upon which the case is tried and decided by
the lower courts or tribunals will not be permitted to change his theory on appeal, not because of the strict
application of procedural rules, but as a matter of fairness. Basic considerations of due process dictate
that theories, issues and arguments not brought to the attention of the trial court would not ordinarily be
considered by a reviewing court, except when their factual bases would not require presentation of any
further evidence by the adverse party in order to enable him to properly meet the issue raised. JOSELITO
C. BORROMEO v. JUAN T. MINA. G.R. No. 193747, June 5, 2013

The Court held that the original period for filing the petition for review may be extended for a period of
fifteen (15) days, which for the most compelling reasons, may be extended for another period not
exceeding fifteen (15) days. In other words, the reglementary period provided under Section 3, Rule 8 of
the RRCTA is extendible and as such, CTA Division’s grant of respondents’ motion for extension falls
squarely within the law. METRO MANILA SHOPPING MECCA CORP., SHOEMART, INC., SM PRIME
HOLDINGS, INC., STAR APPLIANCES CENTER, SUPER VALUE, INC., ACE HARDWARE
PHILIPPINES, INC., HEALTH AND BEAUTY, INC., JOLLIMART PHILS. CORP., and SURPLUS
MARKETING CORPORATION v. MS. LIBERTY M. TOLEDO, in her official capacity as the City
Treasurer of Manila, and THE CITY OF MANILA. G.R. No. 190818, June 5, 2013.

Prior demand is not a condition precedent to an action for a writ of replevin, since there is nothing in
Section 2, Rule 60 of the Rules of Court that requires the applicant to make a demand on the possessor
of the property before an action for a writ of replevin could be filed. SPOUSES DEO AGNER and
MARICON AGNER vs. BPI FAMILY SAVINGS BANK, INC. G.R. No. 182963, June 3, 2013.

The broader interests of justice and equity demand that we set aside procedural rules as they are, after
all, intended to promote rather than defeat substantial justice. If the rigid and pedantic application of
procedural norms would frustrate rather than promote justice, the Court always has the power to suspend
the rules or except a particular case from its operation, particularly if defects of jurisdiction appear to be
present. ERNESTO L. NATIVIDAD v. FERNANDO MARIANO, ANDRES MARIANO and DOROTEO
GARCIA. G.R. No. 179643, June 3, 2013.

It has been settled that affirmative testimony is far stronger than a negative testimony especially when it
comes from the mouth of a credible witness. Absent clear and convincing evidence, alibi and denial are
negative and self-serving evidence undeserving of weight in law. Further, for alibi to prosper, it must be
proved, not only that the assailant was in another place when the crime was committed, but that it was
physically impossible for him to be present at the crime scene or its immediate vicinity at the time of its
commission altogether. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. REGGIE BERNARDO. G.R. No. 198789,
June 3, 2013.

The sole issue for resolution in an unlawful detainer case is physical or material possession of the
property involved, independent of any claim of ownership by any of the parties. When the defendant,
however, raises the defense of ownership in his pleadings and the question of possession cannot be
resolved without deciding the issue of ownership, the issue of ownership shall be resolved only to
determine the issue of possession.

Prior physical possession by the plaintiff is not an indispensable requirement in an unlawful detainer case
brought by a vendee or other person against whom the possession of any land is unlawfully withheld after
the expiration or termination of a right to hold possession. WILLIAM T. GO v. ALBERTO T. LOOYUKO,
substituted by his legal heirs TERESITA C. LOOYUKO, et. al. G.R. No. 196529, July 1, 2013.

When there is only one witness to the crime and that he was familiar with both the victim and the
accused, it can therefore be established that such witness is telling the truth. Finding of guilt based on the
testimony of a lone witness is not uncommon. "For although the number of witnesses may be considered
a factor in the appreciation of evidence, preponderance is not necessarily with the greatest number and
conviction can still be had on the basis of the credible and positive testimony of a single witness.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. JOEMARI JALBONIAN alias “BUDO.” G.R. No. 180281, July 01,
2013.

When a party files an appeal bond amounting to at least 90% of the amount it was adjudged to pay, such
payment can be considered as substantial compliance. The bond requirement on appeals may be relaxed
when there is substantial compliance with the Rules of Procedure of the NLRC or when the appellant
shows willingness to post a partial bond. ROY D. PASOS v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION
CORPORATION. G.R. No. 192394, July 03, 2013

When the Office of the Ombudsman decides on a case, the Court of Appeals has no authority nor
discretion to stay such decision as this would tantamount to an encroachment on the rule-making powers
of the Ombudsman under the Constitution, and Sections 18 and 27 of R.A. No. 6770, which grants the
Office of the Ombudsman the authority to promulgate its own rules of procedure. OFFICE OF THE
OMBUDSMAN v. ERNESTO M. DE CHAVEZ, ROLANDO L. LONTOC, SR. et al. G.R. No. 172206,
July 03, 2013

When a party fails to specify the assessed value of the property subject matter of the action, this court to
which it was filed, will not acquire jurisdiction over the case. This is because what determines the nature
of the action as well as which court has jurisdiction over it are the allegations of the complaint and the
character of the relief sought. HEIRS OF JOSE FERNANDO v. REYNALDO DE BELEN. G.R. No.
186366, July 03, 2013

When the parties executed a compromise agreement, such agreement does not extinguish the obligation
of the debtor; hence, the attachment to his property should continue to subsist such obligation is fully
complied with. While the provisions of Rule 57 are silent on the length of time within which an attachment
lien shall continue to subsist after the rendition of a final judgment, jurisprudence dictates that the said
lien continues until the debt is paid, or the sale is had under execution issued on the judgment or until the
judgment is satisfied, or the attachment discharged or vacated in the same manner provided by law .
ALFREDO C. LIM, JR. v. SPOUSES TITO S. LAZARO and CARMEN T. LAZARO. G.R. No. 185734,
July 03, 2013

When a witness takes participation in a case, it is only mandated that he possesses all the qualifications
and none of the disqualifications provided in the Rules of Court. There is no provision of the Rules
disqualifying parties declared in default from taking the witness stand for non-disqualified parties. The law
does not provide default as an exception. The specific enumeration of disqualified witnesses excludes the
operation of causes of disability other than those mentioned in the Rules. LUISA NAVARRO MARCOS v.
THE HEIRS OF THE LATE DR. ANDRESS NAVARRO, JR. G.R. No. 198240, July 03, 2013

The allegation that the petitioners are the lawful heirs is not sufficient to be entitled to the relief. There is a
need to institute a separate special proceeding for heirship before the said heirs can be considered real
parties-in-interest and without such, any complaint instituted by them shall not prosper for failure to state
a cause of action.

Cause of action is defined as the act or omission by which a party violates a right of another. It is well-
settled that the existence of a cause of action is determined by the allegations in the complaint. In this
relation, a complaint is said to assert a sufficient cause of action if, admitting what appears solely on its
face to be correct, the plaintiff would be entitled to the relief prayed for. HEIRS OF MAGDALENO YPON,
NAMELY ALVARO YPON, et al. v. GAUDIOSO PONTERAS RICAFORTE, ETC, ET.AL. G.R. No.
198680, July 08, 2013

A party aggrieved by a decision of a court in an action for revival of judgment may appeal the decision,
but only insofar as the merits of the action for revival is concerned. The original judgment, which is
already final and executory, may no longer be reversed, altered, or modified. An action for revival of
judgment is a new and independent action. It is different and distinct from the original judgment sought to
be revived or enforced. HEIRS OF NUMERIANO MIRANDA, SR. v. PABLO R. MIRANDA. G.R. No.
179638, July 08, 2013

When there is a delay in the execution of the decision caused by the respondent for his own advantage,
the five-year period to enforce the same shall be suspended. The Rules of Court provide that a final and
executory judgment may be executed by motion within five years from the date of its entry or by an action
after the lapse of five years and before prescription sets in. This Court, however, allows exceptions when
execution may be made by motion even after the lapse of five years. These exceptions have one
common denominator: the delay is caused or occasioned by actions of the judgment obligor and/or is
incurred for his benefit or advantage.RIZAL COMMERCIAL BANKING CORPORATION v. FEDERICO
A. SERRA. G.R. No. 203241, July 10, 2013

When petitioner files a claim for attorney’s fees, he may do such as an incident in the main action or have
it instituted in a separate action. While a claim for attorney’s fees may be filed before the judgment is
rendered, the determination as to the propriety of the fees or as to the amount thereof will have to be held
in abeyance until the main case from which the lawyer’s claim for attorney’s fees may arise has become
final. Otherwise, the determination to be made by the courts will be premature. FRANCISCO L.
ROSARIO, JR. v. LELLANI DE GUZMAN, ARLEEN DE GUZMAN, et al. G.R. No. 191247, July 10,
2013

An independent civil action based on fraud initiated by the defrauded party does not raise a prejudicial
question to stop the proceedings in a pending criminal prosecution of the defendant for estafa through
falsification. This is because the result of the independent civil action is irrelevant to the issue of guilt or
innocence of the accused. RAFAEL JOSE CONSING, JR. v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
G.R. NO. 161075. JULY 15, 2013

When the commission, having no knowledge of a prior dismissal, fixes the reckoning point of the period of
disallowance at an erroneous date, it does not tantamount to a grave abuse of discretion. Not every error
in the proceedings, or every erroneous conclusion of law or fact, constitutes grave abuse of
discretion. The abuse of discretion to be qualified as "grave" must be so patent or gross as to constitute
an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform the duty or to act at all in contemplation of law.
ROSALINDA DIMAPILIS-BALDOZ, in her capacity as then Administrator of POEA v. COMMISSION
ON AUDIT, represented by CHAIRMAN REYNALDO VILLAR and COMMISSIONER JUANITO G.
ESPINO, JR.. G.R. No. 199114, July 16, 2013

When a party assails the legality of an official act, he must first establish that he has a direct and personal
interest. Not only should they show that the act is invalid but they must sustain that they may suffer as a
result of its enforcement. Standing is the determination of whether a specific person is the proper party to
bring a matter to the court for adjudication. The gist of the question of standing is whether a party alleges
such personal stake in the outcome of the controversy as to assure that concrete adverseness which
sharpens the presentation of issues upon which the court depends for illumination of difficult constitutional
questions. NATIONAL ARTIST FOR LITERATURE VIRGILIO ALMARIO, et. al. v. THE EXECUTIVE
SECRETARY, et. al. G.R. No. 189028, July 16, 2013

Co-parties before the RTC and CA cannot be made adversary parties in a petition for review on certiorari.
There is no basis to treat the co-parties as such when it cannot be shown that there was a cross-claim
filed against said co-parties. Under Section 2, Rule 9 of the Rules of Court, a cross-claim which is not set
up shall be barred. Thus, for failing to set up a cross-claim against her co-defendants before the RTC,
petitioner is already barred from doing so in the present petition. JOYCE V. ARDIENTE v. SPOUSES
JAVIER and MA. THERESA PASTORFIDE, CDO WATER DISTRICT and GASPAR GONZALEZ, JR.
G.R. No. 161921, July 17, 2013

When a trial court merely denied a motion for being “unmeritorious” without further elaborating on the
bases of its conclusion, it then fails to perform its bounden-duty to make an independent evaluation of the
merits of the case. Such failure of the RTC constitutes grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess of
jurisdiction. CAROLINA B. JOSE v. PURITA SUAREZ. G.R. No. 17611 July 17, 2013

When a party files a motion to quash information for bigamy based on the trial court’s declaration that his
marriage is null and void ab initio, the same cannot be granted. A motion to quash information is the
mode by which an accused assails the validity of a criminal complaint or information filed against him for
insufficiency on its face in point of law, or for defects which are apparent in the face of the information." It
is a hypothetical admission of the facts alleged in the information. The fundamental test in determining the
sufficiency of the material averments in an Information is whether or not the facts alleged therein, which
are hypothetically admitted, would establish the essential elements of the crime defined by law. PEOPLE
OF THE PHILIPPINES v. EDGARDO V. ODTUHAN. G.R. No. 191566, July 17, 2013

When a witness fails to positively identify the accused as the victims assailant and that there are
inconsistencies between his affidavit and testimony, the same shall not affect his credibility.
Discrepancies referring only to minor details and collateral matters – not to the central fact of the crime –
do not affect the veracity or detract from the essential credibility of witnesses’ declarations, as long as
these are coherent and intrinsically believable on the whole. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. CHRIS
CORPUZ y BASBAS. G.R. No. 191068, July 17, 2013

When there are inconsistencies with the testimonies of two witnesses, this does not exculpate the
accused from criminal liability and does not ignore the fact that one witness was able to unequivocally
identify the accused as the gunman. It cannot be denied that once a person gains familiarity of another,
identification becomes quite an easy task even from a considerable distance. BOBBY “ABEL” AVELINO
y BULAWAN v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. G.R. No. 181444, July 17, 2013.

The fact that the inventory was made at the accused-appellant’s house and not at the scene of the buy-
bust operation did not adversely affect the chain of custody. If it is shown that the illicit drugs seized from
accused-appellant are the same illicit drugs marked and subjected to physical inventory then the chain of
custody was continuous and the identity, integrity and evidentiary value of the dangerous drugs seized
from accused-appellant were preserved. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. REYNALDO “ANDY”
SOMOZA y HANDAYA. G.R. No. 197250, July 17, 2013

When the victim commits a mistake in remembering the dates when she was raped, such does not
contradict the fact that she did not consent to the sexual act. A rape victim is not expected to make an
errorless recollection of the incident, so humiliating and painful that she might in fact be trying to obliterate
it from her memory. Thus, a few inconsistent remarks in rape cases will not necessarily impair the
testimony of the offended party. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. MARVIN CRUZ. G.R. No. 201728,
July 17, 2013

When a party is detained for legal reasons, she cannot avail of the writ of habeas corpus as a remedy.
The object of the writ of habeas corpus is to inquire into the legality of the detention, and, if the detention
is found to be illegal, to require the release of the detainee. Equally well-settled however, is that the writ
will not issue where the person in whose behalf the writ is sought is out on bail, or is in the custody of an
officer under process issued by a court or judge with jurisdiction or by virtue of a judgment or order of a
court of record. ANITA MANGILA v. JUDGE HERIBERTO M. PANGILINAN, ET AL. G.R. No. 160739,
July 17, 2013

When a party files motion for reconsideration which is not set for hearing, it renders the motion without no
legal effect. It is considered a pro forma motion which shall not toll the reglementary period of the appeal.
This requirement is mandatory Basic is the rule that every motion must be set for hearing by the movant
except for those motions which the court may act upon without prejudice to the rights of the adverse
party. DR. ROGER R. POSADAS and DR. ROLANDO P. DAYCO v. SANDIGANBAYAN and PEOPLE
OF THE PHILIPPINES. G.R. No. 168651 & 169000, July 17, 2013

When the COMELEC reviews the registration of party lists, it must give the latter the opportunity to be
heard and to adduce evidence as to their continuing compliance with the requirements for the
accreditation. However, a formal or trial-type hearing is not at all times and in all instances essential; Rule
17 of the COMELEC’s Rules of Procedure defines the requirements for a hearing and these serve as the
standards in the determination of the presence or denial of due process. COALITION OF ASSOCIATION
OF SENIOR CITIZEN IN THE PHILIPPINES v. COMELEC. G.R. No. 206844-45/G.R. No. 206982, July
23, 2013

A plaintiff who files a case should provide a complete statement of the present status of any pending case
if the latter involves the same issues as the one that was filed. If there is no such similar pending case,
Section 5(a) of Rule 7 of the Rules of Court provides that the plaintiff is obliged to declare under oath that
to the best of his knowledge, no such other action or claim is pending. ABBOTT LABORATORIES,
PHILS., et al. v. PEARLIE ANN F. ALCARAZ. G.R. No. 192571, July 23, 2013

When a party to a case wishes to request for subpoena duces tecum, it must be established first that the
records would have been offered as evidence for admission in court. Otherwise, such request is
premature. Furthermore, Section 36, Rule 132, states that objections to evidence must be made after the
offer of such evidence for admission in court. JOSIELEN LARA CHAN v. JOHNNY T. CHAN
G.R. No. 179786, July 24, 2013

When a party fails to comply with a pre-requisite mandated by law, he does not therefore acquire any
legal right to be protected by an injunction. Injunction is not designed to protect contingent or future rights.
Where the complainant’s right is doubtful or disputed, injunction is not proper. The possibility of
irreparable damage without proof of actual existing right is not a ground for an injunction. PROVINCE OF
CAGAYAN, represented by HON. ALVARO T. ANTONIO, et. al. v. JOSEPH LASAM LARA. G.R. No.
188500, July 24, 2013

When a party causes a publication short of the thirty-day period preceding the hearing, there is a
mandatory publication notice required under the Rules of Court. The law clearly requires that (a) notice of
the petition should be published in two (2) successive issues of the Official Gazette; and (b) publication
should be made at least thirty (30) days prior to the date of hearing. Substantial compliance with this
jurisdictional requirement is not enough. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v. RICORDITO N. DE ASIS,
JR. G.R. No. 193874, July 24, 2013

The victim’s mental retardation does not affect her credibility of her testimony. Mental retardation per se
does not affect credibility. A mentally retarded may be a credible witness. The acceptance of her
testimony depends on the quality of her perceptions and the manner she can make them known to the
court. The acceptance of her testimony depends on the quality of her perceptions and the manner she
can make them known to the court. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. NINOY ROSALES y ESTO. G.R.
No. 197537, July 24, 2013.

A deaf-mute may not be able to hear and speak but his/her other senses, such as his/her sense of sight,
remain functional and allow him/her to make observations about his/her environment and experiences. 
The inability to hear and speak may prevent a deaf-mute from communicating orally with others but
he/she may still communicate with others in writing or through signs and symbols and, as in this case,
sketches.  Thus, a deaf-mute is competent to be a witness so long as he/she has the faculty to make
observations and he/she can make those observations known to others. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
v. EDWIN ALEMAN y LONGHAS. G.R. No. 181539, July 24, 2013

When a land dispute or problem is lodged before COSLAP, it is not assumed that it has jurisdiction over
it. Under EO 561, the instances when the COSLAP may resolve land disputes are limited only to those
involving public lands or those covered by a specific license from the government, such as pasture lease
agreements, timber concessions, or reservation grants. Outside said scope, COSLAP has no authority to
resolve the case before it. DREAM VILLAGE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, INC. v. BASES
CONVERSATION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY. G.R. No. 192896, July 24, 2013

When there are clear inconsistencies in the testimony or presentation of the facts of the prosecution, the
accused cannot be convicted guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not
mean such a degree of proof as, excluding possibility of error, produces absolute certainty. Moral
certainty only is required, or that degree of proof which produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind. If
the prosecution fails to meet the required amount of evidence, the defense may logically not even present
evidence on its own behalf, in which case, the presumption prevails and the accused should necessarily
be acquitted. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. JOSE CLARA y BUHAIN. G.R. No. 195528, July 24,
2013

When the resolution of the issue in the civil action will not determine the criminal responsibility of the
accused in the criminal action based on the same facts, or if there is no necessity that the civil case be
determined first before taking up the criminal case, the civil case does not involve a prejudicial question. A
prejudicial question generally comes into play in a situation where a civil action and a criminal action are
both pending and there exists in the former an issue which must be preemptively resolved before the
latter may proceed, because howsoever the issue raised in the civil action is resolved would be
determinative juris et de jure of the guilt or innocence of the accused in the criminal case. SPS
ARGOVAN and FLORIDA GADEITANO v. SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION. G.R. No. 188767, July 24,
2013

When the agencies and their public records are involved and affected by any decision rendered in a
petition for correction filed by a party, it is thus required that they are made parties to said proceeding.
They are indispensable parties, without whom no final determination of the case can be had. An
indispensable party is defined as one who has such an interest in the controversy or subject matter that a
final adjudication cannot be made, in his absence, without injuring or affecting that interest. The absence
of opposition from government agencies is of no controlling significance, because the State cannot be
estopped by the omission, mistake or error of its officials or agents. POLICE SENIOR
SUPERINTENDENT DIMAPINTO MACAWADIB v. THE PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE
DIRECTORATE FOR PERSONNEL AND RECORDS MANAGEMENT. G.R. No. 186610, July 29, 2013.

When a party raises issues involving questions of facts, the petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45
of the Rules of Court is not proper. Such petition covers only questions of law. In this relation, questions
of fact are not reviewable and cannot be passed upon by the Court unless exceptions are found to exist.

The distinction between questions of law and questions of fact is well-defined. A question of law exists
when the doubt or difference centers on what the law is on a certain state of facts. A question of fact, on
the other hand, exists if the doubt centers on the truth or falsity of the alleged facts. BANK OF THE
PHILIPPINES v. SARABIA MANOR HOTEL CORPORATION. G.R. No. 175844, July 29, 2013

When courts appoint a receiver, it must not only consider the reasons given by the owners of the
properties. Before appointing a receiver, courts should consider: (1) whether or not the injury resulting
from such appointment would probably be greater than the injury ensuing if the status quo is left
undisturbed; and (2) whether or not the appointment will imperil the interest of others whose rights
deserve as much a consideration from the court as those of the person requesting for receivership. MILA
CABOVERDE TANTANO and ROSELLER CABOVERDE v. DOMINILDA ESPINA-CABOVERDE, EVE
CABOVERDA-YU, et al. G.R. No. 203585, July 29, 2013

When the PAC was appointed as commissioners for the determination of just compensation, there was no
contravention to Rule 67 of the Rules of Court. Although the appointment of commissioners is mandatory,
the Rules do not impose any qualifications or restrictions on the appointment, other than that the
commissioners should not number more than three and that they should be competent and disinterested
parties.NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION v. SPS. SALVADOR AND NENITA CRUZ, et al. G.R. No.
165386, July 29, 2013

When a person is not impleaded in a case, he cannot be bound by the decision therein and consequently,
he was not given the opportunity to present his case. The principle that a person cannot be prejudiced by
a ruling rendered in an action or proceeding in which he was not made a party conforms to the
constitutional guarantee of due process of law. Not being a party to the case, he has the right to vindicate
his claim in a separate action. TERESA C. AGUILAR, et al. v. MICHAEL J. O’PALLICK. G.R. No.
182280, July 29, 2013

The daughter of the deceased may be entitled to the issuance of letters of administration as she is one of
the preferred persons enumerated by law to such. An "interested party," in estate proceedings, is one
who would be benefited in the estate, such as an heir, or one who has a claim against the estate, such as
a creditor. Also, in estate proceedings, the phrase "next of kin" refers to those whose relationship with the
decedent Is such that they are entitled to share in the estate as distributees. AMELIA GARCIA-QUIZON,
et al. v. MA. LOURDES BELEN, for and in behalf of MARIA LOURDES ELISE QUIAZON. G.R. No.
189121, July 31, 2013
When a party files a second motion for reconsideration, it is considered as a prohibited pleading and as
such, the Court will dismiss it. This rule, however, is not absolute. A second motion for reconsideration
may be allowed if there are extraordinarily persuasive reasons therefor, and upon express leave of court
first obtained. RE: LETTER DATED APRIL 18, 2011 OF CHIEF PUBLIC ATTORNEY PERSIDA
RUEDA-ACOSTA REQUESTING EXEMPTION FROM THE PAYMENT OF SHERIFF’S EXPENSES.
A.M. No. 11-10-03, July 30, 2013

When there is a pending civil case challenging the validity of a mortgage or its foreclosure, such
pendency does not bar the issuance of a writ of execution/writ of possession after said foreclosure, sale
of the mortgaged properties and the lapse of the one-year period. As a ministerial function of the court,
the judge need not look into the validity of the mortgage or the manner of its foreclosure, as these are the
questions that should be properly decided by a court of competent jurisdiction in the pending case filed
before it. DONNA C. NAGTALON v. UNITED COCONUT PLANTERS BANK. G.R. No. 172504, July 31,
2013.

When a party resorts to a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, it must be shown that there is no plain,
speedy and adequate remedy available to it other than such petition. If, however, the order partakes of a
final adjudication, the proper remedy therefore should be appeal, under Rule 41. A petition for certiorari is
not and cannot be a substitute for an appeal, especially if one’s own negligence or error in one’s choice of
remedy occasioned such loss or lapse. When an appeal is available, certiorari will not prosper, even if the
basis is grave abuse of discretion. FAUSTINO T. CHINGKOE and GLORIA CHINGKOE v. Republic of
the Philippines, represented by THE BUREAU OF CUSTOMS. G.R. No. 183608, July 31, 2013

When there is absence of direct evidence to prove that the appellant caused the crime charged of him,
circumstantial evidence may be availed of. To justify a conviction based on circumstantial evidence, the
combination of circumstances must be interwoven in such a way as to leave no reasonable doubt as to
the guilt of the accused. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ALAMANDA MACABANDO. G.R. No.
188708, July 31, 2013

When a petitioner wishes to file an action for unlawful detainer, there should first be a demand to pay or to
comply with the terms of the lease and a demand to vacate. Mere failure to pay rents does not ipso facto
make unlawful tenant's possession of the premises. It is the owner's demand for tenant to vacate the
premises, when the tenant has failed to pay the rents on time, and tenant’s refusal or failure to vacate,
which make unlawful withholding of possession. MARK ANTHONY ESTEBAN v. SPS. RODRIGO C.
MARCELO and CARMEN T. MARCELO. G.R. No. 197725, July 31, 2013

When a witness commits discrepancies relating to minor details and collateral matters, such testimony
does not affect the veracity of the witness’ declarations. It is an oft-repeated doctrine that the testimony of
even “a single eyewitness is sufficient to support a conviction so long as such testimony is found to be
clear and straight-forward and worthy of credence by the trial court. ARNEL ALICANDO y BRIONES v.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. G.R. No. 181119, July 31, 2013

When a party is deprived of his day in court because of her counsel’s failure to notify him, such is not
excusable and cannot be considered by the court. The failure of a party’s counsel to notify him on time of
the adverse judgment to enable him to appeal therefrom is negligence, which is not excusable. Notice
sent to counsel of record is binding upon the client, and the neglect or failure of counsel to inform him of
an adverse judgment resulting in the loss of his right to appeal is not a ground for setting aside a
judgment valid and regular on its face. RHODORA PRIETO v. ALPADI DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION. G.R. No. 191025, July 31, 2013

When the court liberally allows the petitioner-spouses to file their petition five days after the extended
period, there is no ground to believe that the court gravely abused its discretion when it subsequently
dismissed the petition. Where a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court alleges grave
abuse of discretion, the petitioner should establish that the respondent court or tribunal acted in a
capricious, whimsical, arbitrary or despotic manner in the exercise of its jurisdiction as to be equivalent to
lack of jurisdiction. This is so because "grave abuse of discretion" is well-defined and not an amorphous
concept that may easily be manipulated to suit one’s purpose. SPOUSES JESUS DYCOCO and JOELA
E. DYCOCO v. COURT OF APPEALS, et al. G.R. No. 147257, July 31, 2013

Consolidation is a procedural device granted to the court as an aid in deciding how cases in its docket are
to be tried so that the business of the court may be dispatched expeditiously while providing justice to the
parties. When there are two criminal cases that are consolidated together, it must be for the purpose of
expediency and speedy disposition of justice. If not, the same shall be denied. ROMULO L. NERI v.
SANDIGANBAYAN AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. G.R. No. 202243, August 07, 2013

When the acts being prevented by a party have already been accomplished, a writ of prohibition is not
proper. A prohibition is a preventive remedy seeking that a judgment be rendered which would direct the
defendant to desist from continuing with the commission of an act perceived to be illegal. As a rule, the
proper function of a writ of prohibition is to prevent the doing of an act which is about to be done. It is not
intended to provide a remedy for acts already accomplished. ALFEO D. VIVAS, ON HIS BEHALF AND
ON BEHALF OF THE SHAREHOLDERS OR EUROCREDIT COMMUNITY BANK v. THE MONETARY
BOARD OF THE BANGKO SENTRAL NG PILIPINAS and THE PHILIPPINE EPOSIT INSURANCE
CORPORATION. G.R. No. 191424, August 07, 2013

When a court grants a motion to release founded on legal bases supporting its , it therefore did not
gravely abuse its discretion. An act of a court or tribunal can only be considered to be tainted with grave
abuse of discretion when such act is done in a capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment as is
equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. In order to be qualified as "grave," the abuse of discretion must be so
patent or gross as to constitute an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform the duty or to
act at all in contemplation of law. SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE v. COURT OF
TAX APPEALS ET AL. G.R. No. 168137, August 07, 2013

A trial court judge may immediately dismiss a criminal case if the evidence on record clearly fails to
establish probable cause. It must, however, be observed that the judge’s power to immediately dismiss a
criminal case would only be warranted when the lack of probable cause is clear. The judge’s dismissal of
a case must be done only in clear-cut cases when the evidence on record plainly fails to establish
probable cause – that is when the records readily show uncontroverted, and thus, established facts which
unmistakably negate the existence of the elements of the crime charged. THE LAW FIRM OF CHAVEZ
MIRANDA AND ASEOCHE, ETC.v. ATTY. JOSEJINA C. FRIA. G.R. No. 183014, August 07, 2013

When a person commits a crime he offends two entities namely (1) the society in which he lives in or the
political entity called the State whose law he has violated; and (2) the individual member of the society
whose person, right, honor, chastity or property has been actually or directly injured or damaged by the
same punishable act or omission. Furthermore, in Section 12, Rule 10 of the Rules of Court, it is
reasonable to assume that the offended party in the commission of a crime, public or private, is the party
to whom the offender is civilly liable, and therefore the private individual to whom the offender is civilly
liable is the offended party. LEE PUE LIONG a.k.a. PAUL LEE v. CHUA PUE CHIN LEE. G.R. No.
181658, August 07, 2013

When the validity of a land title has long been settled in a previous case, an action to annul the same is
already barred from being questioned in another case despite the fact that they are in different actions.
Conclusiveness of judgment does not require identity of the causes of action for it to work. If a particular
point or question is in issue in the second action, and the judgment will depend on the determination of
that particular point or question, a former judgment between the same parties will be final and conclusive
in the second if that same point or question was in issue and adjudicated in the first suit. NATIONAL
HOUSING AUTHORITY v. CORAZON B. BAELLO, ET AL. G.R. No. 200858, August 07, 2013

When the CA does not affirm the RTC’s findings of facts, such as when both have ruleddifferently on the
identity of the lands in a case, the Supreme Court may then review the findings of fact of the appellate
court. As a general rule, the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in cases brought to it from the CA is limited
to reviewing and revising the errors of law imputed to it, its findings of fact being conclusive.  However, the
Court enumerated the exceptional circumstances when the Supreme Court may review the findings of
fact of the CA, such as when the lower courts’ findings of fact are conflicting. REPUBLIC OF THE
PHILIPPINES v. ANGELES BELLATE, ET AL. G.R. No. 175685, August 07, 2013

A Motion for Reconsideration is an indispensable condition before an aggrieved party can resort to the
special civil action for certiorari. The rationale for the rule is that the law intends to afford the NLRC an
opportunity to rectify such errors or mistakes it may have committed before resort to courts of justice can
be had.

