Cases Rodriguez 2ND

Mark G.
Rodriguez Page 1
Bar Operations 2
I. TO BE LIABLE FOR FALSIFICATION BY PUBLIC OFFICER, THE

FALSIFICATION MUST BE COMMITTED IN CONNECTION WITH THE
OFFICIAL POSITION OF THE PERSON CHARGED, OTHERWISE, IT IS
FALSIFICATION BY PRIVATE PERSON
Alberto Garong vs. People of the Philippines

G.R. no. 172539, 16 November 2016
FACTS:
Silverio Rosales (Silverio) and RicarColocar (Ricar) went to the home of the
petitioner in the early morning of September 18, 1989 to seek his help in the
judicial reconstitution of Silverio's Transfer Certificate of Title No. 40361
issued by the Office of the Register of Deeds of the Province of Oriental
Mindoro (Register of Deeds). The petitioner, then a court interpreter, agreed
to help, and instructed Silverio to prepare the necessary documents, namely:
the certified survey plan, technical description of the property, tax
declaration, and the certification from the Register of Deeds. He fixed the
amount of P5,000.00 as processing fee, but later reduced it to P4,000.00.
Silverio and Ricar produced the amount and submitted the requested
documents to the petitioner.
On September 21, 1989, the petitioner delivered to Ricar a copy of a court

order (Exhibit B) captioned as;
IN RE: PETITION FOR JUDICIAL

RECONSTITUTION OF
TRANSFER CERTIFICATE
OF TITLE NO. T-40361,
SILVERIO ROSALES,
Petitioner.
PETITION NO. 12,701
Exhibit B bore the stamp mark "ORIGINAL SIGNED" above the printed name
of Judge Mario de la Cruz, Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court (RTC),
and the words "CERTIFIED TRUE COPY" with a signature but no printed name
appeared beneath the signature. Silverio and Ricar brought Exhibit B to the
Register of Deeds for the issuance of the owner's duplicate of Transfer
Certificate of Title No. 40361. Ricar handed Exhibit B to MedingNacional, the
person-in-charge of receiving court orders in the Register of Deeds.
Exhibit B was returned to Ricar due some erroneous sentences. Ricar then
proceeded to the Clerk of Court of the RTC, however Ricar was not able to
Mark G. Rodriguez Page 2
Bar Operations 2
meet the Clerk of Court. When Ricar was about to go home, he saw the
petitioner Garong. Ricar then apprised Garong about the problem. Garong
got angry and reproved Ricar for bringing Exhibit B back to the RTC.
Ricar and the petitioner went to the Register of Deeds. Ricar argued against
the errors in the said Exhibit. Petitioner then instructed Ricar to go back to
the RTC to retrieve Exhibit C. Ricar later on found out from the Clerk of Court
that Exhibit B appeared to be falsified because it referred to a "ghost
petition" because its docket number pertained to the petition of
EmercianoSarabia instead of to the petition of Silverio Rosales. Due to this,
Ricar demanded the return of the processing fee. Ricar filed a complaint to
charge the petitioner with falsification of a public document in the office of
Atty. Victor Bessat of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI), who then
assigned the investigation to Atty. RicsonChiong. The investigation ultimately
resulted in the filing of the criminal charge in court for falsification of a public
document.
After trial, the RTC convicted the petitioner as charged. It also appreciated
the aggravating circumstance of taking advantage of his public position. The
CA affirmed the conviction of the petitioner but did not appreciate the
aggravating circumstance of taking advantage of his public position
ISSUE:
Whether or not the accused is guilty as charged
Whether or not the aggravating circumstance of taking advantage his public
position should be appreciated
RULING:
Decision of the CA AFFIRMED. Accused GUILTY.
In producing Exhibit B, and signing thereon beneath the words "CERTIFIED
TRUE COPY" stamped on Exhibit B, and presenting the document to Ricar and
Silverio, the petitioner unquestionably made Exhibit B appear like a true copy
of the signed original order issued in Petition No. 12,701 by Presiding Judge
Dela Cruz. But Petition No. 12,701 that supposedly involved the application
for the judicial reconstitution of Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-40361 in
the name of Silverio Rosales as reflected on Exhibit B had no relevance to the
signed original order issued in the proceeding for the issuance of new
owner's duplicate copy of Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-3436 in the name
of EmerencianoSarabia. In short, Exhibit B was a simulated court order.
Considering that the proceeding relating to Exhibit B was non-existent in the
docket of the court, the acts of the petitioner constituted falsification. Indeed,
the simulation of a public or official document like a court order, done in such
Bar Operations 2
a manner as to easily lead to error as to its authenticity, constitutes

