Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
's
Penned Cases
FAR EAST BANK & TRUST COMPANY vs. SPS ERNESTO & LEONOR CAYETANO
GR No. 179909, January 25, 2010
FACTS: Respondent Leonor C. Cayetano (Cayetano) executed a special power
of attorney in favor of her daughter Teresita C. Tabing (Tabing) authorizing her to
contract a loan from petitioner and to mortgage her two lots. Petitioner loaned Tabing
P100, 000.00, secured by two promissory notes and a real estate mortgage over
Cayetanos two properties. The mortgage document was signed by Tabing and her
husband as mortgagors in their individual capacities, without stating that Tabing was
executing the mortgage contract for and in behalf of Cayetano. Petitioner foreclosed the
mortgage for failure of spouses Tabing to pay the loan. The mortgaged properties were
sold to petitioner through public auction. Subsequently, petitioner consolidated its title
and obtained new titles in its name after the lapse of redemption period. Five years
later, Tabing, on behalf of Cayetano expressed the intention to repurchase the
properties for petitioner gave respondent the chance to buy back the properties by
joining a bidding. Respondent however, filed a complaint for annulment of mortgage and
extrajudicial foreclosure sale as well as the cancellation of petitioners title over the
properties. The Regional Trial Court ruled in favor of respondents, holding that
Cayetano cannot be bound by the real estate mortgage executed by Tabing unless it is
shown that the same was made and signed in the name of principal. The Court of
Appeals affirmed the RTCs ruling.
ISSUE: Whether or not the principal is bound by the real estate mortgage
executed by the authorized agent in her own name without indicating the principal.
HELD: NO. It is a general rule in the law of agency that, in order to bind the
principal by a mortgage on real property executed by an agent, it must upon its face
purport to be made, signed and sealed in the name of the principal; otherwise, it will
bind the agent only. It is not enough that the agent was in fact authorized to make the
mortgage, if he has not acted in the name of the principal. Neither is it ordinarily
sufficient that in the mortgage the agent describes himself as acting by virtue of a power
of attorney, if in fact the agent has acted in his own name and has set in his own hand
and seal to the mortgage. Notwithstanding the nullity of the real estate mortgage
executed by Tabing and her husband, we find that the equity principle of laches is
applicable. Records show that respondent could have filed an action to annul the
mortgage on their properties, but for unexplained reasons, they failed to do so. They
only questioned the loan and mortgage transactions after the lapse of more than five
years from date of foreclosure sale.
Villarama Doctrines
funds or property by reason of the duties of his office; (3) those funds or property were
public funds or property for which he was accountable; and (4) he appropriated, took,
misappropriated or consented or, through abandonment or negligence, permitted
another person to take them. All the foregoing elements were satisfactorily established
by the prosecution in this case. Petitioners have not rebutted the legal presumption that,
with the Disbursing Officers (Haron) failure to account for the illegally withdrawn
amounts covered by the subject checks when demanded by the COA, they
misappropriated and used the said funds for their personal benefit. Zacaria A. Candao,
et al v. People of the Philippines and Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 186659-710, October
19, 2011.
2/11
Villarama Doctrines
Villarama Doctrines
capital gains and other taxes due on the transaction, respondent cannot escape liability
for making an untruthful statement in a public document for an unlawful purpose. As the
second deed indicated an amount much lower than the actual price paid for the property
sold, respondent abetted in depriving the Government of the right to collect the correct
taxes due. Not only did respondent assist the contracting parties in an activity aimed at
defiance of the law, he likewise displayed lack of respect for and made a mockery of the
solemnity of the oath in an Acknowledgment. By notarizing such illegal and fraudulent
document, he is entitling it full faith and credit upon its face, which it obviously does not
deserve considering its nature and purpose. Respondents actions violated not only
Rule 1.02, Canon 1 of the Code of Responsibility, but pertinent sections of the 2004
Rules on Notarial Practice as well. Thus, respondent is meted the penalty of revocation
of notarial commission and suspension from the practice of law for a period of two
years. Pacita Caalim-Verzonilla v. Atty. Victoriano G. Pascua. A.C. No. 6655. October
11, 2011.