It bears to stress that the filing of a Motion for Reconsideration is not a mere technicality of procedure. It is
a jurisdictional and mandatory requirement which must be strictly complied with. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL
BANK v. MARY SHEILA ARCOBILLAS. G.R. No. 179648, August 07, 2013

When a party wishes to compel another do a duty expected of the latter, the same should be through a
petition for certiorari and mandamus. However, to be entitled to a writ of preliminary injunction, the party
must establish the following requisites: (a) the invasion of the right sought to be protected is material and
substantial; (b) the right of the complainant is clear and unmistakable; and (c) there is an urgent and
permanent necessity for the writ to prevent serious damage.

Accordingly, the issuance of a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction presents a fourth requirement: it is
justified only in a clear case, free from doubt or dispute. When the complainant’s right is thus doubtful or
disputed, he does not have a clear legal right and, therefore, the issuance of injunctive relief is improper.
FLORD NICSON CALAWAG v. UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES VISAYAS, ET AL./ MICAH P.
ESPIA, ET AL. v. DR. CARLOS BAYLON, ET AL. G.R. No. 207412/207542, August 07, 2013

When a person wishes to correct or change the entries in the Civil Registrar regarding her name and
status, it is required that the indispensable parties must be impleaded in the proceedings. The Rules of
Court mandate two sets of notices to different potential oppositors: one given to the persons named in the
petition and another given to other persons who are not named in the petition but nonetheless may be
considered interested or affected parties. Summons must, therefore, be served not for the purpose of
vesting the courts with jurisdiction but to comply with the requirements of fair play and due process to
afford the person concerned the opportunity to protect his interest if he so chooses. REPUBLIC OF THE
PHILIPPINES v. DR. NORMA S. LUGSANAY UY. G.R. No. 198010, August 12, 2013

When a party wishes to appeal a decision rendered by the CSC, the CA has jurisdiction over the case
and the proper recourse is a petition for review under Rule 43. The jurisdiction of the CA over petitions for
review under Rule 43 is not limited to judgments and final orders of the CSC, but can extend to appeals
from awards, judgments, final orders or resolutions issued by the latter. CITY GOVERNMENT OF
MAKATI, AS REPRESENTED BY HON. MAYOR JEJOMAR C. BINAY v. EMERITA B. ODENA. G.R.
No. 191661, August 13, 2013

A party who files a complaint against another need not show proof that the acts alleged of happened. It is
sufficient that there is probable cause to file such case. The prosecutor’s findings on the existence of
probable cause are not subject to review by the courts, unless these are patently shown to have been
made with grave abuse of discretion.A finding of probable cause does not require an inquiry into whether
there is sufficient evidence to procure a conviction. It is enough that it is believed that the act or omission
complained of constitutes the offense charged. MASAYUKI HASEGAWA v. LEILA F. GIRON. G.R. No.
184536, August 14, 2013

When there is a similarity of parties, subject matter and cause of action and that judgments were issued
on the merits, a subsequent filing of an action involving the same elements are barred by the prior
judgment. However, the identity of causes of action does not mean absolute identity. The test to
determine whether the causes of action are identical is to ascertain whether the same evidence will
sustain both actions, or whether there is an identity in the facts essential to the maintenance of the two
actions. If the same facts or evidence would sustain both, the two actions are considered the same, and a
judgment in the first case is a bar to the subsequent action. PILAR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v.
COURT OF APPEALS. G.R. No. 155943, August 19, 2013

When there is a failure on the party to comply with Section 5, Rule 65, which is to implead other persons
in the case, it is not a ground to have the case dismissed. It is stated in Section 11, Rule 3 of the Rules of
Court, states that neither the misjoinder nor the non-joinder of parties is a ground for the dismissal of an
action. HADJI PANGSAYAN T. ABDULRAHMAN v. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN FOR MINDANAO
AND GUIAMALUDIN A. SENDAD. G.R. No. 175977, August 19, 2013

Settled is the rule that for the courts to exercise the power of judicial review, the following must be extant:
(1) there must be an actual case calling for the exercise of judicial power; (2) the question must be ripe for
adjudication; and (3) the person challenging must have the "standing." Hence, when a case is still ripe or
premature, a party cannot pre-empt by prematurely seeking judicial intervention, like filing an action for
prohibition. ROSENDO R. CORALES, IN HIS CAPACITY AS MUNICPAL MAYOR OF NAGCARLAN,
LAGUNA AND DR. RODOLFO R. ANGELES, IN HIS CAPACITY AS MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATOR
OF NAGCARLAN, LAGUNA V. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES. G.R. No. 186613, August 27, 2013

A party who, after complying with the requirements laid down by law, files a petition for continuing
mandamus may institute the same with the RTC having jurisdiction of the place in controversy.
Jurisdiction, which is the power and authority of the court to hear, try and decide a case, is conferred by
law. It may either be over the nature of the action, over the subject matter, over the person of the
defendants or over the issues framed in the pleadings. A special civil action for continuing mandamus
shall be filed with the RTC exercising jurisdiction over the territory where the actionable neglect or
omission occurred. MARICRIS D. DOLOT, CHAIRMAN OF THE BAGONG ALYANSANG
MAKABAYAN-SORSOGON v. HON. RAMON PAJE, IN HIS CAPACITY AS THE SECRETARY OF
THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES, ET AL. G.R. No. 199199,
August 27, 2013

When a party files another petition while one that is identical to it is pending before another tribunal, there
constitutes a ground for forum shopping since the relief sought is the same. Forum shopping is treated as
an act of malpractice and, in this accord, constitutes a ground for the summary dismissal of the actions
involved. To be sure, the rule against forum shopping seeks to prevent the vexation brought upon the
courts and the litigants by a party who asks different courts to rule on the same or related causes and
grant the same or substantially the same reliefs and in the process creates the possibility of conflicting
decisions being rendered by the different fora upon the same issues. ASIAN CONSTRUCTION AND
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. SUMITOMO CORPORATION / SUMITOMO CORPORATION v.
ASIA CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION. G.R. No. 196723/G.R. No. 196728,
August 28, 2013

When a party files a motion for extension of time to file a petition for certiorari, the court should not
admit the same due to non-compliance with the reglementary period prescribed by the court. It is well-
settled that procedural rules should be treated with utmost respect and due regard, since they are
designed to facilitate the adjudication of cases to remedy the worsening problem of delay in the
resolution of rival claims and in the administration of justice. From time to time, however, the Court has
recognized exceptions to the strict application of such rules, but only for the most compelling reasons
where stubborn obedience to the Rules would defeat rather than serve the ends of justice. However,
despite the rigid wording of Section 4, Rule 65 of the Rules, as amended by A.M. No. 07-7-12-SC,
which now disallows an extension of the 60-day reglementary period to file a petition for certiorari,
courts may nevertheless extend the same, subject to its sound discretion. MARIA LOURDES D.
CASTELLS AND SHALIMAR CENTI-MANDANAS v. SAUDI ARABIAN AIRLINES. G.R. No. 188514,
August 28, 2013

When a trial court dismissed a case involving a rural bank, the same must be treated as a dismissal with
the character of finality. That being a final decision, the proper recourse that petitioner should have
availed of is the remedy under Rule 41, which is appeal, and not Rule 65. VIRGINIA M. VENZON v.
RURAL BANK OF BUENAVISTA, INC., represented by Lourdesita E. Parajes. G.R. No. 178031,
August 28, 2013

When the petitioners allege that the main purpose of their complaint is for collection of Agent’s
Compensation, Commission and Damages, it is nonetheless principally for the collection of a sum of
money representing the same and is thus not capable of pecuniary estimation. In determining whether an
action is one the subject matter of which is not capable of pecuniary estimation this Court has adopted the
criterion of first ascertaining the nature of the principal action or remedy sought. If it is primarily for the
recovery of a sum of money, the claim is considered capable of pecuniary estimation, and whether
jurisdiction is in the municipal courts or in the Courts of First Instance would depend on the amount of the
claim. ARACELI J. CABRERA v. ANGELO G. FRANCISCO, ET AL. G.R. No. 172293, August 28, 2013

In a case of reconveyance or recovery of ill-gotten wealth, it is sufficient that the Republic prove their
demand through a preponderance of evidence. Preponderance of evidence refers to the comparative
weight of the evidence presented by the opposing parties. As such, it has been defined as "the weight,
credit, and value of the aggregate evidence on either side," and is usually considered to be synonymous
with the term greater weight of the evidence or greater weight of the credible evidence. It is proof that is
more convincing to the court as worthy of belief than that which is offered in opposition thereto.
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON
GOOD GOVERNMENT v. LUZ REYES BAKUNAWA, ET AL. G.R. No. 180418, August 28, 2013

When an accused dies pending appeal of his conviction, such death extinguishes his criminal
liability as well as the civil liability based solely thereon. Since the criminal action is extinguished
inasmuch as there is no longer a defendant to stand as the accused, the civil action instituted
therein for recovery of civil liability ex delicto is ipso facto extinguished, grounded as it is on the
criminal case. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ANASTACIO AMISTOSO. G.R. No. 201447, August
28, 2013

When the NLRC promulgates a decision, the proper recourse from such is not to file a petition for
certiorari under Rule 65 but instead, to file a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of
Court. The petitions from Rule 45 and Rule 65 are not the same. A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of
the Rules of Court is a special civil action that may be resorted to only in the absence of appeal or any
plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. As a general rule, a motion for
reconsideration is a prerequisite for the availment of a petition for certiorari under Rule 65. The filing of a
motion for reconsideration before resort to certiorari will lie is intended to afford the public respondent an
opportunity to correct any actual or fancied error attributed to it by way of re-examination of the legal and
factual aspects of the case. MALAYANG MANGGAGAWA NG STAYFAST PHILS., INC. v. NATIONAL
LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL. G.R. No. 155306, August 28, 2013

When the petitioner filed other pending actions involving the same people, same reliefs prayed for and
essentially the same issue, there exists forum shopping because the elements of litis pendentia are
present. Litis pendentia requires the concurrence of the following requisites: (1) identity of parties, or at
least such parties as those representing the same interests in both actions; (2) identity of rights asserted
and reliefs prayed for, the reliefs being founded on the same facts; and (3) identity with respect to the two
preceding particulars in the two cases, such that any judgment that may be rendered in the pending case,
regardless of which party is successful, would amount to res judicata in the other case. LUCENA B.
RALLOS v. CITY OF CEBU G.R. No. 202651, August 28, 2013

The testimony of a single witness may be sufficient to produce a conviction, if the same appears to be
trustworthy and reliable. If credible and convincing, that alone would be sufficient to convict the accused.
Testimonies of rape victims who are young and immature deserve full credence, considering that no
young woman, especially of tender age, would concoct a story of defloration, allow an examination of her
private parts, and thereafter pervert herself by being subject to public trial, if she was not motivated solely
by the desire to obtain justice for the wrong committed against her. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v.
APOLIARIO MANALILI. G.R. No. 191253, August 28, 2013
When a party inappropriately files a petition for review instead of a required notice of appeal, the same
shall be dismissed. Appeals to the CA in cases decided by the RTC in the exercise of its original
jurisdiction shall be taken by filing a notice of appeal with the latter court. FELY Y. YALONG v. PEOPLE
OF THE PHILIPPINES. G.R. No. 187174, August 28, 2013

Persons who are not parties to a case, either as petitioners, defendants or intervenors, they cannot
participate in the proceedings of the same. Consequently, they also cannot be adversely affected by the
outcome of such proceeding. A complaint-in-intervention cannot be treated as an independent action as it
is merely an ancillary to and a supplement of the principal action. The complaint-in-intervention essentially
latches on the complaint for its legal efficacy so much so that the dismissal of the complaint leads to its
concomitant dismissal. B. STA. RITA & CO., INC. AND ARLENE STA. RITA KANAPI v. ANGELINE M.
GUECO. G.R. No.193078, August 28, 2013

When the court ignored the fact that an objection was raised in the motion for reconsideration, it then
proceeded to say that the defense was not pleaded during trial so that it cannot be considered on appeal.
This is not correct. As principle that since the statement in the pleading is conclusive on the pleader, it is
unaffected by any contrary proof submitted by the pleader, whether or not objection is interposed by any
party. LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES v. BIENVENIDO CASTRO. G.R. No. 189125, August 28,
2013.

When there is a single eyewitness, her testimony is sufficient to support a conviction so long as such
testimony is found to be clear and straight-forward and worthy of credence by the trial court.
Discrepancies referring only to minor details and collateral matters do not affect the veracity of the
witness’ declarations. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. JOJIE SUANSING. G.R. No. 189822,
September 02, 2013

When a party fails to file a motion for reconsideration or appeal, the decision shall become final and
executory. Under the doctrine of immutability of judgment, a decision that has acquired finality becomes
immutable and unalterable, and may no longer be modified in any respect, even if the modification is
meant to correct erroneous conclusions of fact and law, and whether it be made by the court that
rendered it or by the Highest Court of the land. SANGGUNIANG BARANGAY OF PANGASUGAN,
BAYBAY, LEYTE v. EXPLORATION PERMIT APPLICATION OF THE PHILIPPINE NATIONAL OIL
COMPANY. G.R. No. 162226, September 02, 2013.

When a court has already ruled on a matter binding over an issue, another court cannot set aside the
ruling of said court which is of co-equal and coordinate standing.The doctrine of judicial stability states
that the judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction may not be interfered with by any court of
concurrent jurisdiction. The rationale for the same is founded on the concept of jurisdiction – verily, a
court that acquires jurisdiction over the case and renders judgment therein has jurisdiction over its
judgment, to the exclusion of all other coordinate courts, for its execution and over all its incidents, and to
control, in furtherance of justice, the conduct of ministerial officers acting in connection with this judgment.
FIRST GAS POWER CORPORATION v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE
OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL. G.R. No. 169461, September 02, 2013

When the drugs confiscated from the accused were properly accounted for and forthrightly submitted to
the Crime Laboratory, there will be no suspicion as to the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized
articles. The chain of custody rule is a method of authenticating evidence which requires that the
admission of an exhibit be preceded by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question
is what the proponent claims it to be. It would include testimony about every link in the chain, from the
moment the item was picked up to the time it is offered in evidence, in such a way that every person
who touched the exhibit would describe how and from whom it was received, where it was and what
happened to it while in the witness’ possession, the condition in which it was received and the condition
in which it was delivered to the next link in the chain. These witnesses would then describe the
precautions taken to ensure that there had been no change in the condition of the item and no
opportunity for someone not in the chain to have possession of the same. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES v. FREDDY SALONGA Y AFIADO. G.R. No. 194948, September 02, 2013.
The Heirs of Maximo Alvarez and Valentina Clave filed a complaint for quieting of title and damages
against Margarita Prodon. They alleged that Prodon maliciously made an entry in the TCT of the property
of the respondents, the entry states that the property had been sold to them with a right of repurchase.
The deed of sale with the right of repurchase had been lost.

The Best Evidence Rule applies only when the terms of a written document are the subject of the inquiry.
In an action for quieting of title based on the inexistence of a deed of sale with right to repurchase that
purportedly cast a cloud on the title of a property, therefore, the Best Evidence Rule does not apply, and
the defendant is not precluded from presenting evidence other than the original document. HEIRS OF
MARGARITA PRODON v. HEIRS OF MAXIMO S. ALVAREZ AND VALENTINA CLAVE. G.R. No.
170604, September 2, 2013

The Office of the City Prosecutor dismissed the complaints filed against the petitioners for lack of
sufficient basis both in fact and in law. The respondents filed their separate petitions before the DOJ. The
DOJ ordered the filing of separate informations against the respondents. Petitioners filed a motion for
reconsideration. The DOJ reconsidered its findings and ruled that there was no probable cause. The
respondents elevated the matter to the CA. The CA annulled and set aside the recent Resolutions of the
DOJ. ROSALINDA PUNZALAN, RANDALL PUNZALAN AND RAINIER PUNZALAN v. MICHAEL
GAMALIEL J. PLATA AND RUBEN PLATA. G.R. No. 160316, September 2, 2013,

It a sound judicial policy to refrain from interfering in the conduct of preliminary investigations and to leave
the DOJ a wide latitude of discretion in the determination of what constitutes sufficient evidence to
establish probable cause for the prosecution of the supposed offenders. The rule is based not only upon
the respect for the investigatory and prosecutory powers granted by the Constitution to the executive
department but upon practicality as well.

The trial court committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the questioned orders without giving
HOLCIM the chance to be heard. Since HOLCIM was not given an opportunity to rebut the petitioners’
evidence, considering that the former’s Manifestation and Motion for Ocular Inspection was denied,
justice will be better served if the trial court determines first the existence of documents relative to
HOLCIM’s payments made to de Guzman, and if the same is not done, to receive further evidence, this
time, from both parties. In the examination of a person, corporation, or other juridical entity who has the
property of such judgment obligor or is indebted to him, and such person, corporation, or juridical entity
denies an indebtedness, the court may only authorize the judgment obligee to institute an action against
such person or corporation for the recovery of such interest or debt. Nothing in the Rules gives the court
the authority to order such person or corporation to pay the judgment obligee and the court exceeds its
jurisdiction if it orders the person who denies the indebtedness to pay the same. The Court held that an
"execution of a judgment can only be issued against one who is a party to the action, and not against one
who, not being a party thereto, did not have his day in court. Due process dictates that a court decision
can only bind a party to the litigation and not against innocent third parties. LIGAYA ESGUERRA, ET AL.
v. HOLCIM PHILIPPINES, INC. G.R. No. 182571, September 2, 2013

Rivera claimed that AAA was his girlfriend and that sexual intercourse was consensual. AAA went to the
motel voluntarily. The sweetheart defense is an affirmative defense that must be supported by convincing
proof. Such defense is "effectively an admission of carnal knowledge of the victim and consequently
places on accused-appellant the burden of proving the alleged relationship by substantial evidence."
Independent proof is required. It cannot be argued that because AAA voluntarily went with Rivera to the
Ilang-Ilang Lodge, she consented to have sex with him. To presume otherwise would be non sequitur. It
must be noted that AAA, who was not in good terms with a co-worker, wanted a change in employer. She
easily believed Rivera who convinced her that he could help her look for a new job. Thus, she trusted
Rivera and went along with him because of his assurance that he could help her find a new employment.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. CHRISTOPHER RIVERA Y ROYO. G.R. No. 200508, September 4,
2013.
Alberto Lagaray filed a complaint for estafa against Gilbert Reyes for allegedly placing orders over the
phone and issuing a check with insufficient fund as payment. Alberto Ligaray expressly admitted that he
did not personally meet the person with whom he was transacting over the telephone.

The Bill of Rights guarantees the right of an accused to be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved.
In order to overcome the presumption of innocence, the Prosecution is required to adduce against him
nothing less than proof beyond reasonable doubt. Such proof is not only in relation to the elements of the
offense, but also in relation to the identity of the offender. If the Prosecution fails to discharge its heavy
burden, then it is not only the right of the accused to be freed, it becomes the Court’s constitutional duty to
acquit him. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. GILBERT REYES WAGAS. G.R. No. 157943,
September 4, 2013

The pendency of an administrative case for specific performance brought by the buyer of residential
subdivision lots in the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) to compel the seller to deliver
the transfer certificates of title (TCTs) of the fully paid lots is properly considered a ground to suspend a
criminal prosecution for violation of Section 25 of Presidential Decree No. 957 on the ground of a
prejudicial question. The administrative determination is a logical antecedent of the resolution of the
criminal charges based on non-delivery of the TCTs. SAN MIGUEL PROPERTIES, INC. v. SECRETARY
OF JUSTICE, ET AL. G.R. No. 166836, September 4, 2013

The DARAB has jurisdiction over cases involving the cancellation of registered CLOAs relating to an
agrarian dispute between landowners and tenants. However, in cases concerning the cancellation of
CLOAs that involve parties who are not agricultural tenants or lessees – cases related to the
administrative implementation of agrarian reform laws, rules and regulations - the jurisdiction is with the
DAR, and not the DARAB. It is the DAR and not the DARAB that has jurisdiction. First, the issue of
whether the CLOA issued to petitioners over respondent’s land should be cancelled hinges on that of
whether the subject landholding is exempt from CARP coverage by virtue of two zoning ordinances. This
question involves the DAR’s determination of whether the subject land is indeed exempt from CARP
coverage – a matter involving the administrative implementation of the CARP Law. Second, respondent’s
complaint does not allege that the prayer for the cancellation of the CLOA was in connection with an
agrarian dispute. The complaint is centered on the fraudulent acts of the MARO, PARO, and the regional
director that led to the issuance of the CLOA. RODULFO VALCURZA AND BEATRIZ LASAGA, ET AL.
v. ATTY. CASIMIRO N. TAMPARONG, JR. G.R. No. 189874, September 4, 2013.

The CA issued a TRO in order to stop the demolition order. It is settled that a writ of preliminary injunction
should be issued only to prevent grave and irreparable injury, that is, injury that is actual, substantial, and
demonstrable. Here, there is no "irreparable injury" as understood in law. Rather, the damages alleged by
the petitioner, namely," immense loss in profit and possible damage claims from clients" and the cost of
the billboard which is "a considerable amount of money" is easily quantifiable, and certainly does not fall
within the concept of irreparable damage or injury.

Damages are irreparable within the meaning of the rule relative to the issuance of injunction where there
is no standard by which their amount can be measured with reasonable accuracy. "An irreparable injury
which a court of equity will enjoin includes that degree of wrong of a repeated and continuing kind which
produce hurt, inconvenience, or damage that can be estimated only by conjecture, and not by any
accurate standard of measurement." An irreparable injury to authorize an injunction consists of a serious
charge of, or is destructive to, the property it affects, either physically or in the character in which it has
been held and enjoined, or when the property has some peculiar quality or use, so that its pecuniary
value will not fairly recompense the owner of the loss thereof. Here, any damage petitioner may suffer is
easily subject to mathematical computation and, if proven, is fully compensable by damages. Thus, a
preliminary injunction is not warranted. HEIRS OF MELENCIO YU, ET AL. v. HONORABLE COURT OF
APPEALS, ET AL. G.R. No. 182371, September 4, 2013

Petitioner may still invoke the arbitration clause of the 2005 Lease Contract notwithstanding the fact that it
assails the validity of such contract. This is due to the doctrine of separability. Under the doctrine of
separability, an arbitration agreement is considered as independent of the main contract. Being a
separate contract in itself, the arbitration agreement may thus be invoked regardless of the possible nullity
or invalidity of the main contract. OPPEL, INC. v. MAKATI ROTARY CLUB FOUNDATION, INC. G.R.
No. 198075, September 4, 2013

Plameras was found guilty of violation of RA 3019 by the Ombudsman. He appealed via petition for
review under Rule 45. Petitioner insists that his transaction is related to the mother contract between the
DECS and CKL Enterprises, which culminated in a case filed with the Office of the Ombudsman, where
the Ombudsman absolved the DECS officials.

A petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court should cover only questions of law. Questions of
fact are not reviewable. A question of law exists when the doubt is on what the law is on a certain set of
facts. A question of fact exists when the doubt is on the truth or falsity of the alleged facts. The Court
reiterates the well-settled rule that, absent any clear showing of abuse, arbitrariness or capriciousness
committed by the lower court, its findings of facts, especially when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are
binding and conclusive upon this Court. JOVITO C. PLAMERAS v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES.
G.R. No. 187268, September 4, 2013

There can be no forum shopping in the instant case because the grounds cited by private respondent in
its motions to dismiss filed in 1998 and in the present case are different. In 1998, the motion to dismiss is
based on the argument that the final and executory decision in the Perez case serves as res judicata and,
thus, bars the re-litigation of the issue of employer-employee relations between private respondent and
petitioners. In the instant case, private respondent again cites res judicata as a ground for its motion to
dismiss. This time, however, the basis for such ground is not Perez but the final and executory decision in
RAB Case No. 06-09-10699-97. Thus, the relief prayed for in private respondent's motion to dismiss
subject of the instant case is founded on totally different facts and issues. HERNANDO BORRA, JOHN
PACHEO, ET AL. v. CA, 2ND AND 19TH DIVISIONS AND HAWAIIAN PHILIPPINE COMPANY. G.R.
No. 167484, September 9, 2013

Jurisprudence dictates that the appellee’s role in the appeal process is confined only to the task of
refuting the assigned errors interposed by the appellant. Since the appellee is not the party who instituted
the appeal and accordingly has not complied with the procedure prescribed therefor, he merely assumes
a defensive stance and his interest solely relegated to the affirmance of the judgment appealed from.
Keeping in mind that the right to appeal is essentially statutory in character, it is highly erroneous for the
appellee to either assign any error or seek any affirmative relief or modification of the lower court’s
judgment without interposing its own appeal.