falsification; and it was not essential that the falsification should have been
made in a real public or official document.
As to the aggravating circumstance of taking advantage his public position,

the falsification by the petitioner could have been committed without taking
advantage of his public position as the court interpreter. His work for the
court that had supposedly issued Exhibit B was of no consequence to his
criminal liability, for the crime could have been committed even by any other
individual, including one who did not work in the court in any official
capacity. In his case, the petitioner committed the simulation of Exhibit B
despite his not having the duty to make, or prepare, or otherwise intervene
in the preparation of court orders.
The penalty for falsification committed by a private individual is

prisioncorreccional in its medium and maximum periods, and fine of not more
than PS,000.00.23 Having determined that taking advantage of his public
office by the petitioner should not be appreciated as a generic aggravating
circumstance, the CA fixed the indeterminate penalty of two years and four
months of prisioncorreccional, as the minimum, to four years, nine months
and 10 days of prisioncorreccional, as the maximum, and fine of PS,000.00.
The CA thereby imposed the limit of the medium period of the penalty of
imprisonment, and the maximum of the fine. However, the CA should have
tendered a justification for imposing the limits of the compound penalty. It
should have done so, considering that the seventh rule on the application of
penalties containing three periods laid down in Article 64 of the Revised Penal
Code expressly mandated that the courts "shall determine [within the limits
of each period] the extent of the penalty according to the number and nature
of the aggravating and mitigating circumstances and the greater or lesser
extent of the evil produced by the crime." Without tendering the requisite
justification for imposing the limits of the penalties of imprisonment and the
fine, the floor of the penalties would be warranted; otherwise, the CA would
be seen as arbitrary.
Nonetheless, the omission of the justification was an obvious oversight by

the CA. We should rectify the oversight as a matter of course to conform to
the law. The simulation perpetrated by the petitioner undeniably manifested
his abject disregard of his responsibility as an employee of the Judiciary even
as it revealed a perversity indicative of the greater extent of the evil
produced by the crime. Upon due consideration of the circumstances of the
case, we still uphold the CA thereon. He surely deserved the limits of the
compound penalty.
Bar Operations 2
II. INDIGENT LITIGANTS/CLIENTS OF PUBLIC ATTORNEYS OFFICE ARE

EXEMPTED FROM PAYMENT OF FEES INCIDENTAL TO INSTITUTING
AN ACTION IN COURT AND OTHER QUASI-JUDICIAL BODIES
SamsodenPangcatan vs. Alexandro “Dodong” Maghuyop, et al.

G.R. No. 194412; November 16, 2016
FACTS:
The case is an appeal by plaintiff SamsodenPangcatan seeking to reverse and
set aside the CA’s decision where the appellate court annulled and set aside
the RTC’s decision in favour of the plaintiff against respondents
AlexandroMaghuyop and BelindoBankiao.
Plaintiff, availing the services of the PAO, commenced a civil case against
respondents to recover various damages he incurred from a vehicular
accident caused by the negligence of the latter. The RTC then rendered a
decision in favour of the plaintiff. However, the CA, upon appeal by the
respondents, annulled and set aside such decision on the ground that the
RTC has not acquired the jurisdiction over the case due to the non-payment
of the docket fees.
Respondents claim that plaintiff is not an indigent based on the evidences he