TOMAS P. TAN, JR. V. ATTY. HAIDE V. GUMBA. A.C. NO. 9000. OCTOBER 5, 2011.
Attorney; grave misconduct. Respondent attorney was found to have violated
Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Respondents actions
clearly show that she deceived complainant into lending money to her through the use
of documents and false representations and by taking advantage of her education and
complainants ignorance in legal matters. As manifested by complainant, he would have
never granted the loan to respondent were it not for respondents misrepresentation that
she was authorized to sell the property and that complainant could register the open
deed of sale if respondent fails to pay the loan. By her misdeed, respondent has eroded
not only complainants perception of the legal profession but the publics perception as
well. Her actions constitute gross misconduct for which she may be disciplined. Tomas
P. Tan, Jr. v. Atty. Haide V. Gumba. A.C. No. 9000. October 5, 2011.
Villarama Doctrines
strength over that of the victim, considering the momentary position of both and the
employment of means weakening the defense, although not annulling it. People of the
Philippines v. Conrado Laog y Ramin, G.R. No. 178321, October 5, 2011.
ENGR. JOSE E. CAYANAN VS. NORTH STAR INTERNATIONAL TRAVEL, INC. G.R.
NO. 172954. OCTOBER 5, 2011
Check; issuance for consideration. Upon issuance of a check, in the absence of
evidence to the contrary, it is presumed that the same was issued for valuable
consideration which may consist either in some right, interest, profit or benefit accruing
to the party who makes the contract, or some forbearance, detriment, loss or some
responsibility, to act, or labor, or service given, suffered or undertaken by the other side.
Under the Negotiable Instruments Law, it is presumed that every party to an instrument
acquires the same for a consideration or for value. As petitioner alleged that there was
no consideration for the issuance of the subject checks, it devolved upon him to present
convincing evidence to overthrow the presumption and prove that the checks were in
fact issued without valuable consideration. Sadly, however, petitioner has not presented
any credible evidence to rebut the presumption, as well as North Stars assertion, that
the checks were issued as payment for the PHP 3,662,869.29 (US$85,000) petitioner
owed. Engr. Jose E. Cayanan vs. North Star International Travel, Inc. G.R. No. 172954.
October 5, 2011
Villarama Doctrines
found that this was not a valid cause for dismissal. The Labor Code enumerates several
just and authorized causes for a valid termination of employment. An employee
asserting his right and asking for minimum wage is not among those causes.
Termination; abandonment of work. Petitioners aver that respondents were
merely transferred to a new post wherein the wages are adjusted to the current
minimum wage standards. They maintain that the respondents voluntarily abandoned
their jobs when they failed to report for duty in the new location. Assuming that this
contention was true, the Supreme Court held that there was no abandonment of work.
For there to be abandonment: first, there should be a failure of the employee to report
for work without a valid or justifiable reason, and second, there should be a showing
that the employee intended to sever the employer-employee relationship. The fact that
petitioners filed a complaint for illegal dismissal is indicative of their intention to remain
employed with private respondent. On the first element of failure to report for work, in
this case, there was no showing that respondents were notified of their new
assignments. Granting that the Duty Detail Orders were indeed issued, they served no
purpose unless the intended recipients of the orders are informed of such. Therefore,
the Court held that there was no abandonment of work in this case. Alert Security and
Investigation Agency, Inc., et al. vs. Saidali Pasawilan, et al., G.R. No. 182397.
September 14, 2011.
Villarama Doctrines
Ambil Jr., over whose position the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction. Accordingly, he was
correctly tried jointly with said public officer in the proper court which had exclusive
original jurisdiction over them the Sandiganbayan. Ruperto A. Ambil Jr. vs.
Sandiganbayan and People of the Philippines/Alexandrino R. Apelado Sr. vs. People of
the Philippines, G.R. No. 175457/G.R. No. 175482, July 6, 2011.
EFREN L. ALVAREZ VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. NO. 192591, JUNE
29, 2011.