The CA committed a reversible error in sustaining the dismissal of the Pasig case on the ground of
improper venue because the same was not an error raised by Cruz who was the appellant before it. The
CA cannot take cognizance of MIAA’s position that the venue was improperly laid since, being the
appellee, MIAA’s participation was confined to the refutation of the appellant’s assignment of errors.
CORAZON S. CRUZ UNDER THE NAME AND STYLE, VILLA CORAZON CONDO DORMITORY v.
MANILA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY. G.R. No. 184732, September 9, 2013

In the application of the principle of due process, what is sought to be safeguarded is not lack of previous
notice but the denial of the opportunity to be heard. As long as a party was given the opportunity to
defend his interests in due course, he was not denied due process. As long as a party was given the
opportunity to defend his interests in due course, he was not denied due process. Mendoza was afforded
due process despite his claim that he had never personally received a copy of the Notice of
Disallowance/s. He was able to file the Motion for Reconsideration. The Commission gave due course to
the Motion and ruled on the merits. Petitioner Mendoza, therefore, has been duly afforded an opportunity
to explain his side and seek a reconsideration of the ruling he assails, which is the "essence of
administrative due process. ENGINEER MANOLITO P. MENDOZA v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT. G.R.
No. 195395, September 10, 2013.

Under the 1996 HLURB Rules of Procedure, as amended, an opposition to an application for a locational
clearance for a cellular base station or a complaint for the revocation of a locational clearance for a
cellular base station already issued, is within the original jurisdiction of the HLURB Executive Committee.
There is no showing that respondents availed themselves of administrative remedies prior to instituting
Civil Case No. Br. 23-632-2000 before the RTC.

Ordinarily, failure to comply with the principle of exhaustion of administrative remedies and the doctrine of
primary jurisdiction will result in the dismissal of the case for lack of cause of action. However, the Court
herein will not go to the extent of entirely dismissing Civil Case No. Br. 23-632-2000. The Court does not
lose sight of the fact that respondents’ Complaint is primarily for abatement of nuisance; and respondents
alleged the lack of HLURB requirements for the cellular base station, not to seek nullification of
petitioner’s locational clearance, but to support their chief argument that said cellular base station is a
nuisance which needs to be abated. SMART COMMUNICATIONS, INC. v. ARSENIO ALDECOA, ET
AL. G.R. No. 166330, September 11, 2013

It is an established rule that when the dispositive portion of a judgment, which has meanwhile become
final and executory, contains a clerical error or an ambiguity arising from an inadvertent omission, such
error or ambiguity may be clarified by reference to the body of the decision itself. The very contents of the
body of the Decision dated July 21, 2008 rendered by this Court in G.R. Nos. 167274-75 undoubtedly
reveal that both CA G.R. SP No. 80675 and CA G.R. SP No. 83165 were the subject matter of the petition
therein. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. FORTUNE TOBACCO
CORPORATION/FORTUNE TOBACCO CORPORATION v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
REVENUE. G.R. Nos. 167274-75& G.R. No. 192576, September 11, 2013

The discrepancies between the statements of the affiant in his affidavit and those made by him on the
witness stand do not necessarily discredit him since ex parte affidavits are generally incomplete. As
between the joint affidavit and the testimony given in open court, the latter prevails because affidavits
taken ex-parte are generally considered to be inferior to the testimony given in court.

The chemistry report showing a positive result of the paraffin test is a public document. As a public
document, the rule on authentication does not apply. It is admissible in evidence without further proof of
its due execution and genuineness; the person who made the report need not be presented in court to
identify, describe and testify how the report was conducted.

Section 14, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court permits a formal amendment of a complaint even after the plea
but only if it is made with leave of court and provided that it can be done without causing prejudice to the
rights of the accused. It is clear that consistent with the rule on amendments and the jurisprudence, the
change in the date of the commission of the crime of homicide is a formal amendment - it does not
change the nature of the crime, does not affect the essence of the offense nor deprive the accused of an
opportunity to meet the new averment, and is not prejudicial to the accused. LETICIA I. KUMMER v.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. G.R. No. 174461, September 11, 2013

The elementary test for failure to state a cause of action is whether the complaint alleges facts which if
true would justify the relief demanded. The inquiry is into the sufficiency, not the veracity of the material
allegations. If the allegations in the complaint furnish sufficient basis on which it can be maintained, it
should not be dismissed regardless of the defense that may be presented by the defendants. In this case,
the Court finds that Consing, Jr.’s complaint properly states a cause of action since the allegations there
insufficiently bear out a case for damages under Articles 19 and 26 of the Civil Code.
UNICAPITAL INC., ET AL. v. RAFAEL JOSE CONSING, JR., ET AL./RAFAEL CONSING, JR. v. HON.
MARISSA MACARAIG-GUILLEN, ETC., ET AL. G.R. Nos. 175277 & 175285, September 11, 2013

DPWH wanted to expropriate portions of the properties of BPI. BPI claimed for the inclusion of the value
of its building in determining the just compensation although it was never taken by the government. The
general rule is that the just compensation to which the owner of the condemned property is entitled to is
the market value. The general rule, however, is modified where only a part of a certain property is
expropriated. In such a case, the owner is not restricted to compensation for the portion actually taken; he
is also entitled to recover the consequential damage, if any, to the remaining part of the property. No
actual taking of the building is necessary to grant consequential damages. Consequential damages are
awarded if as a result of the expropriation, the remaining property of the owner suffers from impairment or
decrease in value. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES REPRESENTED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF
PUBLIC WORKS AND HIGHWAYS v. BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS. G.R. No. 20303,
September 11, 2013

Actions based upon a written contract must be brought within ten years from the time the right of action
accrues. Non-fulfillment of the obligation to pay on the due date, that is, on November 15, 1974, would
give rise to an action by the vendor, which date of reckoning may also apply to any action by the vendee
to determine his right under R.A. No. 6552. The vendee, respondent herein, filed this case on March 16,
2001, which is clearly beyond the 10-year prescriptive period; hence, the action has prescribed.

Even though the ground of prescription was raised only for the first time before the Supreme Court, the
respondent’s right to due process was not violated as it was given the opportunity to oppose such
defense. It is well within the authority and discretion of the Court to resolve such issue of prescription as
provided under Section 1, Rule 9 of the 1997 Rules of Court. MANUEL UY & SONS, INC. v.
VALBUECO, INCORPORATED. G.R. No. 179594, September 11, 2013

The verification and certification of non-forum shopping in the complaint is not a jurisdictional but a formal
requirement, and any objection as to non-compliance therewith should be raised in the proceedings below
and not for the first time on appeal.

Genlite Industries is merely the DTI-registered trade name or style of the respondent by which he
conducted his business. As such, it does not exist as a separate entity apart from its owner, and therefore
it has no separate juridical personality to sue or be sued. As the sole proprietor of Genlite Industries, there
is no question that the respondent is the real party in interest who stood to be directly benefited or injured
by the judgment in the complaint below. S.C. MEGAWORLD CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION v. ENGR. LUIS U. PARADA, REPRESENTED BY ENGR. LEONARDO A. PARADA
OF GENLITE INDUSTRIES. G.R. No. 183804, September 11, 2013

It is axiomatic that a complaint or information must state every single fact necessary to constitute the
offense charged; otherwise, a motion to dismiss or to quash on the ground that the complaint or
information charges no offense may be properly sustained. The test does not require absolute certainty
as to the presence of the elements of the offense; otherwise, there would no longer be any need for the
Prosecution to proceed to trial. The informations in Criminal Case No. 28001 (corruption of public officials)
and Criminal Case No. 28002 (violation of Section 4(a) of RA No.3019) have sufficiently complied with the
requirements of Section 6, Rule110 of the Rules of Court. HERMINIO T. DISINI v. SANDIGANBAYAN,
ET AL./HERMINIO T. DISINI v. SANDIGANBAYAN AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. G.R. Nos.
169823-24, September 11, 2013

The Court observes that grave abuse of discretion taints a public prosecutor’s resolution if he arbitrarily
disregards the jurisprudential parameters of probable cause. In particular, case law states that probable
cause, for the purpose of filing a criminal information, exists when the facts are sufficient to engender a
well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and that the respondent is probably guilty thereof. A
finding of probable cause needs only to rest on evidence showing that more likely than not a crime has
been committed by the suspects. It need not be based on clear and convincing evidence of guilt, not on
evidence establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and definitely not on evidence establishing absolute
certainty of guilt. In determining probable cause, the average man weighs facts and circumstances
without resorting to the calibrations of the rules of evidence of which he has no technical knowledge.
ELISEO AGUILAR v. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, ET AL. G.R. No. 197522, September 11, 2013

When a supervening event renders the execution of a judgment impossible or unjust, the interested party
can petition the court to modify the judgment to harmonize it with justice and the facts. A supervening
event is a fact which transpires or a new circumstance which develops after a judgment has become final
and executory. This includes matters which the parties were unaware of prior to or during trial because
they were not yet in existence at that time.
In this case, the sinking of M/V Pilar-I can be considered a supervening event. Petitioner, who did not
have possession of the ship, was only informed of its destruction when Colorado filed its Manifestation,
dated July 29, 2010, long after the September 11, 2009 Decision of this Court in Orix Metro Leasing and
Finance Corporation v. M/V "Pilar-I" and Spouses Ernesto Dy and Lourdes Dy attained finality on January
19, 2010. During the course of the proceedings in the RTC, the CA and this Court, petitioner could not
have known of the worsened condition of the vessel because it was in the possession of Colorado.
ERNESTO DY v. HON. GINA M. BIBAT-PALAMOS. G.R. No. 196200, September 11, 2013

A high standard of proof is required to establish paternity and filiation. An order for recognition and
support may create an unwholesome situation or may be an irritant to the family or the lives of the parties
so that it must be issued only if paternity or filiation is established by clear and convincing evidence. A
certificate of live birth purportedly identifying the putative father is not competent evidence of paternity
when there is no showing that the putative father had a hand in the preparation of the certificate. Thus, if
the father did not sign in the birth certificate, the placing of his name by the mother, doctor, registrar, or
other person is incompetent evidence of paternity. Neither can such birth certificate be taken as
recognition in a public instrument. It has no probative value to establish filiation to the alleged father. As to
the Baptismal Certificate of Christian Paulo Salas also indicating petitioner as the father, we have ruled
that while baptismal certificates may be considered public documents, they can only serve as evidence of
the administration of the sacraments on the dates so specified. They are not necessarily competent
evidence of the veracity of entries therein with respect to the child’s paternity. NARCISO SALAS v.
ANNABELLE MATUSALEM. G.R. No. 180284, September 11, 2013.

There is no eyewitness to the shooting of the victim. Prosecution’s key witness testified that he saw the
respondents went to the house of the victim and he received a call from the victim asking for help.
Likewise, the respondents tested positive for gunpowder nitrates. Nonetheless, jurisprudence tells us that
direct evidence of the crime is not the only matrix from which a trial court may draw its conclusion and
finding of guilt. The rules on evidence allow a trial court to rely on circumstantial evidence to support its
conclusion of guilt. It is sufficient to sustain a conviction if (i) there is more than one circumstance; (ii) the
facts from which the inference is derived are proven; and (iii) the combination of all circumstances is such
as to produce conviction beyond reasonable doubt. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. SPO1 ALFREDO
ALAWIG. G.R. No. 187731, September 18, 2013

Remulla is not a party to the compromise but he has the legal standing to file the petition before the Court
either in his personal capacity as taxpayer or as then Vice-Governor and, hence, Presiding Officer of the
Sangguniang Panlalawigan of the Province of Cavite. As a taxpayer, he may be allowed to sue where
there is a claim that public funds are illegally disbursed or that public money is being deflected to any
improper purpose, or that public funds are wasted through the enforcement of an invalid or
unconstitutional law or ordinance. As then Vice-Governor and Presiding Officer of the Sangguniang
Panlalawigan of the Province of Cavite, he represents the interests of the province itself which is,
undoubtedly, a real party in interest since it stands to be either benefited or injured by the execution of the
compromise judgment. JUANITO VICTOR C. REMULLA v. ERINEO S. MALIKSI, ETC., ET AL. G.R.
No. 171633, September 18, 2013

In rape cases, the law does not impose a burden on the rape victim to prove resistance because it is not
an element of rape. Hence, the absence of abrasions or contusions in AAA’s body is inconsequential.
What is necessary is that the force employed against her was sufficient to consummate the purpose
which he has in mind. Sufficient force does not mean great or is of such character that is irresistible; as
long as it brings about the desired result, all considerations of whether it was more or less irresistible are
beside the point. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. JOEY BACATAN. G.R. No. 203315, September
18, 2013

The CA set for hearing on January 4, 2005, the propriety of issuing a Writ of Preliminary Injunction. This
hearing did not push through. Although the scheduled January 4, 2005 hearing on the propriety of issuing
a Writ of Preliminary Injunction did not push through, the parties were nonetheless amply heard thru their
pleadings. There is no grave abuse of discretion in the issuance of a Writ of Preliminary Injunction where
a party was not deprived of its day in court, as it was heard and had exhaustively presented all its
arguments and defenses. SPOUSES CARMELITO AND ANTONIA ALDOVER v. THE COURT OF
APPEALS, G.R. No. 167174, September 23, 2013

In our jurisdiction, the remedies available to the mortgage creditor are deemed alternative and not
cumulative. Notably, an election of one remedy operates as a waiver of the other. For this purpose, a
remedy is deemed chosen upon the filing of the suit for collection or upon the filing of the complaint in an
action for foreclosure of mortgage, pursuant to the provision of Rule 68 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure. In this case, respondent sought to extra-judicially foreclose the mortgage of the properties
previously belonging to Sps. Maglasang (and now, their estates) and, therefore, availed of the third
option. Lest it be misunderstood, it did not exercise the first option of directly filing a claim against the
estate, as petitioners assert, since it merely notified, the probate court of the outstanding amount of its
claim against the estate of Flaviano and that it was currently restructuring the account. Thus, having
unequivocally opted to exercise the third option of extra-judicial foreclosure under Section 7, Rule 86,
respondent is now precluded from filing a suit to recover any deficiency amount as earlier discussed.
HEIRS OF THE LATE SPS. FLAVIANO MAGLASANG AND SALUD ADAZA-MAGLASANG, NAMELY,
OSCAR A. MAGLASANG, ET AL. v. MANILA BANKING CORPORATION, NOW SUBSTITUTED BY
FIRST SOVEREIGN ASSET MANAGEMENT (SPV-AMC). G.R. No. 171206, September 23, 2013

Respondents filed a petition for declaratory relief, assailing the constitutionality of certain sections of RA
9372. Private respondents only assert general interests as citizens, and taxpayers and infractions which
the government could prospectively commit if the enforcement of the said law would remain untrammeled.

Private respondents’ petition for declaratory relief failed to demonstrate how they are left to sustain or are
in immediate danger to sustain some direct injury as a result of the enforcement of the assailed provisions
of RA 9372. Without any justiciable controversy, the petitions have become pleas for declaratory relief,
over which the Court has no original jurisdiction. Then again, declaratory actions characterized by "double
contingency," where both the activity the petitioners intend to undertake and the anticipated reaction to it
of a public official are merely theorized, lie beyond judicial review for lack of ripeness. REPUBLIC OF
THE PHILIPPINES v. HERMINIO HARRY ROQUE ET. AL. G.R. No. 204603, September 24, 2013

While non-compliance with the prescribed procedural requirements will not automatically render the
seizure and custody of the items void and invalid, this is true only when "(i) there is a justifiable ground for
such non-compliance, and (ii) the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly
preserved." Thus, any divergence from the prescribed procedure must be justified and should not affect
the integrity and evidentiary value of the confiscated contraband. Absent any of the said conditions, the
non-compliance is an irregularity, a red flag that casts reasonable doubt on the identity of the corpus
delicti. In the case at bar, not only was there no justifiable ground offered for the non-compliance with the
chain of custody requirement, there was an apparent failure to properly preserve the integrity and
evidentiary value of the seized items to ensure the identity of the corpus delicti from the time of seizure to
the time of presentation in court. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ARTURO ENRIQUEZ Y DE LOS
REYES. G.R. No. 197550, September 25, 2013

P02 Aldea marked the seized items not at the crime scene but at the police station in the presence of
Ocfemia. The "chain of custody" requires that the "marking" of the seized items – to truly ensure that they
are the same items that enter the chain and are eventually the ones offered in evidence should be done
(1) in the presence of the apprehended violator (2) immediately upon confiscation.". "Immediate
confiscation" has no exact definition. To be able to create a first link in the chain of custody, then, what is
required is that the marking be made in the presence of the accused and upon immediate confiscation.
"Immediate confiscation" has no exact definition. In one case, the marking of the seized items at the
police station and in the presence of the accused was sufficient in showing compliance with the rules on
chain of custody. Marking upon immediate confiscation contemplates even marking at the nearest police
station or office of the apprehending team. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. GIOVANNI OCFEMIA Y
CHAVEZ. G.R. No. 185383, September 25, 2013

The Rule on Examination of a Child Witness specifies that every child is presumed qualified to be a
witness. To rebut this presumption, the burden of proof lies on the party challenging the child's
competence. Petitioners’ flimsy objections on Rachel’s lack of education and inability to read and tell time
carry no weight and cannot overcome the clear and convincing testimony of Rachel as to who killed her
father.

On the other hand, Section 36 of Rule 130 of the Rules of Court explicitly provided that a witness can
testify only to those facts which he knows of his personal knowledge; that is, which are derived from his
own perception, except as otherwise provided in these rules. Aniceta’s testimony is mainly hearsay,
especially on the purported fight between Wilfredo and Jesus that ended in Wilfredo’s death. Aniceta’s
testimony as such carries no probative weight. At best, Aniceta’s testimony is an independent relevant
statement: offered only as to the fact of its declaration and the substance of what had been relayed to
Aniceta by Marilou, not as to the truth thereof. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. EDWIN IBANEZ Y
ALBANTE, ET AL. G.R. No. 197813, September 25, 2013

Petitioner did not receive a notice of the August 15, 1988 Decision of the RTC in LRC Case No. 10371. A
land registration case is a proceeding in rem. In land registration proceedings, being in rem, there is no
necessity to give personal notice to the owners or claimants of the land sought to be registered in order to
vest the courts with power and authority over the res. Moreover, since no issue was raised as to Antonia
Victorino's compliance with the prerequisites of notice and publication, she is deemed to have followed
such requirements. As a consequence, petitioner is deemed sufficiently notified of the hearing of
Antonia's application. Hence, petitioner cannot claim that she is denied due process. CRISANTA GUIDO-
ENRIQUEZ v. ALICIA I. VICTORINO, ET AL. G.R. No. 180427, September 30, 2013

The grant or denial of a Demurrer to Evidence is left to the sound discretion of the court, and its ruling on
the matter shall not be disturbed in the absence of a grave abuse of such discretion. GREGORIO
SINGIAN, JR., v. SANDIGANBAYAN (THIRD DIVISION). G.R. Nos. 195011-19, September 30, 2013

Section 252 emphatically directs that the taxpayer/real property owner questioning the assessment
should first pay the tax due before his protest can be entertained. As a matter of fact, the words “paid
under protest” shall be annotated on the tax receipts. Consequently, only after such payment has been
made by the taxpayer may he file a protest in writing (within thirty [30] days from said payment of tax) to
the provincial, city, or municipal treasurer, who shall decide the protest within sixty (60) days from its
receipt. In no case is the local treasurer obliged to entertain the protest unless the tax due has been paid.

A claim for exemption from payment of real property taxes does not actually question the assessor’s
authority to assess and collect such taxes, but pertains to the reasonableness or correctness of the
assessment by the local assessor, a question of fact which should be resolved, at the very first instance,
by the LBAA. By providing that real property not declared and proved as tax-exempt shall be included in
the assessment roll, Section 206 of RA No. 7160 implies that the local assessor has the authority to
assess the property for realty taxes, and any subsequent claim for exemption shall be allowed only when
sufficient proof has been adduced supporting the claim. CAMP JOHN HAY DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION v. CENTRAL BOARD ASSESSMENT APPEALS, ETC., ET AL. G.R. No. 169234,
October 2, 2013

A claim for tax refund or credit, like a claim for tax exemption, is construed strictly against the
taxpayer. One of the conditions for a judicial claim of refund or credit under the VAT System is
compliance with the 120+30 day mandatory and jurisdictional periods. Thus, strict compliance with
the 120+30 day periods is necessary for such a claim to prosper, whether before, during, or after the
effectivity of the Atlas doctrine, except for the period from the issuance of BIR Ruling No. DA-489-
03 on 10 December 2003 to 6 October 2010 when the Aichi doctrine was adopted, which again reinstated
the 120+30 day periods as mandatory and jurisdictional.

Section 4 of the 1997 Tax Code provides that the "power to interpret the provisions of this Code and other
tax laws shall be under the exclusive and original jurisdiction of the Commissioner, subject to review by
the Secretary of Finance," Section 7 of the same Code does not prohibit the delegation of such power.
Thus, "the Commissioner may delegate the powers vested in him under the pertinent provisions of this
Code to any or such subordinate officials with the rank equivalent to a division chief or higher, subject to
such limitations and restrictions as may be imposed under rules and regulations to be promulgated by the
Secretary of Finance, upon recommendation of the Commissioner." COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
REVENUE v. SAN ROQUE POWER CORPORATION/ TAGANITO MINING CORPORATION v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE/ PHILEX MINING CORPORATION v. COMMISSIONER
OF INTERNAL REVENUE. G.R. No. 187485/G.R. No. 196113/G.R. No. 197156, October 8, 2013

For a taxpayer to be entitled to a tax credit or refund of creditable withholding tax, the following requisites
must be complied with: First, The claim must be filed with the CIR within the two-year period from the date
of payment of the tax; Second, It must be shown on the return of the recipient that the income received
was declared as part of the gross income; and Third, The fact of withholding is established by a copy of
the statement duly issued by the payor to the payee showing the amount paid and the amount of tax
withheld. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. TEAM (PHILIPPINES) OPERATIONS
CORPORATION [FORMERLY MIRANT (PHILIPPINES) OPERATIONS CORPORATION). G.R. No.
185728, October 16, 2013

The two-year prescriptive period applies only to administrative claims and not to judicial claims. The 120-
day and 30-day periods are not merely directory but mandatory. The taxpayer will always have 30 days to
file the judicial claim even if the Commissioner acts only on the 120th day, or does not act at all during the
120-day period. With the 30-day period always available to the taxpayer, the taxpayer can no longer file a
judicial claim for refund or tax credit of unutilized excess input VAT without waiting for the Commissioner
to decide until the expiration of the 120-day period. Failure to comply with the 120-day waiting period
violates the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies and renders the petition premature and thus
without a cause of action, with the effect that the CTA does not acquire jurisdiction over the taxpayer’s
petition.

However, the San Roque case provides exception to the strict compliance with the 120-day period.
Although the 120-day period is mandatory and jurisdictional, the BIR Ruling No. DA-489-03 dated
December 10, 2003 provided a valid claim for equitable estoppel under Section 246 of the Tax Code. BIR
Ruling No. DA-489-03 expressly states that the "taxpayer-claimant need not wait for the lapse of the 120-
day period before it could seek judicial relief with the CTA by way of Petition for Review. Thus, the BIR
Ruling No. DA-489-03 will shield the filing of a tax payer’s judicial claim from the vice of prematurity when
such claim is filed during its effectivity. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v. GST PHILIPPINES, INC.
G.R. No. 190872, October 17, 2013.

Petitioners filed review on certiorari under Rule 45 to the SC. Petitioners argue that the Breakdown of
Account which the RTC used as a basis in awarding the claim, as affirmed by the CA , is hearsay since
the person who prepared it was not presented in court to authenticate it.

It is a settled rule that in the exercise of the Supreme Court's power of review, the Court is not a trier of
facts and does not normally undertake the re-examination of the evidence presented by the contending
parties during the trial of the case considering that the findings of facts of the CA are conclusive and
binding on the Court. However, the Court had recognized several exceptions to this rule, to wit: (1) when
the findings are grounded entirely on speculation, surmises or conjectures; (2) when the inference made
is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (3) when there is grave abuse of discretion; (4) when the
judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts; (5) when the findings of facts are conflicting; (6) when
in making its findings the Court of Appeals went beyond the issues of the case, or its findings are contrary
to the admissions of both the appellant and the appellee; (7) when the findings are contrary to the trial
court; (8) when the findings are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based;
(9) when the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioner's main and reply briefs are not
disputed by the respondent; (10) when the findings of fact are premised on the supposed absence of
evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record; and (11) when the Court of Appeals manifestly
overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed by the parties, which, if properly considered, would justify a
different conclusion.

The entries in the Breakdown of Account and their corresponding amounts are not supported by the
respondent’s presented evidence. The itemized expenses, as repeatedly pointed out by the petitioners,
were not proven, and the remaining indebtedness, after the partial payment of P600,000.00, was merely
derived by the RTC from the Breakdown of Account. It is unacceptable for the RTC to simply come up
with a conclusion that the payment of P600,000.00 did not extinguish the debt, or, assuming it really did
not, that the remaining amount of indebtedness amounts exactly to P460,505.86, without any showing of
how this balance was arrived at. To our mind, the RTC’s ruling, in so far as the determination of the actual
indebtedness is concerned, is incomplete. NUCCIO SAVERIO AND NS INTERNATIONAL INC. v.
ALFONSO G. PUYAT, G.R. No. 186433, November 27, 2013

The buy-bust team failed to take pictures of the seized drugs immediately upon seizure and at the site of
accused-appellants’ apprehension, and to mark and make an inventory of the same in the presence of all
the persons named in Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165.

Jurisprudence has decreed that, in dangerous drugs cases, the failure of the police officers to make a
physical inventory and to photograph the sachets of shabu, as well as to mark the sachets at the place of
arrest, do not render the seized drugs inadmissible in evidence or automatically impair the integrity of the
chain of custody of the said drugs. What is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and
the evidentiary value of the seized items, as these would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or
innocence of the accused. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ASIR GANI Y ALIH AND NORMINA GANI
Y GALOS. G.R. No. 198318, November 27, 2013

King Construction filed a money claim against the Province of Aklan with the RTC of Marikina. Under
Commonwealth Act No. 327, as amended by Section 26 of Presidential Decree No. 1445, it is the COA
which has primary jurisdiction over money claims against government agencies and instrumentalities.
Respondent’s collection suit being directed against a local government unit, such money claim should
have been first brought to the COA. Hence, the RTC should have suspended the proceedings and refer
the filing of the claim before the COA. Moreover, petitioner is not estopped from raising the issue of
jurisdiction even after the denial of its notice of appeal and before the CA. THE PROVINCE OF AKLAN v.
JODY KING CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION. G.R. Nos. 197592 & 20262,
November 27, 2013.

Atty. Enriquez filed with the SC a petition for review dated 19 August 2011 challenging the IBP Board of
Governors’ 5 June 2008 and 26 June 2011 Resolutions. The Spouses Williams filed opposed the petition
for review because it was filed out of time.

The IBP Board of Governors’ Resolutions did not become final. Resolutions of the IBP Board of
Governors are only recommendatory and always subject to the Court’s review. The Supreme Court
exercises exclusive jurisdiction to regulate the practice of law. It exercises such disciplinary functions
through the IBP, but it does not relinquish its duty to form its own judgment. Disbarment proceedings are
exercised under the sole jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, and the IBP’s recommendations imposing the
penalty of suspension from the practice of law or disbarment are always subject to this Court’s review and
approval.SPOUSES DAVID AND MARISA WILLIAMS v. ATTY. RUDY T. ENRIQUEZ, A.C. No. 7329,
November 27, 2013

The appellant argues that the police officers who apprehended her failed to strictly comply with the
procedural requirements of Section 21(1), Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, specifically, the failure to
take photographs and to make an inventory of the seized evidence, and the lack of participation of the
representatives from the media, the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official in the
operation.

Despite the seemingly mandatory language used in the procedural rule at issue, a perusal of Section 21,
Article II of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. 9165 reveals the existence of a
clause which may render non-compliance with said procedural rule non-prejudicial to the prosecution of
drug offenses. Notwithstanding the procedural error, the integrity and the evidentiary value of the illegal
drugs used in this case were duly preserved and the chain of custody of said evidence was shown to be
unbroken.PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. MARISSA CASTILLO Y ALIGNAY. G.R. No. 190180,
November 27, 2013

Accused denied the charges against him and pointed out that during the times and dates the alleged
criminal acts took place, he was working at the construction site with his nephew. Roderick Palconet,
nephew of the accused, was presented in court in order to corroborate his alibi.