offered. As such, the RTC did not acquire jurisdiction over the case by virtue
of the non-payment of the docket fees. Plaintiff, on the other hand, claims he
was exempt from the payment of docket fees by virtue of his being a client of
the PAO.
ISSUE:
Is the CA correct in annulling and setting aside the RTC’s decision on the
ground that plaintiff has not paid docket fees?
RULING:
No, the CA erred in annulling and setting aside the RTC’s decision on the
ground of the plaintiff’s non-payment of docket fee.
Section 1 of Rule 141 of the Rules of Court provides that the payment of
prescribed fees in relation to filing a suit is a must in order for the courts to
acquire jurisdiction over cases. Nonetheless, the Constitution guarantees the
free access to courts. This guarantee is extended to litigants who may be
indigent by exempting them from the obligation to pay docket and filing fees.
Furthermore, Republic Act No. 9406 provides that the clients of PAO shall be
Bar Operations 2
exempt from payment of docket and other fees incidental to instituting an

action in court and other quasi-judicial bodies, as an original proceeding or
an appeal.
Thus, it was clear that the plaintiff was represented from the very start by
the PAO and as such is exempted from paying the docket fees.
III. THE JURISDICTIONAL REQUIREMENT OF PRIOR DEMAND IS

UNNECESSARY IF THE ACTION IS PREMISED ON THE TERMINATION
OF LEASE DUE TO EXPIRATION OF THE TERMS OF CONTRACT
VELIA J. CRUZ, petitioner, vs. SPOUSES MAXIMO and SUSAN

CHRISTENSEN, G.R. No. 205539. October 4, 2017
FACTS:
Cruz alleged that she was the owner of a parcel of land located at A. Santos
Street, Balong Bato, San Juan City, which she acquired through inheritance
from her late mother. She further alleged that Susan Christensen (Susan)
had been occupying the property during Javier's lifetime, as they had a
verbal lease agreement. Cruz claimed that ever since she inherited the
property, she tolerated Susan's occupancy of the property. However, due to
Susan's failure and refusal to pay rentals of ₱l,000.00 per month, she was
constrained to demand that Susan vacate the property and pay all unpaid
rentals.The matter was referred to barangay conciliation. The partieswere
unable to settle into a compromise. As a result, the Punong Barangay issued
a Certificate to File Action. Three (3) years later, Cruzsent Susan a final
demand letter, demanding that she pay the unpaid rentals and vacate the
property within 15 days from receipt.Cruz alleged that despite receipt of the
demand letter, Susan refused to vacate and pay the accrued rentals from
June 1989 to February 2009 in the amount of ₱237,000.00. Thus, Cruz was
constrained to file a Complaint for unlawful detainer on April 27, 2009.Susan
admitted to occupying a portion of the property since 1969 on a month-to-
month lease agreement. She denied that she failed to pay her rentals since
1989 or that she refused to pay them, attaching receipts of her rental
payments as evidence. She alleged that Cruz refused to receive her rental
payments sometime in 2002. Susan likewise denied receiving any demand
letter from Cruz and claims that the signature appearing on the registry
return card of the demand letter was not her signature.
MTC rendered a Decision dismissing Cruz's Complaint. It found that for the
registry receipts and registry return cards to serve as proof that the demand
letter was received, it must first be authenticated through an affidavit of
service by the person mailing the letter. It also found that Cruz failed to
prove who received the demand letter and signed the registry return receipt,
considering that Susan denied it. Cruz appealed to the RTC. RTC rendered a
Decision reversing the MTC. It found that the bare denial of receipt would not
Bar Operations 2
prevail over the registry return card showing actual receipt of the demand
letter.The Spouses Christensen appealed to the Court of Appeals, arguing
that Cruz was unable to prove Susan's actual receipt of the demand
letter.TheCA rendered a Decision reversing the RTC Decision and reinstating
the MTC Decision.
ISSUE:
Should respondent be held liable for unlawful detainer. Thus should vacate
the property owned by petitioner?
RULING:
Yes, possession of a property belonging to another may be tolerated or
permitted, even without a prior contract between the parties, as long as
there is an implied promise that the occupant will vacate upon demand.
Refusal to vacate despite demand will give rise to an action for summary
ejectment. Thus, prior demand is a jurisdictional requirement before an
action for forcible entry or unlawful detainer may be instituted. Under Rule
70, Section 1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, an action for unlawful detainer
may be brought against a possessor of a property who unlawfully withholds
possession after the termination or expiration of the right to hold possession.
Rule 70, Section 2 of the Rules of Civil Procedure requires that there must
first be a prior demand to pay or comply with the conditions of the lease and
to vacate before an action can be filed.
Respondents cannot feign ignorance of petitioner’s demand to vacate since