Anti-Graft; undue injury. The term undue injury in the context of Section 3(e) of
the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act punishing the act of causing undue injury to
any party, has a meaning akin to that civil law concept of actual damage. Actual
damage, in the context of these definitions, is akin to that in civil law. Article 2199 of the
Civil Code provides that except as provided by law or by stipulation, one is entitled to an
adequate compensation only for such pecuniary loss suffered by a party as he has duly
7/11
Villarama Doctrines
proved. Efren L. Alvarez vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 192591, June 29, 2011.
Villarama Doctrines
evidence; and (2) witnesses should 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 item. In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that
there is no broken chain in the custody of the confiscated shabu. People of the
Philippines v. Mads Saludin Mantawil, et al, G.R. No. 188319, June 8, 2011.
9/11
Villarama Doctrines
There are four essential elements a plaintiff must prove in a malpractice action
based upon the doctrine of informed consent: (1) the physician had a duty to disclose
material risks; (2) he failed to disclose or inadequately disclosed those risks; (3) as a
direct and proximate result of the failure to disclose, the patient consented to treatment
she otherwise would not have consented to; and (4) plaintiff was injured by the
proposed treatment. The gravamen in an informed consent case requires the plaintiff to
point to significant undisclosed information relating to the treatment which would have
altered her decision to undergo it.
The element of ethical duty to disclose material risks in the proposed medical
treatment cannot thus be reduced to one simplistic formula applicable in all instances.
Further, in a medical malpractice action based on lack of informed consent, the plaintiff
must prove both the duty and the breach of that duty through expert testimony. Dr. Rubi
Li vs. Spouses Reynaldo and Lina Soliman as parents/heirs of deceased Angelica
Soliman, G.R. No. 165279. June 7, 2011
Villarama Doctrines
summary hearing on the complaint, petitioner was again duly notified of the proceedings
and was given an opportunity to explain his side. He was not denied due process.
Administrative proceedings; length of service as an alternative circumstance.
Length of service as a factor in determining the imposable penalty in administrative
cases is not always a mitigating circumstance. It is an alternative circumstance, which
can mitigate or possibly even aggravate the penalty, depending on the circumstances of
the case. Where the government employee concerned took advantage of his long years
of service and position in public office, length of service may not be considered in
lowering the penalty. The Court will take this circumstance against the public officer or
employee in administrative cases involving serious offenses, even if it was the first time
said public officer or employee was administratively charged.
Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service; requirements; examples.
The acts of respondent constitute the administrative offense of Conduct Prejudicial to
the Best Interest of the Service, which need not be related to, or connected with, the
public officers official functions. As long as the questioned conduct tarnishes the image
and integrity of his public office, the corresponding penalty may be meted on the erring
public officer or employee. Under the Civil Service law and rules, there is no concrete
description of what specific acts constitute the grave offense of Conduct Prejudicial to
the Best Interest of the Service. However, the Court has considered the following acts or
omissions, inter alia, as Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service:
misappropriation of public funds; abandonment of office; failure to report back to work
without prior notice; failure to safe keep public records and property; making false
entries in public documents; falsification of court orders; a judges act of brandishing a
gun and threatening the complainants during a traffic altercation; and a court
interpreters participation in the execution of a document conveying complainants
property which resulted in a quarrel in the latters family.
Procedural due process; right to cross-examine. While the right to cross-examine
is a vital element of procedural due process, the right does not require an actual cross
examination but merely an opportunity to exercise this right if desired by the party
entitled to it. In this case, while National Police Commission Memorandum Circular No.
96-010 provides that the sworn statements of witnesses shall take the place of oral
testimony but shall be subject to cross-examination, petitioner missed this opportunity
precisely because he did not appear at the deadline for the filing of his supplemental
answer or counter-affidavit, and accordingly the hearing officer considered the case
submitted for decision. And even with the grant of his subsequent motion to be
furnished with a copy of the complaint and its annexes, he still failed to file a
supplemental answer or counter-affidavit and instead filed a motion to dismiss.
Rimando A. Gannapao v. Civil Service Commission, et al., G.R. No. 180141. May 31,
2011.
11/11
Villarama Doctrines