It is established by jurisprudence that in order for a corroboration of an alibi to be considered credible, it

must necessarily come from disinterested witnesses. The testimony of appellant’s nephew, which is
undoubtedly coming from a close relative, cannot, in any way, be described as disinterested and
unbiased. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ROBERTO VELASCO. G.R. NO. 190318, November 27,
2013

William Francisco filed a complaint for specific performance with RTC of Imus, Cavite to compel the
petitioners to execute a Deed of Absolute Sale over the a lot situated in Makati covered by TCT No.
220530 Fernando’s name. Petitioner Fernando claimed that RTC Imus lacked jurisdiction over the case
as it involved an adjudication of ownership of a property situated in Makati City.

Although the end result of the respondent’s claim was the transfer of the subject property to his name, the
suit was still essentially for specific performance, a personal action, because it sought Fernando’s
execution of a deed of absolute sale based on a contract which he had previously made. Section 2, Rule
4 of the Rules of Court then governs the venue for the respondent’s action. It provides that personal
actions "may be commenced and tried 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, at the election of the plaintiff." Considering the respondent’s statement in his
complaint that he resides in Imus, Cavite, the filing of his case with the RTC of Imus was
proper.SPOUSES TEODORO and ROSATIO SARAZA and FERNANDO SARAZA v. WILLIAM
FRANCISCO. G.R. No. 198718, November 27, 2013

Lilia Tulop filed an ejectment case against the Generoso Enesio with the MTC. MTC proceeded with the
pre-trial conference and required the parties to submit position papers. Generoso posited that the MTC
should have conducted a preliminary hearing and received evidence to determine the existence of a
tenancy relationship between the parties.

As expressly provided in the Revised Rules on Summary Procedure, ejectment cases merely require the
submission by the parties of affidavits and position papers. The rule directs courts to conduct hearings
only when necessary to clarify factual matters. "This procedure is in keeping with the objective of the Rule
of promoting the expeditious and inexpensive determination of cases." GENEROSO ENESIO v. LILIA
TULOP. G.R. No. 183923, November 27, 2013

The petitioner mortgaged the subject property to respondent bank. Upon maturity of the loan, petitioner
failed to pay the loan despite demand. The property was foreclosed and sold in a public auction where
respondent bank was the highest bidder. Spouses Sia filed suit questioning the validity of the extrajudicial
foreclosure of mortgage. Petitioner, however, failed to redeem the property within the one-year
redemption period. Respondent bank consolidated its ownership over the property and a new title was
issued in its favor. Hence, it became the ministerial duty of the court to issue the writ of possession
applied for by respondent bank. Despite the pending suit for annulment of the mortgage and Notice of
Sheriff’s Sale, respondent bank is entitled to a writ of possession, without prejudice to the eventual
outcome of the said case. SPOUSES PIO DATO AND SONIA Y. SIA v. BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE
ISLANDS G.R. No. 181873, November 27, 2013

The buy-bust team failed to make an inventory and to take photographs of the subject drug. The non-
compliance with Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 which identifies the said requirements does not necessarily
render the arrest illegal or the items seized inadmissible. What is essential is that the integrity and
evidentiary value of the seized items which would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence
of the accused are preserved. In this case, the defense failed to substantiate its claim that such integrity
and evidentiary value of the subject drug was adversely affected by the police officers’ handling thereof.
As the Court explained in People v. Mendoza:

This Court has, in many cases, held that while the chain of custody should ideally be perfect, in reality it is
not, "as it is almost always impossible to obtain an unbroken chain." The most important factor is the
preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items as they will be used to
determine the guilt or innocence of the accused. Hence, the prosecution’s failure to submit in evidence
the physical inventory and photograph of the seized drugs as required under Article 21 of Republic Act
No. 9165, will not render [the accused]’s arrest illegal or the items seized from her inadmissible. PEOPLE
OF THE PHILIPPINES v. FAISAL LOKS Y PELONYO, G.R. NO. 203433, NOVEMBER 27, 2013

The 23 respondents filed a petition for certiorari to the Court of Appeals but only nine of the respondents
had signed the verification and certification against forum shopping attached to the petition.

The general rule that 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. However,
that under reasonable or justifiable circumstances, as when all the plaintiffs or petitioners share a
common interest and invoke a common cause of action or defense, as in this case, the signature of only
one of them in the certification against forum shopping substantially complies with the certification
requirement. The verification signed by nine of the respondents substantially complied with the verification
requirement since respondents share a common interest and cause of action in the case. The 23
respondents in G.R. No. 171282 were employed by petitioner SKM Art Craft Corporation which is
engaged in the handicraft business. SKM ART CRAFT CORPORATION v. EFREN BAUCA ET AL. G.R.
NO. 171282, November 27, 2013Sometime in 1995, petitioner took over Lot No. 32. . A written demand
letter was sent sometime in April 2002 .On January 14 2003, respondent filed a Complaint for Unlawful
Detainer before the MeTC.

The one-year prescriptive period for filing a case for unlawful detainer is tacked from the date of the last
demand, the reason being that the other party has the right to waive the right of action based on previous
demands and to let the possessor remain on the premises for the meantime. When respondent sent
petitioner a demand letter in April 2002 and subsequently filed the Complaint in January 2003, it did so
still within the one-year prescriptive period imposed by the rules. MORETO MIRALLOSA v. CARMEL
DEVELOPMENT INC. G.R. No. 194538, November 27, 2013

Appellant claimed that he was at work at the time of the AAA was raped. This was corroborated by
another defense witness Allan Talinghale. For the defense of alibi to prosper, the appellant must prove
that he was somewhere else when the offense was committed and that he was so far away that it was not
possible for him to have been physically present at the place of the crime or at its immediate vicinity at the
time of its commission.

In the case at bar, we find that appellant’s alibi did not sufficiently establish that he was working at a
construction site when AAA was raped and that it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene of
the crime when it was committed. Likewise, the corroborating testimony of defense witness Talinghale
does not discount the possibility that appellant may have left the construction site to commit the dastardly
act he was charged with and came back afterwards.PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. WELMO LINSIE
Y BINEVIDEZ. G.R. No. 199494, November 27, 2013.

The RTC rendered a decision finding the appellant guilty of the rape. RTC took appellant’s silence and
passiveness when he was confronted by "AAA" with the rape charge at the police station as an implied
admission of guilt.

Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right to be informed of his
right to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel preferably of his own choice.
Clearly, when appellant remained silent when confronted by the accusation of "AAA" at the police station,
he was exercising his basic and fundamental right to remain silent. At that stage, his silence should not be
taken against him. Thus, it was error on the part of the trial court to state that appellant’s silence should
be deemed as implied admission of guilt. In fact, this right cannot be waived except in writing and in the
presence of counsel and any admission obtained in violation of this rule shall be inadmissible in evidence.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. JONAS GUILLEN Y ATIENZA. G.R. No. 191756, November 25,
2013

Pursuant to a court’s order respondent issued Warrants of Levy against several delinquent properties of
the petitioner. These properties were advertised and sold at public auction. Digital Telecommunications
made a request to the respondent to lift the warrant invoking the final Decision in Civil Case No. 3514
decreeing petitioner’s exemption from the payment of real property tax is binding upon respondent. Since
the warrants remained unlifted, petitioner filed with the RTC a Petition for Indirect Contempt.

Contempt of court is defined as a disobedience to the court by acting in opposition to its authority, justice,
and dignity. It signifies not only a willful disregard or disobedience of the court’s order, but such conduct
which tends to bring the authority of the court and the administration of law into disrepute or, in some
manner, to impede the due administration of justice. It is a defiance of the authority, justice, or dignity of
the court which tends to bring the authority and administration of the law into disrespect or to interfere
with or prejudice party-litigants or their witnesses during litigation. The acts of respondent in issuing the
Warrants of Levy and in effecting the public auction sale of petitioner’s real properties, were neither
intended to undermine the authority of the court nor resulted to disobedience to the lawful orders of
Branch IX. He merely performed a ministerial function which he is bound to perform under Sections 176
and 177 of RA 7160. DIGITAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS PHILIPPINES, INC. v. JESSIE E. CANTOS.
G.R. No. 180200, November 25, 2013

Natalio Hilarion was charged with statutory rape for raping AAA, a six (6) years old girl. AAA and her
mother testified that AAA was six (6) years old at the time she was rape but no documentary evidence
was presented to prove the same.

In the present case, the records are completely devoid of evidence that the certificates recognized by law
have been lost or destroyed or were otherwise unavailable. The mother simply testified without prior proof
of the unavailability of the recognized primary evidence. Thus, proof of the victim’s age cannot be
recognized, following the rule that all doubts should be interpreted in favor of the accused. We stress that
age is an essential element of statutory rape; hence the victim's age must be proved with equal certainty
and clarity as the crime itself. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. NATALIO HILARION Y LALIA. G.R.
No. 201105, November 25, 2013

Roberto Garcia was charged with rape for raping AAA, a three (3) year old girl.

In People v. Arpon, the Court established the guidelines in appreciating age, either as an element of the
crime or as a qualifying circumstance, as follows:

1. The best evidence to prove the age of the offended party is an original or certified
true copy of the certificate of live birth of such party.
2. In the absence of a certificate of live birth, similar authentic documents such as
baptismal certificate and school records which show the date of birth of the victim
would suffice to prove age.
3. If the certificate of live birth or authentic document is shown to have been lost or
destroyed or otherwise unavailable, the testimony, if clear and credible, of the victim's
mother or a member of the family either by affinity or consanguinity who is qualified to
testify on matters respecting pedigree such as the exact age or date of birth of the
offended party pursuant to Section 40, Rule 130 of the Rules on Evidence shall be
sufficient under the following circumstances:
a. If the victim is alleged to be below 3 years of age and what is sought to be
proved is that she is less than 7 years old;
 b. If the victim is alleged to be below 7 years of age and what is sought to be
proved is that she is less than 12 years old;
c. If the victim is alleged to be below 12 years of age and what is sought to be
proved is that she is less than 18 years old.
4. In the absence of a certificate of live birth, authentic document, or the testimony of the
victim's mother or relatives concerning the victim's age, the complainant's testimony
will suffice provided that it is expressly and clearly admitted by the accused.
5. It is the prosecution that has the burden of proving the age of the offended party.

The failure of the accused to object to the testimonial evidence regarding age shall not be taken against
him.

In this case, there is nothing on record to prove the qualifying circumstance that "the victim is a child
below 7 years old." The testimony of AAA anent her age and the absence of denial on the part of Garcia
are not sufficient evidence of her age. On the other hand, the information regarding the age of AAA as
indicated in Medico Legal Report No. M-4356-04 is not reliable because there was no showing who
supplied the same. Lamentably, her age was not one of the subjects of stipulation during the pre-trial
conference. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ROBERTO GARCIA Y PADIERNOS. G.R. No. 206095,
November 25, 2013

a. While it is true that a notarized document, like an SPA, carries the evidentiary weight conferred upon it
with respect to its due execution, and has in its favor the presumption of regularity, this presumption,
however, is not absolute. It may be rebutted by clear and convincing evidence to the contrary. In brushing
aside the expert witness’ testimony, it was observed that in order to bring about an accurate comparison
and analysis, the standard of comparison must be as close as possible in point of time to the suspected
signature. However, when the dissimilarity between the genuine and false specimens of writing is visible
to the naked eye and would not ordinarily escape notice or detection from an unpracticed observer, resort
to technical rules is no longer necessary and the instrument may be stricken off for being spurious. When
so established and is conspicuously evident from its appearance, the opinion of handwriting experts on
the forged document is no longer necessary.

b. Ownership and real rights over real property are acquired by ordinary prescription through possession
of ten years, provided that the occupant is in good faith and with just title. A prescriptive title to real estate
is not acquired by mere possession thereof under claim of ownership for a period of ten years unless
such possession was acquired with color of title and good faith. However, it must be stressed that
possession by virtue of a spurious title, as the Spouses Go believed it to be, cannot be considered
constructive possession for the purpose of reckoning the ten-year prescriptive period. The conclusion of
the appellate court that prescription has already set in is erroneously premised on the absence of forgery
and the consequent validity of the deed of sale. HEIRS OF THE LATE FELIX M. BUCTON v. SPOUSES
GONZALO and TRINIDAD GO, G.R. No. 188395, November 20, 2013

In this relation, jurisprudence dictates that an answer fails to tender an issue if it does not comply with the
requirements of a specific denial as set out in Sections 8 and 10, Rule 8 of the Rules, resulting in the
admission of the material allegations of the adverse party’s pleadings.

As such, it is a form of judgment that is exclusively based on the submitted pleadings without the
introduction of evidence as the factual issues remain uncontroverted. In this case, records disclose that in
its Answer, GSIS admitted the material allegations of PGAI’s complaint warranting the grant of the relief
prayed for. In particular, GSIS admitted that: (a) it made a request for reinsurance cover which PGAI
accepted in a reinsurance binder effective for one year; (b) it remitted only the first three reinsurance
premium payments to PGAI; (c) it failed to pay PGAI the fourth and final reinsurance premium
installment; and (d) it received demand letters from PGAI. It also did not refute the allegation of PGAI that
it settled reinsurance claims during the reinsured period. On the basis of these admissions, the Court
finds that the CA did not err in affirming the propriety of a judgment on the pleadings. GOVERNMENT
SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM v. PRUDENTIAL GUARANTEE AND ASSURANCE, INC.,
DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES and LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES. G.R. No.
165585, November 20, 2013

In determining whether an action is one the subject matter of which is not capable of pecuniary
estimation, the Supreme Court has adopted the criterion of first ascertaining the nature of the principal
action or remedy sought. If it is primarily for the recovery of a sum of money, the claim is considered
capable of pecuniary estimation, and whether jurisdiction is in the municipal courts or in the courts of first
instance would depend on the amount of the claim. However, where the basic issue is something other
than the right to recover a sum of money, where the money claim is purely incidental to, or a
consequence of, the principal relief sought, this Court has considered such actions as cases where the
subject of the litigation may not be estimated in terms of money, and are cognizable by Regional Trial
Courts.

Although the causes of action of respondents pertains to the title, possession and interest of each of the
contending parties over the contested property, the assessed value of which falls within the jurisdiction of
the MTC, the complaint, however suggests that the nature of the suit, the allegations therein, and the
reliefs prayed for, is within the jurisdiction of the RTC. GENESIS INVESTMENT, INC. v. HEIRS of
CEFERINO EBARASABAL. G.R. No. 181622, November 20, 2013

Under Rule 41 of the Rules, an appeal from the RTC’s decision may be undertaken in three (3) ways,
depending on the nature of the attendant circumstances of the case, namely: (1) an ordinary appeal to the
CA in cases decided by the RTC in the exercise of its original jurisdiction; (2) a petition for review to the
CA in cases decided by the RTC in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction; and (3) a petition for review
on certiorari directly filed with the Court where only questions of law are raised or involved.

The first mode of appeal under Rule 41 of the Rules is available on questions of fact or mixed questions
of fact and of law. The second mode of appeal, governed by Rule 42 of the Rules, is brought to the CA on
questions of fact, of law, or mixed questions of fact and of law. The third mode of appeal under Rule 45 of
the Rules of Court is filed with the Court only on questions of law.  It is only where pure questions of law
are raised or involved can an appeal be brought to the Court via a petition for review on certiorari under
Rule 45. The rule in this jurisdiction is that only questions of law may be raised in a petition for certiorari
under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court. "The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in cases brought to it
from the Court of Appeals is limited to reviewing and revising the errors of law imputed to it, its findings of
fact being conclusive." However, when the petitioner questioned the RTC’s ruling, it was, in fact, raising
the issues of falsity and of forgery of the signatures in the bail bond, which questions are purely of fact
and must be resolved before the CA and not proper under Rule 45 certiorari petition. FAR EASTERN
SURETY AND INSURANCE CO. INC. v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. G.R. No. 170618, November
20, 2013

The rule on conclusiveness of factual findings is not an absolute one. Despite the respect given to
administrative findings of fact, the CA may resolve factual issues, review and re-evaluate the evidence on
record and reverse the administrative agency’s findings if not supported by substantial evidence. Since,
the CA found no substantial evidence to support the conclusion that the respondents are guilty of the
administrative charges against them, the Ombudsman’s findings can be reversed, as mere allegation and
speculation is not evidence, and is not equivalent to proof. 

The theory of the hearsay rule is that when a human utterance is offered as evidence of the truth of the
fact asserted, the credit of the assertor becomes the basis of inference, and, therefore, the assertion can
be received as evidence only when made on the witness stand, subject to the test of cross-examination.
However, if an extrajudicial utterance is offered, not as an assertion to prove the matter asserted but
without reference to the truth of the matter asserted, the hearsay rule does not apply.

The records show that not one of the complainants actually witnessed the transfer of money from
Alingasa to Erederos and Mendoza. Nowhere in their affidavits did they specifically allege that they saw
Alingasa remit the collections to Erederos. However, their testimonies are still "evidence not of what the
witness knows himself but of what he has heard from others." PRIMO C. MIRO, in his capacity as
Deputy Ombudsman for the Visayas
v. MARILYN MENDOZA VDA. DE EREDEROS. G.R. Nos. 172532 172544-45, November 20, 2013

a. When the application is set by the court for initial hearing, it is then that notice (of the hearing),
addressed to all persons appearing to have an interest in the lot being registered and the adjoining
owners, and indicating the location, boundaries and technical description of the land being registered,
shall be published in the Official Gazette for two consecutive times. It is this publication of the notice of
hearing that is considered one of the essential bases of the jurisdiction of the court in land registration
cases, for the proceedings being in rem, it is only when there is constructive seizure of the land, effected
by the publication and notice, that jurisdiction over the res is vested on the court. Here, the Chabons did
not make any mention of the ownership or occupancy by the Philippine Army and did not indicate any
efforts or searches they had exerted in determining other occupants of the land. Such omission
constituted extrinsic fraud.

b. Granting that the persons representing the government was negligent, the doctrine of estoppel cannot
be taken against the Republic. It is a well-settled rule that the Republic or its government is not estopped
by mistake or error on the part of its officials or agents. In any case, even granting that the said official
was negligent, the doctrine of estoppel cannot operate against the State. As in the case, the subject
lands, being part of a military reservation, are inalienable and cannot be the subjects of land registration
proceedings. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ANTONIO BACAS. G.R. No. 182913, November 20,
2013

The primordial policy is a faithful observance of procedural rules, and their relaxation or suspension
should only be for persuasive reasons and only in meritorious cases, to relieve a litigant of an injustice not
commensurate with the degree of his thoughtlessness in not complying with the procedure
prescribed. This is especially true with quasi-judicial and administrative bodies, such as the IPO, which
are not bound by technical rules of procedure. While petitioner submitted mere photocopies as
documentary evidence, it should be noted that the IPO had already obtained the originals in the related
Cancellation Case earlier filed before it; hence, the IPO Director General’s relaxation of procedure was a
valid exercise of his discretion in the interest of substantial justice. BIRKENSTOCK ORTHOPAEDIE
GMBH AND CO. KG v. PHILIPPINE SHOE EXPO MARKETING CORPORATION. G.R. No. 194307,
November 20, 2013

Decisions of administrative or quasi-administrative agencies which are declared by law final and
unappealable are subject to judicial review if they fail the test of arbitrariness, or upon proof of gross
abuse of discretion, fraud or error of law. When such administrative or quasi-judicial bodies grossly
misappreciate evidence of such nature as to compel a contrary conclusion, the Court will not hesitate to
reverse the factual findings. Thus, the decision of the Ombudsman may be reviewed, modified or
reversed via petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, on a finding that it had no
jurisdiction over the complaint, or of grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction.
Since, the Office of the Ombudsman’s Decision exonerating respondents from the administrative charges
had resolved all issues raised by petitioner, it is in a proper exercise of discretion when it found the
evidence adduced by petitioner as wanting to support the administrative charges brought against
respondents.

Further, considering that a special civil action for Certiorari is within the concurrent original jurisdiction of
the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals, such petition should be initially filed with the Court of
Appeals in observance of the doctrine of hierarchy of courts. WILLIAM C. DAGAN v. OFFICE OF THE
OMBUDSMAN. G.R. No. 184083, November 19, 2013

But while it is true that the prosecution has the quasi-judicial discretion to determine whether or not a
criminal case should be filed in court, once the case is filed, any disposition the prosecutor may
afterwards deem proper should be addressed to the court for its consideration and approval. It is the
court’s bounden duty to assess independently the merits of the same.
The rule is that the real nature of the criminal charge is determined not by the caption of the information or
the citation of the law allegedly violated but by the actual recital of facts in that information. Here the issue
is whether the facts alleged in the informations in the subject criminal cases make out a case for the crime
of technical malversation. However, the informations show that there is no allegation in the informations
that the P2 million and P6 million grants to COCOFED had been earmarked for some specific
expenditures. ROLANDO P. DE LA CUESTA v. THE SANDIGANBAYAN. G.R. Nos. 164068-69,
November 19, 2013

Act No. 3135 has no requirement for the determination of the mortgaged properties’ appraisal value.
Nothing in the law likewise indicates that the mortgagee-creditor’s appraisal value shall be the basis for
the bid price. Neither is there any rule nor any guideline prescribing the minimum amount of bid, nor that
the bid should be at least equal to the properties’ current appraised value. Under the circumstances, no
necessity of determining the mortgaged properties’ current appraised value or any showing of the
existence of any prejudicial question warrants the suspension of the foreclosure proceedings. It must be
noted that a prejudicial question is a prior issue whose resolution rests with another tribunal, but at the
same time is necessary in the resolution of another issue in the same case. SYCAMORE VENTURES
CORPORATION v. METROPOLITAN BANK AND TRUST COMPANY. G.R. No. 173183, November 18,
2013

A question of law exists when the doubt or controversy concerns the correct application of law or
jurisprudence to a certain set of facts; or when the issue does not call for an examination of the probative
value of the evidence presented, the truth or falsehood of the facts being admitted. Nevertheless, as an
exception, when the lower courts grossly misunderstood the facts and circumstances that, when correctly
appreciated, would warrant a different conclusion, a review of the lower courts' findings may be made.
Nonetheless, an examination of the issues shows that the claimed errors primarily question the
sufficiency of the evidence supporting the lower courts' conclusion that is proper for a question of fact.
ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP OF MANILA v. CRESENCIASTA.TERESA RAMOS. G.R. No.
179181, November 18, 2013

In criminal cases, the evaluation of the credibility of witnesses is addressed to the sound discretion of the
trial judge whose conclusion thereon deserves much weight and respect because the judge had the direct
opportunity to observe them on the stand and ascertain if they were telling the truth or not. This deference
to the trial court’s appreciation of the facts and of the credibility of witnesses is consistent with the
principle that when the testimony of a witness meets the test of credibility, that alone is sufficient to
convict the accused. Since the eyewitness positively identified the accused as the perpetrator of the
crime, no further defense could negate the lower court’s appreciation and finding of guilt. PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES v. BASILIO VILLARMEA Y ECHAVEZ. G.R. No. 200029, November 13, 2013

It is a settled rule that the Court examines only questions of law on appeal and not questions of facts.
However, jurisprudence has recognized several exceptions in which factual issues may be resolved by
the Court, such as when the factual findings of the courts a quo are conflicting. As there has been
conflicting finding between RTC and CA, a review of facts necessitates question of fact.

Settled is the rule that a witness can testify only to those facts which he knows of his personal knowledge,
which means those facts which are derived from his own perception. A witness may not testify as to what
he merely learned from others either because he was told or read or heard the same. Such testimony is
considered hearsay and may not be received as proof of the truth of what he has learned. When CIGI’s
installation manager, testified a request in writing was made but no evidence was submitted, the
testimony is a self-serving allegation, which is not equivalent to proof. However, it may be considered as
an independently relevant statement and may be admitted to show that utterances were made.
CONSOLIDATED INDUSTRIAL GASES, INC. v. ALABANG MEDICAL CENTER. G.R. No. 181983,
November 13, 2013

Although Section 2 of Rule 47 provides that a petition for annulment may be based only on the grounds of
extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction, jurisprudence has recognized denial of due process as an
additional ground.
An action to annul a final judgment is an extraordinary remedy, which is not to be granted
indiscriminately. It is a recourse equitable in character, allowed only in exceptional cases as where there
is no adequate or appropriate remedy available (such as new trial, appeal, petition for relief) through no
fault of petitioner. The reason for the restriction is to prevent this extraordinary action from being used by
a losing party to make a complete farce of a duly promulgated decision that has long become final and
executory. A review of the evidence presented reveals that respondent failed to show any artifice or
extrinsic fraud being committed against the Spouses Paray, hence CA’s decision of setting aside the
compromise agreement is grounded on surmises or conjectures. Further, the approved compromise
agreement serves as the final judgment that settles the controversy. VIRGINIA Y. GOCHAN v.
CHARLES MANCAO. G.R. No. 182314, November 13, 2013

The Court looks with disfavor upon retractions of testimonies previously given in court. It is settled that an
affidavit of desistance made by a witness after conviction of the accused is not reliable, and deserves only
scant attention. The rationale for the rule is obvious: affidavits of retraction can easily be secured from
witnesses, usually through intimidation or for a monetary consideration. Only when there exist special
circumstances in the case which when coupled with the retraction raise doubts as to the truth of the
testimony or statement given, can retractions be considered and upheld.

The unreliable character of the affidavit of recantation executed by a complaining witness is also shown
by the incredulity of the fact that after going through the burdensome process of reporting to and/or
having the accused arrested by the law enforcers, executing a criminal complaint-affidavit against the
accused, attending trial and testifying against the accused, the said complaining witness would later on
declare that all the foregoing is actually a farce and the truth is now what he says it to be in his affidavit of
recantation. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. P/SUPT. ARTEMIO E. LAMSEN. G.R. No. 198338,
November 13, 2013

The issue of whether or not there was indeed a buy-bust operation primarily boils down to one of
credibility. In a prosecution for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Law, a case becomes a contest of the
credibility of witnesses and their testimonies. When it comes to credibility, the trial court’s assessment
deserves great weight, and is even conclusive and binding, if not tainted with arbitrariness or oversight of
some fact or circumstance of weight and influence. The inconsistencies in the prosecution witnesses’
testimony does not negate positive finding of guilt specially, as in this case, where the inconsistencies
pertains to minor details. Settled is the rule that discrepancies on minor matters do not impair the
essential integrity of the prosecution’s evidence as a whole or reflect on the witnesses’ honesty. These
inconsistencies, which may be caused by the natural fickleness of memory, even tend to strengthen
rather than weaken the credibility of the prosecution witnesses because they erase any suspicion of
rehearsed testimony. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. MARILYN SANTOS and ARLENE VALERA.
G.R. No. 193190, November 13, 2013

The rule that the Court will not disturb the CA' s findings of fact is not an absolute rule that admits of no
exceptions. A notable exception is the presence of conflict of findings of fact between or among the
tribunals' rulings on questions of fact.

This Court cannot be any clearer in laying down the rule on the quantum of evidence to support an
administrative ruling: In administrative cases, substantial evidence is required to support any findings.
Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind may accept as adequate to support
a conclusion. The requirement is satisfied where there is reasonable ground to believe that the petitioner
is guilty of the act or omission complained of, even if the evidence might not be overwhelming. An
examination of the records shows that the Ombudsman's appreciation of the evidence is in accord with
reason and common experience so that it successfully proved, Dechavez's dishonesty. OFFICE OF THE
OMBUDSMAN v. MARCELINO A. DECHAVEZ. G.R. No. 176702, November 13, 2013

As a rule, a final judgment may no longer be altered, amended or modified, even if the alteration,
amendment or modification is meant to correct what is perceived to be an erroneous conclusion of fact or
law and regardless of what court, be it the highest Court of the land, rendered it. An exception to this rule
is the existence of supervening events which refer to facts transpiring after judgment has become final
and executory or to new circumstances that developed after the judgment acquired finality, including
matters that the parties were not aware of prior to or during the trial as they were not yet in existence at
that time. The presence of strained relations between petitioner and respondent, consisted the
supervening event that justified the NLRC in modifying its final resolution.

Rule 45 limits us to the review of questions of law raised against the assailed CA decision. In ruling for
legal correctness, we have to view the CA decision in the same context that the petition for certiorari it
ruled upon was presented to it; we have to examine the CA decision from the prism of whether it correctly
determined the presence or absence of grave abuse of discretion in the NLRC decision before it, not on
the basis of whether the NLRC decision on the merits of the case was correct. BANI RURAL BANK INC.
v. TERESA DE GUZMAN. G.R. No.170904, November 13, 2013

The sweetheart theory as a defense, however, necessarily admits carnal knowledge, the first element of
rape. Effectively, it leaves the prosecution the burden to prove only force or intimidation, the coupling
element of rape. When the accused raised the affirmative defense that sexual relations exist between him
and the victim, it necessarily entails that evidence must be adduced to support the claim.

Pursuant to number 4 of the guidelines in appreciating age, either as an element of the crime or as a
qualifying circumstance, however, in the absence of the foregoing documents (certificate of live birth or
authentic document), the complainant’s testimony will suffice provided that it is expressly and clearly
admitted by the accused. In the case at bar, AAA testified that she was 13 years old on July 20, 1999 and
that her birthday was in February. Further, when accused-appellant, insisted that the incident occurred on
October 20, 1999, he admitted that AAA was still 13 years old when the rape was committed. PEOPLE
OF THE PHILIPPINES v. DANIEL ALCOBER. G.R. No. 192941, November 13, 2013

The rule is that inconsistencies in the testimony of witnesses, when referring only to minor details and
collateral matters, do not affect either the substance of their declaration, their veracity, or the weight of
their testimony. Such minor inconsistencies even enhance their veracity as the variances erase any
suspicion of a rehearsed testimony. Though inconsistent, the testimony of the prosecution witness was
straightforward, hence minor inconsistencies that attended their testimony did not negate finding of guilt.

The defense of alibi, frame-up is an allegation that can easily be concocted. For this claim to prosper, the
defense must adduce clear and convincing evidence to overcome the presumption of regularity of official
acts of government officials. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. KENNETH MONCEDA. G.R. No.
176269, November 13, 2013

The nature of an action, as well as which court or body has jurisdiction over it, is determined based on the
allegations contained in the complaint of the plaintiff, irrespective of whether or not the plaintiff is entitled
to recover upon all or some of the claims asserted therein. The averments in the complaint and the
character of the relief sought are the ones to be consulted. Once vested by the allegations in the
complaint, jurisdiction also remains vested irrespective of whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to recover
upon all or some of the claims asserted therein.

Though denominated as an action for damages, an examination of the allegations made by respondent in
his complaint shows that the case principally dwells on the propriety of the assessment made by
petitioner against respondent as well as the validity of petitioner’s act in preventing respondent from
participating in the election of the corporation’s Board of Directors. Being corporate in nature, the issues
should be threshed out before the RTC sitting as a special commercial court. The issues on damages can
still be resolved in the same special commercial court just like a regular RTC which is still competent to
tackle civil law issues incidental to intra-corporate disputes filed before it. MEDICAL PLAZA MAKATI
CONDOMINIUM CORPORATION v. ROBERT H. CULLEN. G.R. No. 181416, November 11, 2013

Certiorari is a remedy designed for the correction of errors of jurisdiction, not errors of judgment. Further,
when a court exercises its jurisdiction, an error committed while so engaged does not deprive it of the
jurisdiction being exercised when the error is committed. Consequently, an error of judgment that the
court may commit in the exercise of its jurisdiction is not correctable through the original civil action of
certiorari. What petitioner seeks to rectify pertain to the appellate court’s failure to uphold the findings of
facts of the lower court. As such, the petition is simply a continuation of the appellate process proper for a
petition under Rule 45.

In any case, even if the Petition is one for the special civil action of certiorari, this Court has the discretion
to treat a Rule 65 Petition for Certiorari as a Rule 45 Petition for Review on Certiorari. This is allowed if (1)
the Petition is filed within the reglementary period for filing a Petition for review; (2) when errors of
judgment are averred; and (3) when there is sufficient reason to justify the relaxation of the rules.
ALEJANDRO V. TANKEH v. DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES. G.R. No. 171428,
November 11, 2013

A core requisite before a warrant shall validly issue is the existence of a probable cause, meaning the
existence of such facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to
believe that an offense has been committed and that the objects sought in connection with the offense are
in the place to be searched. And when the law speaks of facts, the reference is to facts, data or
information personally known to the applicant and the witnesses he may present. Absent the element of
personal knowledge by the applicant or his witnesses of the facts upon which the issuance of a search
warrant may be justified, the warrant is deemed not based on probable cause and is a nullity, its issuance
being, in legal contemplation, arbitrary. The application and the issuance of the search warrant is was
coupled with the required probable cause as shown by the complainant’s trademark certificate.
CENTURY CHINESE MEDICINE CO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and LING NA LAU. G.R. No.
188526, November 11, 2013

As can be gleaned, with respect to criminal actions for violation of BP 22, it is explicitly clear that the
corresponding civil action is deemed included and that a reservation to file such separately is not allowed.
The rule is that every act or omission punishable by law has its accompanying civil liability. If the accused,
however, is not found to be criminally liable, it does not necessarily mean that he will not likewise be held
civilly liable because extinction of the penal action does not carry with it the extinction of the civil action.
This rule more specifically applies when (a) the acquittal is based on reasonable doubt as only
preponderance of evidence is required; (b) the court declares that the liability of the accused is only civil;
and (c) the civil liability of the accused does not arise from or is not based upon the crime of which the
accused was acquitted.

A person acquitted of a criminal charge, however, is not necessarily civilly free because the quantum of
proof required in criminal prosecution (proof beyond reasonable doubt) is greater than that required for
civil liability (mere preponderance of evidence). In order to be completely free from civil liability, a person’s
acquittal must be based on the fact he did not commit the offense. If the acquittal is based merely on
reasonable doubt, the accused may still be held civilly liable since this does not mean he did not commit
the act complained of. Though the accused has been acquitted from the criminal charge, the acquittal
was just based on reasonable doubt and it did not change the fact that she issued the subject check
which was subsequently dishonored upon its presentment. NISSAN GALLERY-ORTIGAS v.
PURIFICACION F. FELIPE. G.R. No. 199067, November 11, 2013

Jurisprudence provides that an actual case or controversy is one which "involves a conflict of legal rights,
an assertion of opposite legal claims, susceptible of judicial resolution as distinguished from a
hypothetical or abstract difference or dispute. In other words, "there must be a contrariety of legal rights
that can be interpreted and enforced on the basis of existing law and jurisprudence." Related to the
requirement of an actual case or controversy is the requirement of "ripeness," meaning that the questions
raised for constitutional scrutiny are already ripe for adjudication.

The intrinsic constitutionality of the "Pork Barrel System" is not an issue dependent upon the wisdom of
the political branches of government but rather a legal one which the Constitution itself has commanded
the Court to act upon. Scrutinizing the contours of the system along constitutional lines is a task that the
political branches of government are incapable of rendering precisely because it is an exercise of judicial
power.
The gist of the question of standing is whether a party alleges such personal stake in the outcome of the
controversy as to assure that concrete adverseness which sharpens the presentation of issues upon
which the court depends for illumination of difficult constitutional questions. Unless a person is injuriously
affected in any of his constitutional rights by the operation of statute or ordinance, he has no standing.

The focal point of res judicata is the judgment. The principle states that a judgment on the merits in a
previous case rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction would bind a subsequent case if, between the
first and second actions, there exists an identity of parties, of subject matter, and of causes of action.  On
the other hand, the focal point of stare decisis is the doctrine created. The principle, entrenched under
Article 8 of the Civil Code, evokes the general rule that, for the sake of certainty, a conclusion reached in
one case should be doctrinally applied to those that follow if the facts are substantially the same, even
though the parties may be different. It proceeds from the first principle of justice that, absent any powerful
countervailing considerations, like cases ought to be decided alike. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v.
ANDY ZULIETA a.k.a. "Bogarts," G.R. No. 192183, November 11, 2013. GRECO ANTONIOUS BEDA
B. BELGICA v. HONORABLE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY PAQUITO N. OCHOA JR. G.R. No. 208566,
November 19, 2013

For a court to exercise its power of adjudication there must be an actual case or controversy. Thus, where
the issue has become moot and academic, there is no justiciable controversy, and an adjudication thereof
would be of no practical use or value as courts do not sit to adjudicate mere academic questions to satisfy
scholarly interest however intellectually challenging. The acquittal of the accused from the criminal charge
operated as a supervening event that mooted the petition and a resolution on validity of the order or
suspension could no longer affect his rights as a ranking public officer. HADJI HASHIM ABDUL v.
HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN. G.R. NO. 184496, DECEMBER 2, 2013

Petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is a proper remedy for a denial of a motion to dismiss attended by
grave abuse of discretion. While an order denying a motion to dismiss is interlocutory and non-
appealable, certiorari and prohibition are proper remedies to address an order of denial made without or
in excess of jurisdiction.

The first paragraph of Section 1, Rule 16 of the Rules of Court provides for the period within which to file
a motion to dismiss under the grounds enumerated. Specifically, the motion should be filed within the time
for, but before the filing of, the answer to the complaint or pleading asserting a claim. Equally important to
this provision is Section 1, Rule 9 of the Rules of Court which states that defenses and objections not
pleaded either in a motion to dismiss or in the answer are deemed waived, except for the following
grounds: 1) the court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter; 2) litis pendencia; 3) res judicata; and 4)
prescription. Therefore, the grounds not falling under these four exceptions may be considered as waived
in the event that they are not timely invoked. Where the respondent’s motion to dismiss was filed after the
filing of an answer, the ground relied upon in the motion should have been raised as an affirmative
defense, otherwise it is deemed waived. REBECCA PACAÑA-CONTRERAS and ROSALIE PACAÑA
v. ROVILA WATER SUPPLY, INC. G.R. NO. 168979, DECEMBER 2, 2013

Furthermore, well settled is the rule that the elements of laches must be proven positively. Laches is
evidentiary in nature, a fact that cannot be established by mere allegations in the pleadings and cannot be
resolved in a motion to dismiss.

The affirmative defense of prescription does not automatically warrant the dismissal of a complaint under
Rule 16 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. An allegation of prescription can effectively be used in a motion
to dismiss only when the complaint on its face shows that indeed the action has already prescribed. If the
issue of prescription is one involving evidentiary matters requiring a full-blown trial on the merits, it cannot
be determined in a motion to dismiss. Those issues must be resolved at the trial of the case on the merits
wherein both parties will be given ample opportunity to prove their respective claims and defenses.
However, Contrary to petitioner’s contention, it is not apparent from the complaint that the action had
already prescribed. Upon closer inspection of the complaint, it would seem that there are several possible
scenarios that may have occurred given the limited set of facts. It is also apparent from the pleadings that
both parties denied each other’s allegations. Hence, the outright dismissal of the action is not proper
where there are factual matters in dispute, which require presentation and appreciation of evidence.
MODESTO SANCHEZ v. ANDREW SANCHEZ. G.R. NO. 187661, DECEMBER 4, 2013

The thrust of the rule on exhaustion of administrative remedies is that the courts must allow the
administrative agencies to carry out their functions and discharge their responsibilities within the
specialized areas of their respective competence. It is presumed that an administrative agency, if afforded
an opportunity to pass upon a matter, will decide the same correctly, or correct any previous error
committed in its forum. Furthermore, reasons of law, comity and convenience prevent the courts from
entertaining cases proper for determination by administrative agencies. When DeGuzman’s filed his
petition for certiorari and mandamus before the CA, there resulted a premature fling of the petition as the
proper recourse is to seek relief before the CSC. Hence, premature resort to the courts necessarily
becomes fatal to the cause of action of the petitioner.

Forum shopping consists of filing multiple suits involving the same parties for the same cause of action,
either simultaneously or successively, for the purpose of obtaining a favorable judgment. There is forum
shopping where there exist: (a) identity of parties, or at least such parties as represent the same interests
in both actions; (b) identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for, the relief being founded on the same
facts; and (c) the identity of the two preceding particulars is such that any judgment rendered in the
pending case, regardless of which party is successful would amount to res judicata. Since De Guzman
pursued the remedies of petition for certiorari and appeal, that have long been held to be mutually
exclusive, and not alternative or cumulative remedies, forum shopping was committed. It must be noted
that the ultimate relief sought by De Guzman was the reversal of the resolution on his dismissal.

In order that res judicata may bar the institution of a subsequent action, the following requisites must
concur: (a) the former judgment must be final; (b) it must have been rendered by a court having
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 the second actions (i) identity of parties, (ii) identity of subject matter, and
(iii) identity of cause of action. In this case, there was no judgment on the merits as the dismissal of the
complaint against De Guzman was a result of a fact-finding investigation only for purposes of determining
whether a prima facie case exists.PHILIPPINE POSTAL CORPORATION, v. COURT OF APPEALS
AND CRISANTO G. DE GUZMAN. G.R. NO. 173590, DECEMBER 9, 2013

We have consistently held that an administrative or disciplinary complaint is not the proper remedy to
assail the judicial acts of magistrates of the law, particularly those related to their adjudicative functions.
Indeed, any errors should be corrected through appropriate judicial remedies, like appeal in due course
or, in the proper cases, the extraordinary writs of certiorari and prohibition if the errors were jurisdictional.
Having the administrative or disciplinary complaint be an alternative to available appropriate judicial
remedies would be entirely un-procedural.

The issue of voluntary inhibition is primarily a matter of conscience and sound discretion on the part of the
judge. This discretion is an acknowledgement of the fact that judges are in a better position to determine
the issue of inhibition, as they are the ones who directly deal with the parties-litigants in their courtrooms.
The decision on whether he should inhibit himself, however, must be based on his rational and logical
assessment of the circumstances prevailing in the case brought before him. The rule does not give the
judge the unfettered discretion to decide whether he should desist from hearing a case. The inhibition
must be for just and valid causes. The mere imputation of bias, partiality and prejudgment will not suffice
in the absence of clear and convincing evidence to overcome the presumption that the judge will
undertake his noble role to dispense justice according to law and evidence and without fear or favor. The
disqualification of a judge cannot be based on mere speculations and surmises or be predicated on the
adverse nature of the judge’s rulings towards the movant for inhibition.RE: LETTERS OF LUCENA B.
RALLOS, FOR ALLEGED ACTS/INCIDENTS/OCCURENCES RELATIVE TO THE RESOLUTION(S)
ISSUED IN CA-G.R. SP No. 06676 BY COUIRT OF APPEALS EXECUTIVE JUSTICE PAMPIO
ABARINTOS and ASSOCIATE JUSTICES RAMON PAUL HERNANDO and VICTORIA ISABEL
PAREDES. IPI No. 12-203-CA-J, DECEMBER 10, 2013
The jurisdiction of the PARAD and the DARAB is only limited to cases involving agrarian disputes,
including incidents arising from the implementation of agrarian laws. For the DARAB to have jurisdiction
over a case, there must be a tenancy relationship between the parties. Since the dispute between the
petitioner and respondent involved a non-agricultural property and no tenancy relation exists between
them, the decisions made by DARAB were without force and effect. WELLER JOPSON v. FABIAN O.
MENDEZ, JR. AND DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES. G.R. NO. 191538 , DECEMBER 11,
2013.

When prosecuting the sale or possession of dangerous drugs like shabu, the State must prove not only
the elements of each of the offenses. It must prove as well the corpus delicti, failing in which the State will
be unable to discharge its basic duty of proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

To prove the corpus delicti, the prosecution must show that the dangerous drugs seized from the accused
and subsequently examined in the laboratory are the same dangerous drugs presented in court as
evidence to prove his guilt. To ensure that this is done right and that the integrity of the evidence of the
dangerous drugs is safeguarded, Congress outlined in Sec. 21 of R.A. 9165 the mandatory procedure
that law enforcers must observe following the seizure of such substance.

The Court has of course held that non-compliance with the procedural safeguards provided in Sec. 21 of
R.A. 9165 and its IRR would not necessarily void the seizure and custody of the dangerous drugs for as
long as there is a justifiable ground for it and the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are
properly preserved. As the buy-bust team did not show the that there was justifiable reason to deviate
from the procedure, despite the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty, it must be
stressed that the step-by-step procedure under R.A. 9165 is a matter of substantive law, which cannot be
simply brushed aside as a simple procedural technicality. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v.
FERDINAND BAUTISTA Y SINAON. G.R. NO. 198113, DECEMBER 11, 2013.

A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC dated February 19, 2008 which refer to the amendment of the 2004 Rules on
Notarial Practice. It deleted the Community Tax Certificate among the accepted proof of identity of the
affiant because of its inherent unreliability. Nevertheless, the defective jurat in the Verification/Certification
of Non-Forum Shopping is not a fatal defect because it is only a formal, not a jurisdictional, requirement
that the Court may waive. Furthermore, we cannot simply ignore the millions of pesos at stake in this
case. To do so might cause grave injustice to a party, a situation that this Court intends to avoid.

The rule is that failure to object to the offered evidence renders it admissible, and the court cannot, on its
own, disregard such evidence. When a party desires the court to reject the evidence offered, it must so
state in the form of a timely objection and it cannot raise the objection to the evidence for the first time on
appeal. However, hearsay evidence whether objected to or not cannot be given credence for having no
probative value. This principle, however, has been relaxed in cases where, in addition to the failure to
object to the admissibility of the subject evidence, there were other pieces of evidence presented or there
were other circumstances prevailing to support the fact in issue. However, since the testimony of Haw
was based not on his personal knowledge as he was not present during the document’s preparation, his
testimony was hearsay. Further, the documents does not fall under the exception to the hearsay rule, but
for failure to timely object on the matter, the sales invoice formed part of the records of the case.

The issue of credibility of witnesses is to be resolved primarily by the trial court because it is in the better
position to assess the credibility of witnesses as it heard the testimonies and observed the deportment
and manner of testifying of the witnesses. Accordingly, its findings are entitled to great respect and will
not be disturbed on appeal in the absence of any showing that the trial court overlooked, misunderstood,
or misapplied some facts or circumstances of weight and substance which would have affected the result
of the case. ADVANCE PAPER CORPORATION AND GEORGE HAW v. ARMA TRADERS
CORPORATION. G.R. NO.176897, DECEMBER 11, 2013

Under the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies, before a party is allowed to seek the
intervention of the court, he or she should have availed himself or herself of all the means of
administrative processes afforded him or her. Hence, if resort to a remedy within the administrative
machinery can still be made by giving the administrative officer concerned every opportunity to decide on
a matter that comes within his or her jurisdiction, then such remedy should be exhausted first before the
court's judicial power can be sought.

However, the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies is not absolute as it admits of the
following exceptions: (1) when there is a violation of due process; (2) when the issue involved is purely a
legal question; (3) when the administrative action is patently illegal amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction; (4) when there is estoppel on the part of the administrative agency concerned; (5) when there
is irreparable injury; (6) 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; (7) when to require exhaustion of
administrative remedies would be unreasonable; (8) when it would amount to a nullification of a claim; (9)
when the subject matter is a private land in land case proceedings; (10) when the rule does not provide a
plain, speedy and adequate remedy, and (11) when there are circumstances indicating the urgency of
judicial intervention, and unreasonable delay would greatly prejudice the complainant; (12) where no
administrative review is provided by law; (13) where the rule of qualified political agency applies and (14)
where the issue of non-exhaustion of administrative remedies has been rendered moot.MARK JEROME
S. MAGLALANG v. PHILIPPINE AMUSEMENT AND GAMING CORPORATION. G.R. NO. 190566,
DECEMBER 11, 2013

If the redemption period expires without the mortgagor or his successor-in-interest redeeming the
foreclosed property within one year from the registration of the sale with the Register of Deeds, the title
over the property consolidates in the purchaser. The consolidation confirms the purchaser as the owner
entitled to the possession of the property without any need for him to file the bond required under Section
7 of Act No. 3135. The issuance of a writ of possession to the purchaser becomes a matter of right upon
the consolidation of title in his name, while the mortgagor, by failing to redeem, loses all interest in the
property.

As with all equitable remedies, injunction must be issued only at the instance of a party who possesses
sufficient interest in or title to the right or the property sought to be protected. It is proper only when the
applicant appears to be entitled to the relief demanded in the complaint, which must aver the existence of
the right and the violation of the right, or whose averments must in the minimum constitute a prima facie
showing of a right to the final relief sought. Accordingly, the conditions for the issuance of the injunctive
writ are: (a) that the right to be protected exists prima facie; (b) that the act sought to be enjoined is
violative of that right; and (c) that there is an urgent and paramount necessity for the writ to prevent
serious damage. An injunction will not issue to protect a right not in esse, or a right which is merely
contingent and may never arise; or to restrain an act which does not give rise to a cause of action; or to
prevent the perpetration of an act prohibited by statute. Indeed, a right, to be protected by injunction,
means a right clearly founded on or granted by law or is enforceable as a matter of law. UNITED
COCONUT PLANTERS BANK v. CHRISTOPHER LUMBO AND MILAGROS LUMBO. G.R. NO.
162757, DECEMBER 11, 2013

Consistently with the mandatory character of the pre-trial, the Rules oblige not only the lawyers but the
parties as well to appear for this purpose before the Court, and when a party "fails to appear at a pre-trial
conference be may be non-suited or considered as in default. The obligation in appear denotes not simply
the personal appearance, or the mere physical presentation by a party of one’s self, but connotes as
importantly, preparedness to go into the different subject assigned by law to a pre-trial.

Petitioner’s State Solicitors’ initial attendance during the pre-trial conference could not be equated to the
personal appearance mandated by Section 4, Rule 18 of the Rules of Court. The duty to appear during
the pre-trial conference is not by mere initial attendance, but taking an active role during the said
proceedings.REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v. MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY (MERALCO), AND
NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION (NPC), G.R. NO. 201715, DECEMBER 11, 2013

In the absence of any convincing justification, a petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 filed a month late
from the lapse of the period to file the same will not warrant the relaxation of the Rules. Section 4, Rule 65
of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure is explicit in stating that certiorari should be instituted within a period
of 60 days from notice of the judgment, order or resolution sought to be assailed. The 60-day period is
inextendible to avoid any unreasonable delay that would violate the constitutional rights of parties to a
speedy disposition of their case. While there are recognized exceptions to such strict observance, there
should be an effort on the part of the party invoking liberality to advance a reasonable or meritorious
explanation for his/her failure to comply with the rules. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. THE HON.
JUANITO CASTANEDA, JR., ET AL. G.R. NO. 208290; DECEMBER 11, 2013

Under Section 1, Rule 102 of the Rules of Court, the writ of habeas corpus is available, not only in cases
of illegal confinement or detention by which any person is deprived of his liberty, but also in cases
involving the rightful custody over a minor. The general rule is that parents should have custody over their
minor children. But the State has the right to intervene where the parents, rather than care for such
children, treat them cruelly and abusively, impairing their growth and well-being and leaving them
emotional scars that they carry throughout their lives unless they are liberated from such parents and
properly counselled. IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF MINOR SHANG
KO VINGSON YU SHIRLY VINGSON SHIRLY VINGSON DEMAISIP v. JOVY CABCABAN. UDK no.
14817, January 13, 2014

A warrant, such as a warrant of arrest or a search warrant, merely constitutes process. A search warrant
is in the nature of a criminal process akin to a writ of discovery. It is a special and peculiar remedy, drastic
in its nature, and made necessary because of a public necessity. Clearly then, an application for a search
warrant is not a criminal action, hence, the conformity of the public prosecutor is not necessary before an
aggrieved party moves for reconsideration of an order granting a motion to quash search warrants.

When a finding of probable cause for the issuance of a search warrant is made by a trial judge, the finding
is accorded respect by reviewing courts. It is presumed that a judicial function has been regularly
performed, absent a showing to the contrary. However, a trial judge’s finding of probable cause may be
set aside and the search warrant issued by him based on his finding may be quashed if the person
against whom the warrant is issued presents clear and convincing evidence that when the police officers
and witnesses testified, they committed a deliberate falsehood or reckless disregard for the truth on
matters that are essential or necessary to a showing of probable cause. On the other hand, innocent and
negligent omissions or misrepresentation of witnesses will not cause the quashal of a search warrant.

The things to be seized must be described with particularity. Technical precision of description is not
required. It is only necessary that there be reasonable particularity and certainty as to the identity of the
property to be searched for and seized, so that the warrant shall not be a mere roving commission. A
search warrant fulfills the requirement of particularity in the description of the things to be seized when the
things described are limited to those that bear a direct relation to the offense for which the warrant is
being issued. WORLDWIDE WEB CORPORATION AND CHERRYLL L. YU v. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES AND PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE COMPANY. G.R. NO. 161106,
January 13, 2014

A judgment of acquittal may be assailed by the People in a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the
Rules of Court without placing the accused in double jeopardy. However, in such case, the People is
burdened to establish that the court a quo, acted without jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion
amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction. No grave abuse of discretion may be attributed to a court
simply because of its alleged misapplication of facts and evidence, and erroneous conclusions based on
said evidence. Certiorari will issue only to correct errors of jurisdiction, and not errors or mistakes in the
findings and conclusions of the trial court.

However, the rule against double jeopardy is not without exceptions, which are: (1) Where there has been
deprivation of due process and where there is a finding of a mistrial, or (2) Where there has been a grave
abuse of discretion under exceptional circumstances. In the case, there is no deprivation of due process
or a mistrial committed against petitioner, and that no grave abuse of discretion could be attributed to the
CA, hence the rule against double jeopardy operates making the judgment of acquittal final and no longer
appealable. DENNIS T. VILLAREAL v. CONSUELO C. ALIGA. G.R. NO 166995, JANUARY 13, 2014
While a motion for additional time is expressly permitted in the filing of a petition for review before the
Court under Section 2, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, a similar motion seeking to extend the period for
filing a motion for reconsideration is prohibited in all other courts. The 15-day period for filing a motion for
new trial or reconsideration is non-extendible. Hence, the filing of a motion for extension of time to file a
motion for reconsideration did not toll the 15-day period before a judgment becomes final and executory
RIVELISA REALTY, INC. v. FIRST STA. CLARA BUILDERS CORPORATION. G.R. NO. 189618,
JANUARY 15, 2014

Our law recognizes two kinds of acquittal, with different effects on the civil liability of the accused. First is
an acquittal on the ground that the accused is not the author of the act or omission complained of. This
instance closes the door to civil liability, for a person who has been found to be not the perpetrator of any
act or omission cannot and can never be held liable for such act or omission. There being no delict, civil
liability ex delicto is out of the question, and the civil action, if any, which may be instituted must be based
on grounds other than the delict complained of. This is the situation contemplated in Rule 111 of the
Rules of Court. The second instance is an acquittal based on reasonable doubt on the guilt of the
accused. In this case, even if the guilt of the accused has not been satisfactorily established, he is not
exempt from civil liability which may be proved by preponderance of evidence only.

The acquittal of an accused does not prevent a judgment from still being rendered against him on the civil
aspect of the criminal case unless the court finds and declares that the fact from which the civil liability
might arise did not exist. DR. ENCARNACION C. LUMANTAS, M.D. v. HANZ CALAPIZ. G.R. NO.
163753, JANUARY 15, 2014

The general rule, nakedly and boldly put, is that legal conclusions announced on a first appeal, whether
on the general law or the law as applied to the concrete facts, not only prescribe the duty and limit the
power of the trial court to strict obedience and conformity thereto, but they become and remain the law of
the case in all other steps below or above on subsequent appeal. Without the rule there would be no end
to criticism, reagitation, reexamination, and reformulation. In short, there would be endless litigation.

The doctrine of law of the case simply means, therefore, that when an appellate court has once declared
the law in a case, its declaration continues to be the law of that case even on a subsequent appeal,
notwithstanding that the rule thus laid down may have been reversed in other cases. But the law of the
case, as the name implies, concerns only legal questions or issues thereby adjudicated in the former
appeal. DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES v. GUARIÑA AGRICULTURAL AND REALTY
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION. G.R. NO. 160758, January 15, 2014

The recognized rule in this jurisdiction is that the "assessment of the credibility of witnesses is a domain
best left to the trial court judge because of his unique opportunity to observe their deportment and
demeanor on the witness stand; a vantage point denied appellate courts-and when his findings have been
affirmed by the Court of Appeals, these are generally binding and conclusive upon this Court." Besides,
inaccuracies and inconsistencies in a rape victim’s testimony are generally expected. Rape is a painful
experience which is oftentimes not remembered in detail. Since human memory is fickle and prone to the
stresses of emotions, accuracy in a testimonial account has never been used as a standard in testing the
credibility of a witness.

Furthermore, settled is the rule that the testimony of a single witness may be sufficient to produce a
conviction, if the same appears to be trustworthy and reliable. If credible and convincing, that alone would
be sufficient to convict the accused. No law or rule requires the corroboration of the testimony of a single
witness in a rape case.

A medical certificate is not necessary to prove the commission of rape, as even a medical examination of
the victim is not indispensable in a prosecution for rape. Expert testimony is merely corroborative in
character and not essential to conviction.PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. BERNABE PAREJA. G.R.
NO. 202122, JANUARY 15, 2014.
A disbarment case is sui generis for it is neither purely civil nor purely criminal, but is rather an
investigation by the court into the conduct of its officers. Hence, an administrative proceeding for
disbarment continues despite the desistance of a complainant, or failure of the complainant to prosecute
the same, or in this case, the failure of respondent to answer the charges against him despite numerous
notices. In administrative proceedings, the complainant has the burden of proving, by substantial
evidence, the allegations in the complaint.

The certified xerox copies of the marriage contracts, issued by a public officer in custody thereof, are
admissible as the best evidence of their contents, as provided for under Section 7 of Rule 130 of the
Rules of Court. The certified xerox copies should be accorded the full faith and credence given to public
documents.ROSE BUNAGAN-BANSIG v. ATTY. ROGELIO JUAN A. CELERA. A.C. No. 5581, January
14, 2014

Under Section 34, Rule 132 of the Revised Rules on Evidence, it is clear that the court considers the
evidence only when it is formally offered. The offer of evidence is necessary because it is the duty of the
trial court to base its findings of fact and its judgment only and strictly on the evidence offered by the
parties. A piece of document will remain a scrap of paper without probative value unless and until
admitted by the court in evidence for the purpose or purposes for which it is offered. The formal offer of
evidence allows the parties the chance to object to the presentation of an evidence which may not be
admissible for the purpose it is being offered. However, there are instances when the Court relaxed the
foregoing rule and allowed evidence not formally offered to be admitted, provided, the same must have
been duly identified by testimony duly recorded and the same must have been incorporated in the records
of the case. RODOLFO LABORTE and PHILIPPINE TOURISM AUTHORITY v. PAGSANJAN
TOURISM CONSUMERS COOPERATIVE and LELIZA S. FABRICIO. G.R. NO. 183860, January 15,
2014

Clearly, the only thing the RTC was asked to do when the case was remanded to it by the CA was to
determine the damages respondent is entitled to for the loss of the use and enjoyment of the property
when the property was taken from it in 1974. Thus, when the case was remanded to the RTC for the
purpose of computing the damages, the case was not considered a new case where an amendment of
the complaint may still be allowed. Rather, it is merely a continuation of the trial of the original complaint
filed in 1992 only for the purpose of receiving the evidence of the damages which respondent allegedly
suffered as alleged in the original complaint, since no evidence proving damages was received and
passed upon when the RTC issued its Order dated March 29, 1996. Therefore, the Section 2 and 3, Rule
10, Rules of Civil Procedure on amendments of pleading find no applicability in this case. REPUBLIC OF
THE PHILIPPINES v. TETRO ENTERPRISES, INCORPORATED. G.R. NO. 183015, January 15, 2014

It is a basic principle of law that money judgments are enforceable only against the property
incontrovertibly belonging to the judgment debtor, and if the property belonging to any third person is
mistakenly levied upon to answer for another man’s indebtedness, such person has all the right to
challenge the levy through any of the remedies provided for under the Rules of Court. Section 16,  Rule 39
specifically provides that a third person may avail himself of the remedies of either terceria, to determine
whether the sheriff has rightly or wrongly taken hold of the property not belonging to the judgment debtor
or obligor, or an independent "separate action" to vindicate his claim of ownership and/or possession over
the foreclosed property.

Indeed, the power of the court in executing judgments extends only to properties unquestionably
belonging to the judgment debtor alone. An execution can be issued only against a party and not against
one who did not have his day in court. The right of a third-party claimant to file a terceria is founded on his
title or right of possession. Corollary thereto, before the court can exercise its supervisory power to direct
the release of the property mistakenly levied and the restoration thereof to its rightful owner, the claimant
must first unmistakably establish his ownership or right of possession thereon. However, the Spouses
Garcia failed to prove that they have a bona fide title to the building as they were unable to present
credible evidence to prove their ownership. All that the Spouses raised were their postulation as title
holders of the land and the presumption of ownership over improvements built thereon; whereas Villasi,
on the other hand, was able to show documentary proof of ownership. MAGDALENA T. VILLASI v.
FILOMENO GARCIA G.R. NO. 190106, January 15, 2014

As a general rule, the Court’s jurisdiction in a Rule 45 petition is limited to the review of pure questions of
law. The test in determining whether a question is one of law or of fact is "whether the appellate court can
determine the issue raised without reviewing or evaluating the evidence, in which case, it is a question of
law." Any question that invites calibration of the whole evidence, as well as their relation to each other
and to the whole, is a question of fact and thus proscribed in a Rule 45 petition.

The taking of judicial notice is a matter of expediency and convenience for it fulfills the purpose that the
evidence is intended to achieve, and in this sense, it is equivalent to proof. Generally, courts are not
authorized to "take judicial notice of the contents of the records of other cases even when said cases
have been tried or are pending in the same court or before the same judge."  They may, however, take
judicial notice of a decision or the facts prevailing in another case sitting in the same court if: (1) the
parties present them in evidence, absent any opposition from the other party; or (2) the court, in its
discretion, resolves to do so. In either case, the courts must observe the clear boundary provided by
Section 3, Rule 129 of the Rules of Court. LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES v. YATCO
AGRICULTURAL ENTERPRISES. G.R. NO.172551, JANUARY 15, 2014

For a question to be one of law, the same must not involve an examination of the probative value of the
evidence presented by the litigants or any of them. The resolution of the issue must rest solely on what
the law provides on the given set of circumstances. Thus, the test of whether a question is one of law or
of fact is not the appellation given to such question by the party raising the same; rather, it is whether the
appellate court can determine the issue raised without reviewing or evaluating the evidence, in which
case, it is a question of law; otherwise, it is a question of fact.

Before entries made in the course of business may qualify under the exception to the hearsay rule and
given weight, the party offering them must establish that: (1) the person who made those entries is dead,
outside the country, or unable to testify; (2) the entries were made at, or near the time of the transaction
to which they refer; (3) the entrant was in a position to know the facts stated therein; (4) the entries were
made in the professional capacity or in the course of duty of the entrant; and, (5) the entries were made in
the ordinary or regular course of business or duty. In the case, Land Bank neither identified the persons
who made the entries in the passbooks nor established that they are already dead or unable to testify.
While the deposit entries in the bank’s passbook enjoy a certain degree of presumption of regularity, they
are mere prima facie proof of what are stated therein. LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES v.
EMMANUEL OÑATE. G.R. NO. 192371, JANUARY 15, 2014

Rule 16 treats of the grounds for a motion to dismiss the complaint. It must be distinguished from the
grounds provided under Section 1, Rule 9 which specifically deals with dismissal of the claim by the court
motu proprio. Section 1, Rule 9 provides for only four instances when the court may motu proprio dismiss
the claim, namely: (a) lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter; (b) litis pendentia ; (c) res judicata ; and
(d) prescription of action.

It is so inferable from the opening sentence of Section 1 of Rule 9 stating that defense and objections not
pleaded either in a motion to dismiss or in the answer are deemed waived. Failure to allege in the
complaint that earnest efforts at a compromise has been made but had failed is not one of the exceptions.
Upon such failure, the defense is deemed waived. HEIRS OF DR. MARIANO FAVIS SR v. JUANA
GONZALES. G.R. NO. 185922, JANUARY 15, 2014

Any objection, defect or irregularity attending an arrest must be made before the accused enters his plea
on arraignment. Having failed to move for the quashing of the information against them before their
arraignment, appellants are now estopped from questioning the legality of their arrest. Any irregularity
was cured upon their voluntary submission to the trial court’s jurisdiction.

This interdiction against warrantless searches and seizures, however, is not absolute and such
warrantless searches and seizures have long been deemed permissible by jurisprudence in instances of
(1) search of moving vehicles, (2) seizure in plain view, (3) customs searches, (4) waiver or consented
searches, (5) stop and frisk situations (Terry search), and search incidental to a lawful arrest. The last
includes a valid warrantless arrest, for, while as a rule, an arrest is considered legitimate if effected with a
valid warrant of arrest, the Rules of Court recognize permissible warrantless arrest, to wit: (1) arrest in
flagrante delicto, (2) arrest effected in hot pursuit, and (3) arrest of escaped prisoners.

Credence shall be given to the narration of the incident by prosecution witnesses especially so when they
are police officers who are presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner, unless there be
evidence to the contrary. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. DONALD VASQUEZ. G.R. NO. 200304,
JANUARY 15, 2014

A judgment in favor of the plaintiff in an ejectment suit is immediately executory, but the defendant, to stay
its immediate execution, must: (1) perfect an appeal; (2) file a supersede s bond; and (3) periodically
deposit the rentals becoming due during the pendency of the appeal. Since the Acbangs perfected an
appeal but failed to file the required superseadeas bond, the immediate execution of the judgment in an
ejectment suit cannot be stayed. The filing of the notice of appeal alone perfected the appeal but did not
suffice to stay the immediate execution without the filing of the sufficient supersedeas bond and the
deposit of the accruing rentals. HERMINIA ACBANG v. HON. JIMMY H.F. LUCZON. G.R. No. 164246,
JANUARY 15, 2014

The propriety of the special civil action for certiorari as a remedy depended on whether the assailed
orders of the RTC were final or interlocutory in nature. An interlocutory order deals with preliminary
matters and the trial on the merits is yet to be held and the judgment rendered.

The reason for disallowing an appeal from an interlocutory order is to avoid multiplicity of appeals in a
single action, which necessarily suspends the hearing and decision on the merits of the action during the
pendency of the appeals. Permitting multiple appeals will necessarily delay the trial on the merits of the
case for a considerable length of time, and will compel the adverse party to incur unnecessary expenses,
for one of the parties may interpose as many appeals as there are incidental questions raised by him and
as there are interlocutory orders rendered or issued by the lower court. An interlocutory order may be the
subject of an appeal, but only after a judgment has been rendered, with the ground for appealing the
order being included in the appeal of the judgment itself.

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

The objective of the Rules of Court in requiring the inventory and appraisal of the estate of the decedent
is “to aid the court in revising the accounts and determining the liabilities of the executor or the
administrator, and in making a final and equitable distribution (partition) of the estate and otherwise to
facilitate the administration of the estate.” Hence, the RTC that presides over the administration of an
estate is vested with wide discretion on the question of what properties should be included in the
inventory.
There is no dispute that the jurisdiction of the trial court as an intestate court is special and limited. The
trial court cannot adjudicate title to properties claimed to be a part of the estate but are claimed to belong
to third parties by title adverse to that of the decedent and the estate, not by virtue of any right of
inheritance from the decedent. All that the trial court can do regarding said properties is to determine
whether or not they should be included in the inventory of properties to be administered by the
administrator. THELMA M. ARANAS v. TERESITA V. MERCADO. G.R. NO. 156407, JANUARY 15,
2014

A petition for annulment of judgment is a remedy in equity so exceptional in nature that it may be availed
of only when other remedies are wanting, and only if the judgment, final order or final resolution sought to
be annulled was rendered by a court lacking jurisdiction or through extrinsic fraud.
The objective of the remedy of annulment of judgment or final order is to undo or set aside the judgment
or final order, and thereby grant to the petitioner an opportunity to prosecute his cause or to ventilate his
defense. If the ground relied upon is lack of jurisdiction, the entire proceedings are set aside without
prejudice to the original action being refiled in the proper court. If the judgment or final order or resolution
is set aside on the ground of extrinsic fraud, the CA may on motion order the trial court to try the case as
if a timely motion for new trial had been granted therein.

Given the extraordinary nature and the objective of the remedy of annulment of judgment or final order,
Pinausukan must be mindful of and should closely comply with the following statutory requirements for
the remedy as set forth in Rule 47 of the Rules of Court.

The first requirement prescribes that the remedy is available only when the petitioner can no longer resort
to the ordinary remedies of new trial, appeal, petition for relief or other appropriate remedies through no
fault of the petitioner. 

The second requirement limits the ground for the action of annulment of judgment to either extrinsic fraud
or lack of jurisdiction.

The third requirement sets the time for the filing of the action. The action, if based on extrinsic fraud, must
be filed within four years from the discovery of the extrinsic fraud; and if based on lack of jurisdiction, must
be brought before it is barred by laches or estoppel.

The fourth requirement demands that the petition should be verified, and should allege with particularity
the facts and the law relied upon for annulment, as well as those supporting the petitioner’s good and
substantial cause of action or defense, as the case may be.PINAUSUKAN SEAFOOD HOUSE, ROXAS
BOULEY ARD, INC. v. FAR EAST BANK & TRUST COMPANY. G.R. NO. 159926 , JANUARY 20,
2014

The doctrine of res judicata by conclusiveness of judgment postulates that "when a right or fact has been
judicially tried and determined by a court of competent jurisdiction, or when an opportunity for such trial
has been given, the judgment of the court, as long as it remains unreversed, should be conclusive upon
the parties and those in privity with them." In the case, the judgment rendered in G.R. No. 167998 was
rendered by the CA under its jurisdiction and was a judgment on the merits. Further, the parties involved
in the previous case and the case at bar were the same parties raising the same relief.

The proceeding in a petition for a writ of possession is ex parte and summary in nature. It is a judicial
proceeding brought for the benefit of one party only and without notice by the court to any person adverse
of interest. It is a proceeding wherein relief is granted without giving the person against whom the relief is
sought an opportunity to be heard.

By its very nature, an ex parte petition for issuance of a writ of possession is a non-litigious proceeding. It
is a judicial proceeding for the enforcement of one's right of possession as purchaser in a foreclosure
sale. It is not an ordinary suit filed in court, by which one party sues another for the enforcement of a
wrong or protection of a right, or the prevention or redress of a wrong. LZK HOLDINGS AND
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. PLANTERS DEVELOPMENT BANK. G.R. NO. 187973, January
20, 2014

It is an established rule that the purchaser in an extra-judicial foreclosure sale is entitled to the possession
of the property and can demand that he be placed in possession of the same either during (with bond) or
after the expiration (without bond) of the redemption period therefor.

It is thus settled that the buyer in a foreclosure sale becomes the absolute owner of the property
purchased if it is not redeemed during the period of one year after the registration of the sale. As such, he
is entitled to the possession of the said property and can demand it at any time following the consolidation
of ownership in his name and the issuance to him of a new transfer certificate of title. The buyer can in
fact demand possession of the land even during the redemption period except that he has to post a bond
in accordance with Section 7 of Act No. 3135, as amended.

The issuance of a writ of possession to a purchaser in a public auction is a ministerial act. After the
consolidation of title in the buyer’s name for failure of the mortgagor to redeem the property, the writ of
possession becomes a matter of right. Its issuance to a purchaser in an extrajudicial foreclosure sale is
merely a ministerial function. The trial court has no discretion on this matter. Hence, any talk of discretion
in connection with such issuance is misplaced.

The ministerial issuance of a writ of possession in favor of the purchaser in an extra-judicial foreclosure
sale, however, admits of an exception. Section 33, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court pertinently provides that
the possession of the mortgaged property may be awarded to a purchaser in an extra-judicial foreclosure
unless a third party is actually holding the property by adverse title or right. The issuance of a writ of
possession in favor of Sps. Marquez, who had already consolidated their title over the extra-judicially
foreclosed property, is merely ministerial in nature. SPOUSES NICASIO C. MARQUEZ AND ANITA J.
MARQUEZ v. SPOUSES ALINDOG. G.R. NO. 184045, January 22, 2014

Considering the final nature of a small claims case decision, the remedy of appeal is not allowed, and the
prevailing party may, thus, immediately move for its execution. Nevertheless, the proscription on appeals
in small claims cases, similar to other proceedings where appeal is not an available remedy,  does not
preclude the aggrieved party from filing a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. Verily,
a petition for certiorari, unlike an appeal, is an original action designed to correct only errors of jurisdiction
and not of judgment. Owing to its nature, it is therefore incumbent upon petitioner to establish that
jurisdictional errors tainted the MTCC Decision. The RTC, in turn, could either grant or dismiss the petition
based on an evaluation of whether or not the MTCC gravely abused its discretion by capriciously,
whimsically, or arbitrarily disregarding evidence that is material to the controversy. A.L. ANG NETWORK,
INC. v. EMMA MONDEJAR. G.R. NO. 200804, JANUARY 22, 2014

Some administrative cases against Justices of the Court of Appeals and the Sandiganbayan; judges of
regular and special courts; and the court officials who are lawyers are based on grounds which are
likewise grounds for the disciplinary action of members of the Bar for violation of the Lawyer’s Oath, the
Code of Professional Responsibility, and the Canons of Professional Ethics, or for such other forms of
breaches of conduct that have been traditionally recognized as grounds for the discipline of lawyers.

In any of the foregoing instances, the administrative case shall also be considered a disciplinary action
against the respondent justice, judge or court official concerned as a member of the Bar. Judgment in
both respects may be incorporated in one decision or resolution. AIDA R. CAMPOS, ALISTAIR R.
CAMPOS AND CHARMAINE R. CAMPOS v. ATTY. ELISEO M. CAMPOS. A.C. NO. 8644, January 22,
2014.

The rule on chain of custody under the foregoing enactments expressly demands the identification of the
persons who handle the confiscated items for the purpose of duly monitoring the authorized movements
of the illegal drugs and/or drug paraphernalia from the time they are seized from the accused until the
time they are presented in court. Moreover, as a method of authenticating evidence, the chain of custody
rule requires that the admission of an exhibit be preceded by evidence sufficient to support a finding that
the matter in question is what the proponent claims it to be. It would include testimony about every link in
the chain, from the moment the item was picked up to the time it is offered in evidence, in such a way that
every person who touched the exhibit would describe how and from whom it was received, where it was
and what happened to it while in the witness’ possession, the condition in which it was received and the
condition in which it was delivered to the next link in the chain. These witnesses would then describe the
precautions taken to ensure that there had been no change in the condition of the item and no opportunity
for someone not in the chain to have possession of the same.

Although the Court has ruled that non-compliance with the directives of Section 21, Article II of R.A. No.
9165 is not necessarily fatal to the prosecution’s case, the prosecution must still prove that (a) there is a
justifiable ground for the non-compliance, and (b) the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items
were properly preserved. Further, the non-compliance with the procedures must be justified by the State’s
agents themselves. The arresting officers are under obligation, should they be unable to comply with the
procedures laid down under Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, to explain why the procedure was not
followed and prove that the reason provided a justifiable ground. Otherwise, the requisites under the law
would merely be fancy ornaments that may or may not be disregarded by the arresting officers at their
own convenience. CARLITO VALENCIA v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. G.R. NO. 198804,
January 22, 2014

While a marriage certificate is considered the primary evidence of a marital union, it is not regarded as the
sole and exclusive evidence of marriage. Jurisprudence teaches that the fact of marriage may be proven
by relevant evidence other than the marriage certificate. Hence, even a person’s birth certificate may be
recognized as competent evidence of the marriage between his parents.

The court confounded the execution and the contents of the document. It is the contents, which may not
be proven by secondary evidence when the instrument itself is accessible. Proofs of the execution are not
dependent on the existence or non-existence of the document, and, as a matter of fact, such proofs of the
contents: due execution, besides the loss, has to be shown as foundation for the introduction of
secondary evidence of the contents.

Evidence of the execution of a document is, in the last analysis, necessarily collateral or primary. It
generally consists of parol testimony or extrinsic papers. Even when the document is actually produced,
its authenticity is not necessarily, if at all, determined from its face or recital of its contents but by parol
evidence. At the most, failure to produce the document, when available, to establish its execution may
effect the weight of the evidence presented but not the admissibility of such evidence.

Truly, the execution of a document may be proven by the parties themselves, by the swearing officer, by
witnesses who saw and recognized the signatures of the parties; or even by those to whom the parties
have previously narrated the execution thereof. The Court has also held that the loss may be shown by
any person who knows the fact of its loss, or by anyone who has made, in the judgment of the court, a
sufficient examination in the place or places where the document or papers of similar character are
usually kept by the person in whose custody the document lost was, and has been unable to find it; or
who has made any other investigation which is sufficient to satisfy the court that the instrument has
indeed been lost. PEREGRINA MACUA VDA. DE AVENIDO v. TECLA HOYBIA AVENIDO. G.R. NO.
173540, January 22, 2014

The issue raised by accused-appellant involves the credibility of the witness, which is best addressed by
the trial court, it being in a better position to decide such question, having heard the witness and observed
his demeanor, conduct, and attitude under grueling examination. Verily, findings of the trial court on such
matters will not be disturbed on appeal unless some facts or circumstances of weight have been
overlooked, misapprehended or misinterpreted so as to materially affect the disposition of the case.

Where there is no evidence that the witnesses of the prosecution were actuated by ill motive, it is
presumed that they were not so actuated and their testimony is entitled to full faith and credit.

Given the natural frailties of the human mind and its capacity to assimilate all material details of a given
incident, slight inconsistencies and variances in the declarations of a witness hardly weaken their
probative value. It is well-settled that immaterial and insignificant details do not discredit a testimony on
the very material and significant point bearing on the very act of accused-appellants. As long as the
testimonies of the witnesses corroborate one another on material points, minor inconsistencies therein
cannot destroy their credibility. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. MARCELINO DADAO. G.R. NO.
201860, January 22, 2014

Res judicata refers to the rule that a final judgment or decree on the merits by a court of competent
jurisdiction is conclusive of the rights of the parties or their privies in all later suits on all points and
matters determined in the former suit. The elements of res judicata are as follows: (1) the former
judgment or order must be final; (2) the judgment or order must be on the merits; (3) it must have been
rendered by a court having jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties; and (4) there must be,
between the first and the second action, identity of parties, of subject matter and cause of action. The
Bagano case has been settled by the court having jurisdiction and was based on the merits. Nonetheless,
the Bagano case and the present controversy does not point to similarity of the parties or to the cause of
action presented, hence res judicata cannot be raised to bar determination of the issue.

An independent controversy cannot be injected into a suit by intervention, hence, such intervention will
not be allowed where it would enlarge the issues in the action and expand the scope of the remedies.  It
is not proper where there are certain facts giving the intervenor’s case an aspect peculiar to himself and
differentiating it clearly from that of the original parties; the proper course is for the would–be intervenor to
litigate his claim in a separate suit. Intervention is not intended to change the nature and character of the
action itself, or to stop or delay the placid operation of the machinery of the trial.  The remedy of
intervention is not proper where it will have the effect of retarding the principal suit or delaying the trial of
the action. Hence, the issue of double sale as alleged cannot be injected into the Bagano case, which is
based on facts peculiar to the transaction between Bagano and petitioners. PEBLIA ALFARO AND THE
HEIRS OF PROSPEROUS ALFARO v. SPOUSES EDITHO AND HERA DUMALAGAN. G.R. NO.
186622, January 22, 2014

A client has of course the right to dismiss and replace his counsel of record as provided in the second
paragraph of Section 26 above. But this assumes that such client has given counsel a notice of dismissal
so the latter could immediately cease to represent him. Indeed, it would have been more prudent for
newly hired counsel to refrain from entering his appearance in the case until he has ascertained that the
previous counsel has been dismissed from it.

Section 4, Rule VI of the 2005 Revised Rules of Procedure of the NLRC specifically requires that a) The
appeal shall be: 1) filed within the reglementary period provided in Section 1 of this Rule; 2) verified by the
appellant himself in accordance with Section 4, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court, as amended; 3) in the form
of a memorandum of appeal which shall state the grounds relied upon and the arguments in support
thereof, the relief prayed for, and with a statement of the date the appellant received the appealed
decision, resolution or order; 4) in three (3) legibly typewritten or printed copies; and 5) accompanied by i)
proof of payment of the required appeal fee; ii) posting of a cash or surety bond as provided in Section 6
of this Rule; iii) a certificate of non-forum shopping; and iv) proof of service upon the other parties. b) A
mere notice of appeal without complying with the other requisites aforestated shall not stop the running of
the period of perfecting an appeal.

Insisting on such requirement even on appeal is a prerogative of the NLRC under its rule making power
considering the great volume of appeals filed with it from all over the country. DIONES BELZA v.
DANILO T. CANONERO. G.R. NO. 192479, January 27, 2014

Factual findings of the trial court, its calibration of the testimonies of the witnesses, and its assessment of
their probative weight are given great respect if not conclusive effect, unless it ignored, misconstrued,
misunderstood, or misinterpreted cogent facts and circumstances of substance which, if considered,
would alter the outcome of the case.

Courts usually give greater weight to the testimony of a girl who is a victim of sexual assault, especially a
minor, as in this case, because no woman would be willing to undergo a public trial and put up with the
shame, humiliation and dishonor of exposing her own degradation were it not to condemn an injustice and
have the offender apprehended and punished.

In ascertaining whether an out-of-court identification is positive or derivative, the Court has adopted the
totality of circumstances test wherein the following factors are taken into consideration: (1) the witness’s
opportunity to view the criminal at the time of the crime; (2) the witness’s degree of attention at that time;
(3) the accuracy of any prior description given by the witness; (4) the level of certainty demonstrated by
the witness at the identification; (5) the length of time between the crime and the identification; and (6) the
suggestiveness of the identification procedure. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. FLORO MANIGO.
G.R. NO. 194612, January 27, 2014
Section 4 of Rule 129 of the Rules of Court provides that an admission made by a party in the course of
the proceedings in the same case does not require proof, and may be contradicted only by showing that it
was made through palpable mistake. In relation thereto, Article 1431 of the Civil Code provides that
through estoppel, an admission is rendered conclusive upon the person making it, and cannot be denied
or disproved as against the person relying thereon.

Anent the best evidence rule, Section 3(d) of Rule 130 of the Rules of Court provides that when the
subject of inquiry is the contents of a document, no evidence shall be admissible other than the original
document itself, except when the original is a public record in the custody of a public officer or is recorded
in a public office. Section 7 of the same Rule provides that when the original of a document is in the
custody of a public officer or is recorded in a public office, its contents may be proved by a certified copy
issued by the public officer in custody thereof. Section 24 of Rule 132 provides that the record of public
documents may be evidenced by a copy attested by the officer having the legal custody or the record.
The cadastral maps and the list of claimants, as certified true copies of original public records, fall under
the exception to the best evidence rule.

As to the hearsay rule, Section 44 of Rule 130 of the Rules of Court similarly provides that entries in
official records are an exception to the rule. The rule provides that entries in official records made in the
performance of the duty of a public officer of the Philippines, or by a person in the performance of a duty
specially enjoined by law, are prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated. The document's
trustworthiness consists in the presumption of regularity of performance of official duty. Cadastral maps
are the output of cadastral surveys. The DENR is the department tasked to execute, supervise and
manage the conduct of cadastral surveys. As such, they are exceptions to the hearsay rule and are prima
facie evidence of the facts stated therein.THERESITA, JUAN, ASUNCION, PATROCINIA, RICARDO,
and GLORIA, ALL SURNAMED DIMAGUILA v. JOSE AND SONIA A. MONTEIRO. G.R. NO. 201011,
January 27, 2014

In order to perfect an appeal from the Decision of the Labor Arbiter granting monetary award, the Labor
Code requires the posting of a bond, either in cash or surety bond, in an amount equivalent to the
monetary award. Nonetheless, we have consistently held that rules should not be applied in a very rigid
and strict sense. This is especially true in labor cases wherein the substantial merits of the case must
accordingly be decided upon to serve the interest of justice. When there has been substantial compliance,
relaxation of the Rules is warranted.

In termination disputes, the burden of proving that the dismissal is for a just or valid cause rests on the
employers. Failure on their part to discharge such burden will render the dismissal illegal. The quantum of
proof which the employer must discharge is substantial evidence. Substantial evidence is that amount of
relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion, even if other
minds, equally reasonable, might conceivably opine otherwise. Here, the mere filing of a formal charge, to
our mind, does not automatically make the dismissal valid. Unsubstantiated suspicions, accusations, and
conclusions of employers do not provide for legal justification for dismissing employees.

However, the rule that the employer bears the burden of proof in illegal dismissal cases finds no
application when the employer denies having dismissed the employee. The employee must first establish
by substantial evidence the fact of dismissal before shifting to the employer the burden of proving the
validity of such dismissal. GRAND ASIAN SHIPPING LINES, INC., EDUARDO P. FRANCISCO AND
WILLIAM HOW v. WILFREDO GALVEZ. G.R. NO. 178184, January 29, 2014

The determination of probable cause for purposes of filing of information in court is essentially an
executive function that is lodged, at the first instance, with the public prosecutor and, ultimately, to the
Secretary of Justice. The prosecutor and the Secretary of Justice have wide latitude of discretion in the
conduct of preliminary investigation; and their findings with respect to the existence or non-existence of
probable cause are generally not subject to review by the Court.
Consistent with this rule, the settled policy of non-interference in the prosecutor’s exercise of discretion
requires the courts to leave to the prosecutor and to the DOJ the determination of what constitutes
sufficient evidence to establish probable cause. Nevertheless, this policy of non-interference is not without
exception. To justify judicial intervention, the abuse of discretion must be so patent and gross as to
amount to an evasion of a positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law or to act at
all in contemplation of law, as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner by
reason of passion or hostility.

The determination of probable cause needs only to rest on evidence showing that more likely than not, a
crime has been committed and there is enough reason to believe that it was committed by the accused.  It
need not be based on clear and convincing evidence of guilt, neither on evidence establishing absolute
certainty of guilt. What is merely required is "probability of guilt." UNILEVER PHILIPPINES, INC. v.
MICHAEL TAN a.k.a. PAUL D. TAN. G.R. NO. 179367, January 29, 2014

A petition for certiorari must be filed strictly within 60 days from notice of judgment or from the order
denying a motion for reconsideration. This is in accordance with the amendment introduced by A.M. No.
07-7-12-SC where no provision for the filing of a motion for extension to file a petition for certiorari exists,
unlike in the original Section 4 of Rule 65 which allowed the filing of such a motion but only for compelling
reason and in no case exceeding 15 days.

However, there are exceptions to the strict application of the 60-day period rule, such as (1) most
persuasive and weighty reasons; (2) to relieve a litigant from an injustice not commensurate with his
failure to comply with the prescribed procedure; (3) good faith of the defaulting party by immediately
paying within a reasonable time from the time of the default; (4) the existence of special or compelling
circumstances; (5) the merits of the case; (6) a cause not entirely attributable to the fault or negligence of
the party favored by the suspension of the rules; (7) a lack of any showing that the review sought is
merely frivolous and dilatory; (8) the other party will not be unjustly prejudiced thereby; (9) fraud, accident,
mistake or excusable negligence without appellant’s fault; (10) peculiar legal and equitable circumstances
attendant to each case; (11) in the name of substantial justice and fair play; (12) importance of the issues
involved; and (13) exercise of sound discretion by the judge guided by all the attendant circumstances.
Thus, there should be an effort on the part of the party invoking liberality to advance a reasonable or
meritorious explanation for his/her failure to comply with the rules. However, the counting 60 days from
private respondent’s counsel’s receipt of the June 29, 2009 NLRC Resolution on July 8, 2009, private
respondent had until September 7, 2009 to file her petition or a motion for extension, as September 6,
2009, the last day for filing such pleading, fell on a Sunday. However, the motion was filed only on
September 8, 2009, which date is beyond the expiration of the period sought to be extended. THE
NAMARIS PHILIPPINES, INC. vs. COURT OF APPEALS. G.R. NO. 191215, February 3, 2014

There is no dispute that the assailed Resolutions of the CA are in the nature of a final order as they
disposed of the petition completely. It is settled that in cases where an assailed judgment or order is
considered final, the remedy of the aggrieved party is appeal. Hence, in the instant case, petitioner should
have filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, which is a continuation of the appellate
process over the original case. A perusal of RA 9282 amending RA 1125 would show that, while it is
clearly stated that the CTA has exclusive appellate jurisdiction over decisions, orders or resolutions of the
RTCs in local tax cases originally decided or resolved by them in the exercise of their original or appellate
jurisdiction, there is no categorical statement under RA 1125 as well as the amendatory RA 9282, which
provides that the CTA has jurisdiction over petitions for certiorari assailing interlocutory orders issued by
the RTC in local tax cases filed before it

The prevailing doctrine is that the authority to issue writs of certiorari involves the exercise of original
jurisdiction which must be expressly conferred by the Constitution or by law and cannot be implied from
the mere existence of appellate jurisdiction. On the strength of the constitutional provisions under Article
VIII, it can be fairly interpreted that the power of the CTA includes that of determining whether or not there
has been grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of the RTC in
issuing an interlocutory order in cases falling within the exclusive appellate jurisdiction of the tax court. It,
thus, follows that the CTA, by constitutional mandate, is vested with jurisdiction to issue writs of certiorari
in these cases. THE CITY OF MANILA vs. HON. CARIDAD H. GRECIA-CUERDO. G.R. NO. 175723 ,
February 4, 2014

It is settled that Rule 45 limits us merely to the review of questions of law raised against the assailed CA
decision. The Court is generally bound by the CA’s factual findings, except only in some instances,
among which is, when the said findings are contrary to those of the trial court or administrative body
exercising quasi-judicial functions from which the action originated.

The steps on how to comply with procedural due process in terminating an employee:

(1) The first written notice to be served on the employees should contain the specific causes or grounds
for termination against them, and a directive that the employees are given the opportunity to submit their
written explanation within a reasonable period.
(2) After serving the first notice, the employers should schedule and conduct a hearing or conference
wherein the employees will be given the opportunity to: (a) explain and clarify their defenses to the charge
against them; (b) present evidence in support of their defenses; and (3) rebut the evidence presented
against them by the management. During the hearing or (c) After determining that termination of
employment is justified, the employers shall serve the employees a written notice of termination indicating
that: (1) all circumstances involving the charge against the employees have been considered; and (2)
grounds have been established to justify the severance of their employment.

Although letters were sent to Kemplin, such letters were lame attempt to comply with the notice
requirement, for the charges against Kemplin were not specified. Further, it merely made a declaration on
the expiration of the employment, without however, specifying the criminal suits filed against Kemplin.
UNITED TOURIST PROMOTIONS vs. HARLAND B. KEMPLIN. G.R. No. 205453, February 5, 2014

As a rule, in civil cases, the procedure of calling the adverse party to the witness stand is not allowed,
unless written interrogatories are first served upon the latter. This is embodied in Section 6, Rule 25.

One of the purposes of the above rule is to prevent fishing expeditions and needless delays; it is there to
maintain order and facilitate the conduct of trial. It will be presumed that a party who does not serve
written interrogatories on the adverse party beforehand will most likely be unable to elicit facts useful to its
case if it later opts to call the adverse party to the witness stand as its witness. Another reason for the rule
is that by requiring prior written interrogatories, the court may limit the inquiry to what is relevant, and thus
prevent the calling party from straying or harassing the adverse party when it takes the latter to the stand.
Thus, the rule not only protects the adverse party from unwarranted surprises or harassment; it likewise
prevents the calling party from conducting a fishing expedition or bungling its own case. In the case,
Metrobank’s officers were sought to be presented by the petitioner as its initial witness and to present
documents in the possession of Metrobank, which move cannot be allowed in the petitioner’s presentation
of its evidence-in-chief. SPOUSES VICENTE AFULUGENCIA and LETICIA AFULUGENCIA vs.
METROPOLITAN BANK & TRUST CO. G.R. NO. 185145, February 5, 2014

In a buy-bust operation, the failure to conduct a physical inventory and to photograph the items seized
from the accused will not render his arrest illegal or the items confiscated from him inadmissible in
evidence as long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the said items have been preserved. PEOPLE
OF THE PIDLIPPINES vs. GLENN SALVADOR and DORY ANN PARCON
G.R. NO. 190621, February 10, 2014

While we maintain that Rule 108 cannot be availed of to determine the validity of marriage, we cannot
nullify the proceedings before the trial court where all the parties had been given the opportunity to
contest the allegations of respondent; the procedures were followed, and all the evidence of the parties
had already been admitted and examined. Respondent indeed sought, not the nullification of marriage as
there was no marriage to speak of, but the correction of the record of such marriage to reflect the truth as
set forth by the evidence. Otherwise stated, in allowing the correction of the subject certificate of marriage
by cancelling the wife portion thereof, the trial court did not, in any way, declare the marriage void as
there was no marriage to speak of. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. MERLINDA L. OLAYBAR.
G.R. NO. 189538, February 10, 2014

The nature of an action, as well as which court or body has jurisdiction over it, is determined based on the
allegations contained in the complaint of the plaintiff, irrespective of whether or not the plaintiff is entitled
to recover upon all or some of the claims asserted therein. The averments in the complaint and the
character of the relief sought are the ones to be consulted. Once vested by the allegations in the
complaint, jurisdiction also remains vested irrespective of whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to recover
upon all or some of the claims asserted therein.

All controversies on the implementation of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) fall
under the jurisdiction of the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR), even though they raise questions that
are also legal or constitutional in nature. TRINIDAD VALLEY REALTY & DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION, et al. vs. THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES. G.R. NO.183191, February 11,
2014

Issues involving the finding of probable cause for an indictment and issuance of a warrant of arrest, as
petitioners are doubtless aware, are primarily questions of fact that are normally not within the purview of
a petition for certiorari, such as the petitions filed in the instant consolidated cases. SATURNINO C.
OCAMPO vs. HON. EPHREM S. ABANDO, et al.G.R. No. 176830, February 11, 2014

The sub judice rule restricts comments and disclosures pertaining to the judicial proceedings in order to
avoid prejudging the issue, influencing the court, or obstructing the administration of justice. A violation of
this rule may render one liable for indirect contempt under Sec. 3(d), Rule 71 of the Rules of Court.

However, A public utterance or publication is not to be denied the constitutional protection of freedom of
speech and press merely because it concerns a judicial proceeding still pending in the courts, upon the
theory that in such a case, it must necessarily tend to obstruct the orderly and fair administration of
justice. P/SUPT. HANSEL M. MARANTAN vs. ATTY. JOSE MANUEL DIOKNO and MONIQUE CU-
UNJIENG LA'O G.R. NO. 205956, February 12, 2014

In the case at bar, the evidence is unclear as to where the responsible police officer marked the seized
substance and whether it was done in Merlita’s presence. In fact, it is also not clear from the evidence
which police officer did the marking. This uncertainty concerning a vital element of the crime warrants
overturning the judgment of conviction.

Though Merlita's denial and alibi as a defense are weak, such cannot relieve the prosecution the burden
of presenting proof beyond reasonable doubt that an illegal transaction actually took place. PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES vs. MERLITA PALOMARES y COSTUNA. G.R. No. 200915, February 12, 2014

Non-payment of docket fees is a jurisdictional defect. Anent the counterclaims interposed by defendant
for the collection of certain sum of money adverted earlier hereof, this Court could not exercise jurisdiction
over the same as defendant did not pay the docket fees therefor. Although the counterclaims were
denominated as compulsory in the answer, the matters therein alleged were not connected with the
plaintiff’s complaint. The counterclaims could stand independently from the plaintiff’s complaint hence
they are a sic permissive counterclaims. UNION BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. BIGNAY EX-IM
PHILIPPINES, INC. G.R. NO. 171590, February 12, 2014

It has been repeatedly emphasized that in the case of natural persons, the certification against forum
shopping must be signed by the principal parties themselves and not by the attorney. The certification
against forum shopping must be signed by the plaintiff or any of the principal parties and not by the
attorney. For such certification is a peculiar personal representation on the part of the principal party, an
assurance given to the court or other tribunal that there are no other pending cases involving basically the
same parties, issues and causes of action. Hence, the petition is dismissible outright for being
accompanied by a defective certification of non-forum shopping having been signed by Atty. Agustin
instead of the complainants as the principal parties. ATTY. EMMANUEL D. AGUSTIN, et al. vs.
ALEJANDRO CRUZ-HERRERA. G.R. NO. 174564, February 12, 2014

The testimony of the offended party in crimes against chastity should not be received with precipitate
credulity for the charge can easily be concocted. Courts should be wary of giving undue credibility to a
claim of rape, especially where the sole evidence comes from an alleged victim whose charge is not
corroborated and whose conduct during and after the rape is open to conflicting interpretations. While
judges ought to be cognizant of the anguish and humiliation that a rape victim undergoes as she seeks
justice, they should equally bear in mind that their responsibility is to render justice based on the law.

The numerous inconsistencies in the testimony of private complainant have created reasonable doubt in
Our mind. In view of the foregoing considerations, the presumption of innocence in favor of appellant
must be upheld considering that the evidence brought forth in trial falls short of the quantum of proof to
support a conviction. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. FELIMON PATENTES Y ZAMORA. G.R. NO.
190178, February 12, 2014.

Jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred only by the Constitution or the law and cannot be
acquired through a waiver or enlarged by the omission of the parties or conferred by the acquiescence of
the court. The rule is well-settled that lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter may be raised at any
stage of the proceedings. Hence, questions of jurisdiction may be cognizable even if raised for the first
time on appeal. RICARDO L. ATIENZA AND ALFREDO A. CASTRO vs. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES. G.R. NO. 188694, February 12, 2014

The test to determine the existence of forum shopping is whether the elements of litis pendentia are
present, or whether a final judgment in one case amounts to res judicata in the other. Thus, there is forum
shopping when the following elements are present, namely: (a) identity of parties, or at least such parties
as represent the same interests in both actions; (b) identity of rights asserted and reliefs prayed for, the
relief being founded on the same facts; and (c) the identity of the two preceding particulars, such that any
judgment rendered in the other action will, regardless of which party is successful, amounts to res judicata
in the action under consideration.

There is no question that the ultimate objective of each of the actions was the return of the properties to
the Estate in order that such properties would be partitioned among the heirs. In the other cases, the
petitioners failed to attain the objective because Palicte’s right in the properties had been declared
exclusivse. There was between Civil Case No. CEB-24293 and the other cases a clear identity of the
parties, of subject matter, of evidence, and of the factual and legal issues raised. The Court saw through
the petitioners’ "ploy to countermand the previous decisions’ sustaining Palicte’s rights over the
properties." HEIRS OF MARCELO SOTTO vs. MATILDE S. PALICTE, Respondent. G.R. No. 159691,
February 17, 2014

When the decision hinges on the credibility of witnesses and their respective testimonies, the trial court’s
observations and conclusions deserve great respect and are often accorded finality, unless there appears
in the record some fact or circumstance of weight which the lower court may have overlooked,
misunderstood or misappreciated and which, if properly considered, would alter the result of the case.

The straightforward, candid and intrepid revelation in coming forward to avenge the immoral defilement
upon her person is more convincing and plausible compared to the weak and uncorroborated defense of
petitioner. Despite the minor inconsistencies in her testimony, her general statements remained
consistent throughout the trial as she recounted the sordid details of her tormenting experience in the
hands of her own father. EMILIO RAGA y CASIKAT vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No.
200597, February 19, 2014

Without any prior order or at least a motion for exclusion from any of the parties, a court cannot simply
allow or disallow the presentation of a witness solely on the ground that the latter heard the testimony of
another witness. It is the responsibility of respondent's counsel to protect the interest of his client during
the presentation of other witnesses. If respondent actually believed that the testimony of Kenneth would
greatly affect that of Stephen's, then respondent's counsel was clearly remiss in his duty to protect the
interest of his client when he did not raise the issue of the exclusion of the witness in a timely manner.
DESIGN SOURCES INTERNATIONAL INC., et al. vs. LOURDES L. ERISTINGCOL G.R. No. 193966,
February 19, 2014

Contempt of court is defined as a disobedience to the Court by acting in opposition to its authority, justice
and dignity. It signifies not only a willful disregard or disobedience of the court’s orders, but such conduct
which tends to bring the authority of the court and the administration of law into disrepute or in some
manner to impede the due administration of justice. Respondent’s willful disregard and defiance of this
Court’s ruling on a matter submitted for the second time before his office cannot be countenanced. By
acting in opposition to this Court’s authority and disregarding its final determination of the legal issue
pending before him, respondent failed in his duty not to impede the due administration of justice and
consistently adhere to existing laws and principles as interpreted in the decisions of the Court. CITY
GOVERNMENT OF BAGUIO, et al. vs. ATTY. BRAIN S. MASWENG. G.R. No. 188913, February 19,
2014

Where a party was afforded the opportunity to participate in the proceedings, yet he failed to do so, he
cannot be allowed later on to claim that he was deprived of his day in court. Notice and hearing is the
bulwark of administrative due process, the right to which is among the primary rights that must be
respected even in administrative proceedings. The essence of due process is simply an opportunity to be
heard, or as applied to administrative proceedings, an opportunity to explain one's side or an opportunity
to seek reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of. LUCENA D. DEMAALA vs.
SANDIGANBAYAN (Third Division) and OMBUDSMAN. G.R. No. 173523, February 19, 2014.

Settled is the rule that possession of dangerous drugs constitutes prima facie evidence of knowledge or
animus possidendi sufficient to convict an accused in the absence of a satisfactory explanation of such
possession. As such, the burden of evidence is shifted to the accused to explain the absence of
knowledge or animus possidendi.

Evidently, the prosecution had established beyond reasonable doubt the appellant’s guilt for the offense
of illegal sale of shabu in violation of Section 15, Article III of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. VICENTE ROM. G.R. No. 198452, February 19, 2014

It is a fundamental principle in jurisprudence involving rape that the accused may be convicted based
solely on the testimony of the victim, provided that such testimony is credible, natural, convincing and
consistent with human nature and the normal course of things. In this regard, we defer to the trial court’s
assessment of the credibility of AAA’s testimony, most especially, when it is affirmed by the Court of
Appeals. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. MERVIN GAHI. G.R. No. 202976, February 19, 2014

In this case, the proceedings for indirect contempt have not been initiated. To the Court’s mind, the
September 3, 2007 Resolution could be treated as a mere reiteration of the September 10, 2002 Order. It
is not yet a "judgment or final order of a court in a case of indirect contempt" as contemplated under the
Rules. The recourse provided for in the Rule 71 is clear enough: the person adjudged in indirect contempt
must file an appeal under Rule 41 (Appeal from the Regional Trial Courts) and post a bond for its
suspension pendente lite. Obviously, these were not done in this case. Instead, petitioners filed a petition
for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules and did not post the required bond, effectively making the
September 3, 2007 Resolution final and executory. CAPITOL HILLS GOLF & COUNTRY CLUB, INC., et
al. vs. MANUEL O. SANCHEZ. G.R. No. 182738, February 24, 2014

Attachment is defined as a provisional remedy by which the property of an adverse party is taken into
legal custody, either at the commencement of an action or at any time thereafter, as a security for the
satisfaction of any judgment that may be recovered by the plaintiff or any proper party. Case law instructs
that an attachment is a proceeding in rem, and, hence, is against the particular property, enforceable
against the whole world. Accordingly, the attaching creditor acquires a specific lien on the attached
property which nothing can subsequently destroy except the very dissolution of the attachment or levy
itself.
Applying these principles to this case, the Court finds that the CA erred in holding that the RTC did not
gravely abuse its discretion in issuing the Assailed Orders as these issuances essentially disregarded,
inter alia, Ligon’s prior attachment lien over the subject property patently anathema to the nature of
attachment proceedings which is well-established in law and jurisprudence. LETICIA P. LIGON vs. THE
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 56 AT MAKATI CITY, et al.
G.R. No. 190028, February 26, 2014

While a government office may prohibit altogether the filing of a motion for reconsideration with respect to
its decisions or orders, the fact remains that certiorari inherently requires the filing of a motion for
reconsideration, which is the tangible representation of the opportunity given to the office to correct itself.
Unless it is filed, there could be no occasion to rectify. Worse, the remedy of certiorari would be
unavailing. Simply put, regardless of the proscription against the filing of a motion for reconsideration, the
same may be filed on the assumption that rectification of the decision or order must be obtained, and
before a petition for certiorari may be instituted.. PHILTRANCO SERVICE ENTERPRISES, INC.
vs. PHILTRANCO WORKERS UNION-ASSOCIATION OF GENUINE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS (PWU-
AGLO). G.R. No. 180962, February 26, 2014

The disallowance of the notice of appeal signifies the disallowance of the appeal itself. A petition for
review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court is a mode of appeal of a lower court’s decision or final order
direct to the Supreme Court. However, the questioned Order denying her notice of appeal is not a
decision or final order from which an appeal may be taken. The Rules of Court specifically provides that
no appeal shall be taken from an order disallowing or dismissing an appeal. Rather, the aggrieved party
can elevate the matter through a special civil action under Rule 65. Thus, in availing of the wrong mode of
appeal in this petition under Rule 45 instead of the appropriate remedy of Rule 65, the petition merits an
outright dismissal. CORAZON MACAPAGAL vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. G.R. No. 193217,
February 26, 2014

The Ombudsman-imposed penalties in administrative disciplinary cases are immediately executory

notwithstanding an appeal timely filed. An appeal shall not stop the decision from being executory. In
case the penalty is suspension or removal and the respondent wins such appeal, he shall be considered
as having been under preventive suspension and shall be paid the salary and such other emoluments
that he did not receive by reason of the suspension or removal. Thus, no error can be attributed to the CA
when it ruled that the penalties imposed by the Ombudsman against petitioners are immediately
executory. Immediate execution argues against the outlandish notion that the Ombudsman can only
recommend disciplinary sanctions. FLOR GUPILAN-AGUILAR and HONORE R. HERNANDEZ
vs. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, et al. G.R. NO. 197307, February 26, 2014

Although strict compliance with the rules of procedure is desired, liberal interpretation is warranted in
cases where a strict enforcement of the rules will not serve the ends of justice; and that it is a better rule
that courts, under the principle of equity, will not be guided or bound strictly by the statute of limitations or
the doctrine of laches when to do so, manifest wrong or injustice would result.

Petitioners could not afford to engage the services of a private counsel and so were represented by the
PAO. As has been repeatedly stated all over the records, PAO, SAC-PAO in particular, failed them,
Hence, the Court, in the exercise of its equity jurisdiction, relaxed the rules and decides to allowed the
action for the revival of judgment filed by petitioners. RUFA A. RUBIO, ET AL. vs. LOURDES
ALABATA. G.R. NO. 203947, February 26, 2014

The force and violence required in rape cases is relative and need not be overpowering or irresistible
when applied. For rape to exist, it is not necessary that the force or intimidation be so great or be of such
character as could not be resisted – it is only necessary that the force or intimidation be sufficient to
consummate the purpose which the accused had in mind.

In the case at bench, AAA’s categorical, straightforward and positive testimony revealed that the appellant
was armed with a gun and the same was pointed at her while she was ordered to lie down and to take off
her clothes, to which she acceded because of fear for her life and personal safety. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES vs. MANOLITO LUCENA y VELASQUEZ. G.R. NO. 190632, February 26, 2014.

The absence of an indispensable party renders all subsequent actions of the court null and void for want
of authority to act, not only as to the absent parties but even to those present. Consequently, the
proceedings before RTC-Br. 14 were null and void.

To turn a blind eye to the said nullity and, in turn, rule as improper the recourse to Rule 65 by the lack of
legal standing is to prolong the denial of due process to the persons whose interests are indispensible to
the final disposition of the case. It will only result in a protracted litigation as Spouses Crisologo will be
forced to rely on a petition for the annulment of judgment before the CA (as the last remaining remedy),
which may again reach this Court. To prevent multiplicity of suits and to expedite the swift administration
of justice, the CA should have applied liberality by striking down the assailed orders despite the lack of
legal standing on the part of Spouses Crisologo to file the Rule 65 petition before it. Besides, this lacking
requirement, of which Spouses Crisologo were not even at fault, is precisely the reason why this
controversy arose.JESUS G. CRISOLOGO and NANETTE B. CRISOLOGO v. JEWM AGRO-
INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION. G.R. NO. 196894, MARCH 3, 2014

Orders denying motions for reconsideration are not always interlocutory orders. A motion for
reconsideration may be considered a final decision, subject to an appeal, if it puts an end to a particular
matter, leaving the court with nothing else to do but to execute the decision. An appeal from an order
denying a motion for reconsideration of an order of dismissal of a complaint is effectively an appeal of the
order of dismissal itself. It is an appeal from a final decision or order. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
v. ORTIGAS AND COMPANY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
G.R. NO. 171496, MARCH 3, 2014

It is entrenched in our jurisprudence that perfection of an appeal in a manner and within the period
prescribed by law is not only mandatory but jurisdictional, and failure to perfect an appeal has the effect of
making judgment final and executory. While dismissal of an appeal on technical grounds is frowned upon,
Article 223 of the Labor Code which prescribes the appeal bond requirement, however, is a rule of
jurisdiction and not of procedure. Hence, there is a little leeway for condoning a liberal interpretation
thereof, and certainly none premised on the ground that its requirements are mere technicalities.

The finding of the Labor Arbiter holding the petitioners liable for illegal dismissal is binding on them. Not
having been timely appealed, this issue is already beyond our jurisdiction to resolve, and the finding of the
Labor Arbiter can no longer be disturbed. CO SAY COCO PRODUCTS PHILS, INC., et al. v. BENJAMIN
BALTASAR, ET AL. G.R. NO.188828, MARCH 5, 2014

When the creditor is in possession of the document of credit, he need not prove nonpayment for it is
presumed. The creditor's possession of the evidence of debt is proof that the debt has not been
discharged by payment.

In this case, respondent's possession of the original copies of the subject Trust Indenture Certificates
strongly supports his claim that petitioner Bank's obligation to return the principal plus interest of the
money placement has not been extinguished. The TICs in the hands of respondent is a proof of
indebtedness and a prima facie evidence that they have not been paid. PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL
INTERNATIONAL BANK (NOW BDO UNIBANK, INC.) v. ARTURO P. FRANCO, SUBSTITUTED BY
HIS HEIRS, NAMELY: MAURICIA P. FRANCO, ET AL. G.R. NO. 180069, MARCH 5, 2014

The lower courts erred in giving weight to the presumption of regularity in the performance that a police
officer enjoys in the absence of any taint of irregularity and of ill motive that would induce him to falsify his
testimony. The presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty cannot by itself overcome the
presumption of innocence nor constitute proof beyond reasonable doubt. It should be noted that the
presumption is precisely just that – a presumption. Once challenged by evidence, as in this case, it
cannot be regarded as binding truth. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. JERRY CARANTO Y
PROPETA. G.R. 193768, MARCH 5, 2014
The general rule that an assignment of error is essential to appellate review and only those errors
assigned will be considered applies in the absence of certain exceptional circumstances. As exceptions to
the rule, the Court has considered grounds not raised or assigned as errors in instances where: (1)
grounds not assigned as errors but affecting jurisdiction over the subject matter; (2) matters not assigned
as errors on appeal but are evidently plain or clerical errors within the contemplation of the law; (3)
matters not assigned as errors on appeal, whose consideration is necessary in arriving at a just decision
and complete resolution of the case or to serve the interest of justice or to avoid dispensing piecemeal
justice; (4) matters not specifically assigned as errors on appeal but raised in the trial court and are
matters of record having some bearing on the issue submitted which the parties failed to raise or which
the lower court ignored; (5) matters not assigned as errors on appeal but are closely related to the
assigned error/s; and (6) matters not assigned as errors on appeal, whose determination is necessary to
rule on the question/s properly assigned as errors.

The present case falls into the exceptions. We find no error by the CA in resolving the issues on the
nature and duration of the petitioners’ possession and on the alienable character of the subject land.
These issues were apparently not raised by the Republic in its appeal before the CA, but are crucial in
determining whether the petitioners have registrable title over the subject land. SPOUSES MARIO AND
JULIA CAMPOS v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES. G.R. NO. 184371. MARCH 5, 2014

A writ of preliminary injunction is a provisional remedy; it is auxiliary, an adjunct of, and subject to the
determination of the main action. It is deemed lifted upon the dismissal of the main case, any appeal
therefrom notwithstanding. Upon the dismissal of the main case by the RTC, the question of issuance of
the writ of preliminary injunction has become moot and academic. Upon the dismissal of the main action,
the question of the non-issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction automatically died with it.SPOUSES
SILVESTRE O. PLAZA AND ELENA Y. PLAZA v. GUILLERMO LUSTIVA, ELEODORA VDA. DE
MARTINEZ AND VICKY SAYSON GOLOSENO. G.R. NO. 172909, MARCH 5, 2014

The defense points out that the prosecution failed to present direct evidence that the accused Enojas,
Gomez, Santos, or Jalandoni took part in shooting PO2 Pangilinan dead. This may be true but the
prosecution could prove their liability by circumstantial evidence that meets the evidentiary standard of
proof beyond reasonable doubt. It has been held that circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction if:
1) there is more than one circumstance; 2) the facts from which the inferences are derived are proven;
and 3) the combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable
doubt. Here the totality of the circumstantial evidence the prosecution presented sufficiently provides
basis for the conviction of all the accused. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. NOEL ENOJAS Y
HINGIPIT, ET AL. G.R. NO. 204894. MARCH 10, 2014

A writ of preliminary injunction may be issued upon the concurrence of the following essential requisites,
to wit: (a) the invasion of right sought to be protected is material and substantial; (b) the right of the
complainant is clear and unmistakable; and (c) there is an urgent and paramount necessity for the writ to
prevent serious damage. While a clear showing of the right is necessary, its existence need not be
conclusively established. Hence, to be entitled to the writ, it is sufficient that the complainant shows that
he has an ostensible right to the final relief prayed for in his complaint.

In the present case, the Court finds the RTC grant of injunction to be in order. There is no question that
when the Pagbilao Development Corporation bought the properties from the vendors, it had full
knowledge that there were questions involving ownership of the parcels of land it bought. Likewise there
is no question that Pagbilao Development Corporation did not take any step to have the annotation or
encumbrance in each title cancelled. Inevitably, PDC is deemed to have obtained the properties subject
to the outcome of the litigation among the heirs of Arsenio. PEDRO LUKANG v. PAGBILAO
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AND EDUARDO T. RODRIGUEZ
G.R. NO. 195374. MARCH 10, 2014

The integrity of the evidence is presumed to be preserved unless there is a showing of bad faith, ill will or
proof that the evidence has been tampered with and in such case, the burden of proof rests on the
appellant. Here, appellant miserably failed to discharge this burden. Moreover, and as aptly observed by
the CA, appellant did not seasonably question these procedural gaps before the trial court. Suffice it to
say that objection to evidence cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES v. SHERWON BIS Y AVELLANEDA. G.R. NO. 191360, MARCH 10, 2014

In determining whether an action is one the subject matter of which is not capable of pecuniary estimation
this Court has adopted the criterion of first ascertaining the nature of the principal action or remedy
sought. If it is primarily for the recovery of a sum of money, the claim is considered capable of pecuniary
estimation, and whether jurisdiction is in the municipal courts or in the RTCs would depend on the amount
of the claim. But where the basic issue is something other than the right to recover a sum of money,
where the money claim is purely incidental to, or a consequence of, the principal relief sought, this Court
has considered such actions as cases where the subject of the litigation may not be estimated in terms of
money, and, hence, are incapable of pecuniary estimation. These cases are cognizable exclusively by
RTCs.

The Court rules that the complaint to redeem a land subject of a free patent is a civil action incapable of
pecuniary estimation. It is a well-settled rule that jurisdiction of the court is determined by the allegations
in the complaint and the character of the relief sought. SURVIVING HEIRS OF ALFREDO R. BAUTISTA
v. FRANCISCO LINDO AND WELHILMINIA LINDO, et al. G.R. NO. 208232. MARCH 10, 2014

Negligence is defined as the failure to observe for the protection of the interests of another person that
degree of care, precaution, and vigilance that the circumstances justly demand, whereby such other
person suffers injury. Reckless imprudence, on the other hand, consists of voluntarily doing or failing to
do, without malice, an act from which material damage results by reason of an inexcusable lack of
precaution on the part of the person performing or failing to perform such act.

Ospital ng Maynila was not at all a party in the proceedings. Hence, its fundamental right to be heard was
not respected from the outset. The RTC and the CA should have been alert to this fundamental defect.
Verily, no person can be prejudiced by a ruling rendered in an action or proceeding in which he was not
made a party. Such a rule would enforce the constitutional guarantee of due process of law. DR.
FERNANDO SOLIDUM v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES G.R. NO. 192123, MARCH 10, 2014

In the present case, petitioner cannot make up his mind whether to question the judgment, or apply for
probation, which is necessarily deemed a waiver of his right to appeal. While he did not file an appeal
before applying for probation, he assailed the validity of the conviction in the guise of a petition
supposedly assailing the denial of probation. In so doing, he attempted to circumvent P.D. No. 968, as
amended by P.D. 1990, which seeks to make appeal and probation mutually exclusive remedies.
ENRIQUE ALMERO Y ALCANTARA v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, et al. G.R. NO. 188191.
MARCH 12, 2014

Unfounded administrative charges against sitting judges truly degrade their judicial office, and interfere
with the due performance of their work for the Judiciary. The complainant may be held liable for indirect
contempt of court as a means of vindicating the integrity and reputation of the judges and the Judiciary. In
the instant case, AMALI fell short of the requirements for establishing its charge of knowingly rendering an
unjust judgment against respondent Justices. Hence, we now demand that AMALI’s authorized
representative to show cause in writing why they should not be held in indirect contempt of court for
bringing the unfounded and baseless charges against respondent Justices not only once but twice. RE:
VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DISBARMENT OF AMA LAND INC. AGAINST COURT OF APPEALS
ASSOCIATE JUSTICES HON. DANTON Q. BUESER, HON. SESINANBO E. VILLON AND HON.
RICARDO R. ROSARI A.M. OCA IPI NO. 12-204-CA-J. MARCH 11, 2014

Forfeiture proceedings, as we have already discussed exhaustively in our Decision, are actions
considered to be in the nature of proceedings in rem or quasi in rem, such that: Jurisdiction over the res is
acquired either (a) by the seizure of the property under legal process, whereby it is brought into actual
custody of the law; or (b) as a result of the institution of legal proceedings, in which the power of the court
is recognized and made effective. In the latter condition, the property, though at all times within the
potential power of the court, may not be in the actual custody of said court. There is potential custody
when, from the nature of the action brought, the power of the court over the property is impliedly
recognized by law. While the subject properties are in the US, the the Republic’s interest over the Arelma
assets has already been recognized in an earlier decision rendered by the Appellate Division of the New
York Supreme Court. FERDINAND R. MARCOS, JR. v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES/ IMELDA
ROMUALDEZ-MARCOS vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES G.R. NO. 189505 & G.R. NO. 189434,
MARCH 12, 2014

Assuming that the prosecution witnesses failed to identify exactly who inflicted the fatal wounds on Joey
during the commotion, Erwin’s liability is not diminished since he and the others with him acted with
concert in beating up and ultimately killing Joey. Conspiracy makes all the assailants equally liable as co-
principals by direct participation.PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ERWIN TAMAYO Y BAUTISTA.
G.R. NO. 196960, MARCH 12, 2014.

While it is a basic rule of evidence that the original copy prevails over a mere photocopy, there is no harm
if in a case, both the original and a photocopy thereof are authenticated, identified and formally offered in
evidence by the party proponent. Hence, Respondent’s failure to present the original copy of the
Acknowledgment during the taking of her testimony for the second time, and the presentation of a mere
photocopy thereof at said hearing, does not materially affect the outcome of the case.

Moreover, the rule that the genuineness and due execution of the instrument shall be deemed admitted,
unless the adverse party specifically denies them under oath, applies only to parties to such instrument.
Hence only Fernando may be held liable for the judgment amount of P1,456,000.00, since Ma. Elena was
not a signatory to the Acknowledgment. SPOUSES FERNANDO AND MA. ELENA SANTOS v. LOLITA
ALCAZAR, REPRESENTED BY HER ATTORNEY-IN-FACT DELFIN CHUA. G.R. NO. 183034, MARCH
12, 2014

In this jurisdiction, courts generally accord great respect and finality to factual findings of administrative
agencies. These findings, however, are not infallible. This doctrine espousing comity to administrative
findings of facts cannot preclude the courts from reviewing and, when proper, disregarding these findings
of facts when shown that the administrative body committed grave abuse of discretion by capriciously,
whimsically or arbitrarily disregarding evidence or circumstances of considerable importance that are
crucial or decisive of the controversy. DIAMOND TAXI AND/OR BRYAN ONG v. FELIPE LLAMAS, JR.
G.R. NO. 190724, MACRH 12, 2014

Petitioners’ admission that the five affiants were their former employees is binding upon them. While they
claim that respondent was the employee of their suppliers Mayol and Apondar, they did not submit proof
that the latter were indeed independent contractors; clearly, petitioners failed to discharge their burden of
proving their own affirmative allegation. SOUTH EAST INTERNATIONAL RATTAN, INC. AND/OR
ESTANISLAO AGBAY v. JESUS J. COMING. G.R. NO. 186621, MARCH 12, 2014

The procedural requirement observed in ordinary civil proceedings that only the real party-in-interest must
initiate the suit does not apply in disbarment cases. The right to institute disbarment proceedings is not
confined to clients nor is it necessary that the person complaining suffered injury from the alleged
wrongdoing. Disbarment proceedings are matters of public interest and the only basis for the judgment is
the proof or failure of proof of the charges. The Court found no merit in respondent’s contention that
complainants have no personality to file a disbarment case against him as they were not his clients and
that the present suit was merely instituted to harass him. NESTOR B. FIGUERAS AND BIENVENIDO
VICTORIA, JR. v. ATTY. DIOSDADO B. JIMENEZ. A.C. NO. 9116, MARCH 12, 2014

In an appeal to the SC of a CA decision dismissing a Petition for Certiorari with Prayer for the Issuance of
a Temporary Restraining Order and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction under Rule 47 for lack of proof of
authority and affidavit of service of filing as required by Section 13 of the 1997 Rules of Procedure, the
court held that “While it is desirable that the Rules of Court be faithfully observed, courts should not be so
strict about procedural lapses that do not really impair the proper administration of justice. If the rules are
intended to ensure the proper and orderly conduct of litigation, it is because of the higher objective they
seek which are the attainment of justice and the protection of substantive rights of the parties. Thus, the
relaxation of procedural rules, or saving a particular case from the operation of technicalities when
substantial justice requires it, as in the instant case, should no longer be subject to cavil.” DREAMLAND
HOTEL RESORT AND WESTLEY J. PRENTICE v. STEPHEN B. JOHNSON. G.R. NO. 191455,
MARCH 12, 2014

In an appeal by certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, only
questions of law may be raised. When there is no dispute as to the facts, the question of whether the
conclusion drawn therefrom is correct or not, is a question of law. In the present case, there seems to be
no dispute as to the facts, and the question presented before us calls for a review of the CA’s conclusion
that the documents and evidence presented by petitioner are insufficient to support her application for
registration of title. Hence, the petition is properly filed. MINDA S. GAERLAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE
PHILIPPINES. G.R. NO. 192717., MARCH 12, 2014

As a rule, a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court covers only questions of law. For a
question to be one of law, the same must not involve an examination of the probative value of the
evidence presented by the litigants or any of them. The resolution of the issue must rest solely on what
the law provides on the given set of circumstances. In this case, the only legal issue raised by petitioner is
whether the trial court based its determination of just compensation on the factors provided under existing
laws and jurisprudence.

In this case, we find that the trial court did not judiciously determine the fair market value of the subject
property as it failed to consider other relevant factors such as the zonal valuation, tax declarations and
current selling price supported by documentary evidence. Indeed, just compensation must not be arrived
at arbitrarily, but determined after an evaluation of different factors.REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v.
ASIA PACIFIC INTEGRATED STEEL CORPORATION. G.R. NO. 192100. MARCH 12, 2014

A motion that does not comply with the requirements of Sections 4 and 5 of Rule 15 of the Rules of Court
is a worthless piece of paper which the clerk of court has no right to receive and which the court has no
authority to act upon. Nevertheless, the three-day notice requirement is not a hard and fast rule. When
the adverse party had been afforded the opportunity to be heard, and has been indeed heard through the
pleadings filed in opposition to the motion, the purpose behind the three-day notice requirement is
deemed realized. In such case, the requirements of procedural due process are substantially complied
with. MARYLOU CABRERA v. FELIX NG. G.R. NO. 201601, MARCH 12, 2014

The preventive suspension order is interlocutory in character and not a final order on the merits of the
case. The aggrieved party may then seek redress from the courts through a petition for certiorari under
Section 1, Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Court. While it is true that the primary relief prayed for by
Capulong in his petition has already been voluntarily corrected by the Ombudsman by the issuance of the
order lifting his preventive suspension, we must not lose sight of the fact that Capulong likewise prayed
for other remedies. There being a finding of grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Ombudsman, it
was certainly imperative for the CA to grant incidental reliefs, as sanctioned by Section 1 of Rule 65.
OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN v. JOSE T. CAPULONG. G.R. NO. 201643, MARCH 12, 2014

There should be no inexplicable delay in the filing of a motion to set aside order of default. Even when a
motion is filed within the required period, excusable negligence must be properly alleged and proven.

The Regional Trial Court of Makati declared Lui Enterprises in default when it failed to answer the
complaint within the required period. Lui Enterprises filed a motion to set aside order of default without an
acceptable excuse why its counsel failed to answer the complaint. It failed to prove the excusable
negligence. Thus, the Makati trial court did not err in refusing to set aside the order of default. LUI
ENTERPRISES, INC. v. ZUELLIG PHARMA CORPORATION AND THE PHILIPPINE BANK OF
COMMUNICATIONS. G.R. NO. 193494, MARCH 12, 2014

The almost four months that lapsed before the records reached the ponente’s office was caused by the
gross incompetence and inefficiency of the division personnel at the CA. It was the height of injustice for
the CA to dismiss a petition just because the motion for extension reached the ponente’s office beyond
the last date prayed for.

The petitioners could not also be faulted that the motion for extension of time was received by the CA on
September 13, 2010. The rules allow parties to file a pleading by registered mail. They are not required to
ensure that it would be received by the court on or before the last day of the extended period prayed for.
Though no party can assume that its motion for extension would be granted, any denial thereof should be
reasonable. HEIRS OF AMADA A. ZAULDA v. ISAAC Z. ZAULDA. G.R. NO. 201234, MARCH 17, 2014

The requirement that the complaint should aver, as jurisdictional facts, when and how entry into the
property was made by the defendants applies only when the issue is the timeliness of the filing of the
complaint before the MTC. However, the timeliness of the filing of the Complaint for unlawful detainer is
not an issue in this case. Hence, the failure of the Complaint to allege when and how the spouses Capco
came into possession of the property does not mean that the MeTC did not acquire jurisdiction over it.

“The only issue in an ejectment case is the physical possession of real property, possession de facto and
not possession de jure.” But “where the parties to an ejectment case raise the issue of ownership, the
courts may pass upon that issue to determine who between the parties has the better right to possess the
property.” Here, both parties anchor their right to possess based on ownership, i.e., the spouses Dela
Cruz by their own ownership while the spouses Capco by the ownership of Rufino as one of the heirs of
the alleged true owner of the property. Thus, the MeTC and the RTC correctly passed upon the issue of
ownership in this case to determine the issue of possession. However, it must be emphasized that “the
adjudication of the issue of ownership is only provisional, and not a bar to an action between the same
parties involving title to the property.” SPOUSES EDMUNDO DELA CRUZ AND AMELIA CONCIO-
DELA CRUZ v. SPOUSES RUFINO R. CAPCO AND MARTY C. CAPCO. G.R. NO. 176055, MARCH
17,2014.

The contested deed of real estate mortgage was a public document by virtue of its being acknowledged
before notary public. As a notarized document, the deed carried the evidentiary weight conferred upon it
with respect to its due execution, and had in its favor the presumption of regularity. Hence, it was
admissible in evidence without further proof of its authenticity, and was entitled to full faith and credit upon
its face. To rebut its authenticity and genuineness, the contrary evidence must be clear, convincing and
more than merely preponderant; otherwise, the deed should be upheld.

Petitioners undeniably failed to adduce clear and convincing evidence against the genuineness and
authenticity of the deed. Instead, their actuations even demonstrated that their transaction with
respondents had been regular and at arms-length, thereby belying the intervention of fraud.
METROPOLITAN FABRICS, INC., et al. v. PROSPERITY CREDIT RESOURCES, INC. et al.G.R. NO.
154390, MARCH 17, 2014

The petitioners essentially assail in this petition the validity of the NHA’s acquisition of the property, in
view of the prohibition on sale or disposition of agricultural lands under E.O. No. 228, in relation to P.D.
No. 27 and Section 6 of R.A. No. 6657. Resolution of this petition’s core issue requires the proper
interpretation and application of the laws and the rules governing the government’s agrarian reform
program, as well as the laws governing the powers and functions of the NHA as the property’s acquiring
entity. As presented, therefore, this petition’s core issue is a question of law that a Rule 45 petition
properly addresses.

This notwithstanding, the resolution of this petition’s core issue necessitates the prior determination of two
essentially factual issues, i.e., the validity of the property’s conversion and the petitioners’ claimed
ownership of the property. As questions of fact, they are proscribed in a Rule 45 petition—The settled rule
is that the Court’s jurisdiction in a petition for review on certiorari is limited to resolving only questions of
law. HEIRS OF TERESITA MONTOYA, et al. v. NATIONAL HOUSING AUTHORITY, et al. G.R. NO.
181055, MARCH 19, 2014
While the determination of probable cause is primarily an executive function, the Court would not hesitate
to interfere if there is a clear showing that Secretary of Justice gravely abused his discretion amounting to
lack or excess of jurisdiction in making his determination and in arriving at the conclusion he reached.

When the Secretary of Justice concluded that there was planting of evidence based on the lone fact that
the raiding team arrived ahead of the search team, he, in effect went into the merits of the defense. When
he made a determination based on his own appreciation of the pieces of evidence for and against the
accused, he effectively assumed the function of a trial judge in the evaluation of the pieces of evidence
and, thereby, acted outside his jurisdiction. BARRY LANIER AND PERLITA LANIER v. PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES. G.R. NO. 189176, MARCH 19, 2014

The doctrine of conclusiveness of judgment states that a fact or question which was in issue in a former
suit, and was there judicially passed on and determined by a court of competent jurisdiction, is
conclusively settled by the judgment therein, as far as concerns the parties to that action and persons in
privity with them, and cannot be again litigated in any future action between such parties or their privies,
in the same court or any other court of concurrent jurisdiction on either the same or a different cause of
action, while the judgment remains unreversed or unvacated by proper authority. The. For res judicata in
the concept of conclusiveness of judgment to apply, identity of cause of action is not required but merely
identity of parties and identity of issues.

As the issues of whether Lot J of Psd. 146880 is one of the properties donated by the spouses Cornelio
and Nieves to Angel and whether such donation was valid have been necessarily settled in Civil Case No.
1185, they can no longer be relitigated in Civil Case No. 2735. HEIRS OF CORNELIO MIGUEL v. HEIRS
OF ANGEL MIGUEL. G.R. NO. 158916, MARCH 19, 2014 J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO.

In a rape case filed by a mental retardate, the Court held that mental retardation per se does not affect a
witness’ credibility. A mental retardate may be a credible witness. Only those whose mental condition, at
the time of their production for examination, is such that they are incapable of intelligently making known
their perception to others are disqualified. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. JERRY OBOGNE
G.R. NO. 199740, MARCH 24, 2014

The party alleging the negligence of the other as the cause of injury has the burden to establish the
allegation with competent evidence. If the action based on negligence is civil in nature, the proof required
is preponderance of evidence.

Hence, the Lanuzo heirs, the parties carrying the burden of proof, who failed to establish by
preponderance of evidence that the negligence on the part of the company was the proximate cause of
the fatal accident of Balbino could not recover damages. BJDC CONSTRUCTION v. NENA E. LANUZO,
ET AL. G.R. NO. 161151, MARCH 24, 2014

Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, confines this Court to a review of the case solely on pure questions of law.
In ruling for legal correctness, we have to view the CA decision in the same context that the petition for
certiorari it ruled upon was presented; we have to examine the CA decision from the prism of whether it
correctly determined the presence or absence of grave abuse of discretion in the NLRC decision before it,
not on the basis of whether the NLRC decision on the merits of the case was correct. In other words, we
have to be keenly aware that the CA undertook a Rule 65 review, not a review on appeal, of the
challenged NLRC decision. The CA gravely misappreciated the import of the evidence on record and can
even be said to have disregarded it. The NLRC glossed over Labrador’s repeated violations that led the
latter to request that he be allowed to resign to preserve his reputation for future employment, rather than
be dismissed from the service. SUTHERLAND GLOBAL SERIVES (PHILIPPINES), INC. AND JANETTE
G. LAGAZO v. LARRY S. LABRADOR. G.R. NO. 193107. MARCH 24, 2014

The Court agrees with petitioner's contention that private respondent's act of posting bail and filing his
Motion for Consolidation vests the Sandiganbayan with jurisdiction over his person. The rule is well
settled that the act of an accused in posting bail or in filing motions seeking affirmative relief is tantamount
to submission of his person to the jurisdiction of the court. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. HENRY T.
GO. G.R. NO. 168539, MARCH 25, 2014

The supposed inaction of the SLU and its officials when the Olairez group visited the school to demand
their compliance with the decision was not borne out of a contumacious conduct tending, directly or
indirectly, to hinder the implementation of a judgment. A conduct, to be contumacious, implies willfulness,
bad faith or with deliberate intent to cause injustice, which is clearly not the case here. On the contrary,
SLU was well within its rights to appeal the decision and not immediately heed the demand of the Olairez
group.

Records reveal that the Olairez group violated the three-day notice rule on hearing of motions as provided
in Section 4, Rule 15 of the Rules of Court when they scheduled the hearing on their “Very Urgent Motion
to Cite Defendants In Contempt” just one day after they filed the said pleading. As a rule, any motion that
does not comply with the requirements of Rule 15 should not be received for filing and, if filed, is not
entitled to judicial cognizance, subject only to some exceptions, such as where a rigid application of the
rule will result in a manifest failure or miscarriage of justice or if there was substantial compliance. BABY
NELLIE M. OLAIREZ, et al. vs. SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY, INC., et al. G.R. NO. 174758, MARCH 26,
2014

Loafing is defined under the Civil Service rules as “frequent unauthorized absences from duty during
office hours.” The word “frequent” connotes that the employees absent themselves from duty more than
once. Respondent’s two absences from his post, being without authority, can already be characterized as
frequent. It constitutes inefficiency and dereliction of duty, which adversely affect the prompt delivery of
justice.

Substantial evidence shows that respondent is guilty of loafing. The investigation conducted by the
investigating lawyers of the OCA revealed at least two (2) instances when he was out of his assigned
post/station during regular office hours. He failed to sufficiently refute these findings.OFFICE OF THE
COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. JOHNI GLENN D. RUNES. A.M. NO. P-12-3055, MARCH 26, 2014

Subject to Sections 4 and 5 of Rule 58 the, if the matter is of extreme urgency and the applicant will suffer
grave injustice and irreparable injury, the executive judge of a multiple-sala court or the presiding judge of
a single-sala court may issue ex parte a temporary restraining order effective for only seventy-two (72)
hours from issuance, but he shall immediately comply with the provisions of the next preceding section as
to service of summons and the documents to be served therewith. Thereafter, within the aforesaid
seventy-two (72) hours, the judge before whom the case is pending shall conduct a summary hearing to
determine whether the temporary restraining order shall be extended until the application for preliminary
injunction can be heard. In no case shall the total period of effectivity of the temporary restraining order
exceed twenty (20) days, including the original seventy-two (72) hours provided herein.

The Court does not now find that Judge Jurado acted in bad faith or with ill will or malicious motive when
he granted the TRO extension and later the preliminary injunction. It would have been irregular and
unreasonable for him to act on the extension of the 72-hour TRO on June 6, 2011 when the cases were
first raffled to him, and besides, under Rule 58 he had 24 hours to act thereon.

Moreover, PAGCOR is not justified in failing to file a requisite motion for reconsideration, and to observe
the hierarchy of courts. While the question of whether to give due course to the petitions is addressed to
the discretion of the Court, it behooves PAGCOR to observe the applicable rules and keep in mind that
the Court will not take lightly any non-observance of our settled rules as if they are mere technicalities. A
motion for reconsideration is a condition sine qua non for the special civil action of certiorari. PHILIPPINE
AMUSEMENT AND GAMING CORPORATION v. THUNDERBIRD PILIPINAS HOTELS AND
RESORTS, INC., et al. G.R. NO. 197942-43/G.R. NO. 199528, MARCH 26, 2014

A court employee who was charged with dishonesty cannot claim that the admission of documentary
evidence which were mere photocopies and were obtained without her consent constitute a violation of
her right to due process. Proceedings in administrative investigation are not strictly governed by the
technical rules of evidence. They are summary in nature. Thus, administrative due process cannot be fully
equated with due process in its strict judicial sense. It is enough that the party is given the chance to be
heard before the case against him is decided. Otherwise stated, in the application of the principle of due
process, what is sought to be safeguarded is not lack of previous notice but the denial of the opportunity
to be heard. Anonymous Complaint Against Otelia Lyn G. Maceda, Court Interpreter, Municipal
Trial Court, Palapag, Northern Samar. A.M. No. P-12-3093, March 26, 2014

After a careful review, this Court is convinced that AAA’s unwavering narration of how she was raped,
together with her positive identification of her own father as the one who raped her, are worthy of belief.

For the defense of alibi to prosper, the accused must prove not only that he was at some other place at
the time of the commission of the crime, but also that it was physically impossible for him to be at the
locus delicti or within its immediate vicinity. Physical impossibility refers not only to the geographical
distance between the place where the accused was and the place where the crime was committed when
the crime transpired, but more importantly, the facility of access between the two places. PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES v. JESUS BURCE. G.R. NO. 201732, MARCH 26, 2014

As a general rule, a writ of execution should strictly conform to every particular of the judgment to be
executed, and not vary the terms of the judgment it seeks to enforce, nor may it go beyond the terms of
the judgment sought to be executed; the execution is void if it is in excess of and beyond the original
judgment or award. However, a writ of execution issued upon a final judgment adjudicating the ownership
of land to a party may authorize putting her in possession although the judgment does not specifically
direct such act. LEONORA A. PASCUAL v. JOSEFINO L. DAQUIOAG, ET AL. G.R. NO. 162063,
MARCH 31, 2014

The petition for review of Limson projects issues of fact. It urges the Court to undo the findings of fact of
the OCP, the Secretary of Justice and the CA on the basis of the documents submitted with her petition.
But the Court is not a trier of facts, and cannot analyze and weigh evidence. Indeed, Section 1 of Rule 45,
Rules of Court explicitly requires the petition for review on certiorari to raise only questions of law, which
must be distinctly set forth. Accordingly, the petition for review of Limson is outrightly rejected for this
reason. REVELINA LIMSON v. EUGENIO JUAN GONZALEZ. G.R. NO. 162205, MARCH 31, 2014

The rationale for the requirement of first filing a motion for reconsideration before the filing of a petition for
certiorari is that the law intends to afford the tribunal, board or office an opportunity to rectify the errors
and mistakes it may have lapsed into before resort to the courts of justice can be had. In the instant case,
the NLRC had all the opportunity to review its ruling and correct itself. Hence, the CA erred in dismissing
the Rule 65 petition filed by Olores. EMMANUEL M. OLORES v. MANILA DOCTORS COLLEGE
AND/OR TERESITA O. TURLA. G.R. NO. 201663, MARCH 31, 2014