the matter was brought to barangay conciliation proceedings in 2005. The
barangay certification issued on August 11, 2005 shows that no compromise
was reached between the parties. Therefore, respondents’ insistence on the
nonreceipt of the demand letter is misplaced. Their verbal lease over the
property had already expired sometime in 2002. They were explicitly told to
vacate in 2005. They continued to occupy the property until petitioner sent
her final demand letter in 2008. The demand letter would have been
unnecessary since respondents’ continued refusal to vacate despite the
expiration of their verbal lease was sufficient ground to bring the action.
IV. AN ACCUSED CANNOT BE CONVICTED OF AN OFFENSE, UNLESS

IT IS CLEARLY CHARGED IN THE COMPLAINT OR INFORMATION.
CONSTITUTIONALLY, HE HAS A RIGHT TO BE INFORMED OF THE
NATURE AND CAUSE OF THE ACCUSATION AGAINST HIM. TO
CONVICT HIM OF AN OFFENSE OTHER THAN THAT CHARGED IN
THE COMPLAINT OR INFORMATION WOULD BE VIOLATIVE OF
THIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT.
Bar Operations 2
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee vs. JERSON

DASMARINAS y GONZALES,, Accused-AppellantG.R. No. 203986
October 4, 2017
FACTS:
That on or about the l6th day of June 2007, in the City of Las Piñas,
Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-
named accused, conspiring and confederating together and both of them
mutually helping and aiding each other without justifiable motive, with intent
to kill and with treachery, abuse of superior strength, and evident
premiditation (sic), did then and there knowingly, unlawfully and feloniously
attack, assault and use personal violence upon one PO2 MARLON N. ANOYA,
by then and there shooting him twice on his head, thereby inflicting upon the
latter mortal wound which directly caused her (sic) death.The killing of the
aforesaid victim is qualified by the circumstances of treachery, abuse of
superior strength and evident premiditation (sic). Contrary to law. Polo, when
arraigned on April 1, 2008, entered a plea of not guilty. Dasmariñas also
entered his plea of not guilty on April 24, 2008.4 The Prosecution presented
Aries Perias; the victim's widow, Lourdes Anoya; SPO I Roland Abraham; and
Dr. Voltaire Nulud as its witnessesin- chief. On the other hand, the Defense
relied on Erica Camille Pascua and Dasmariñas himself. On rebuttal, the
Prosecution called Asst. City Prosecutor Benthom Paul Azares, while the
Defense recalled Dasmariñas on sur-rebuttal. After trial, the RTC rendered its
judgment finding and pronouncing Dasmariñas guilty of murder but
acquitting Polo. On, Appeal the CA affirmed the conviction with modification
by declaring that Dasmariñas would not be eligible for parole, and by revising
the civil liability.The appeal lacks merit, but the Court holds that the
conviction of Dasmariñas for murder cannot be upheld. He is properly liable
only for homicide.
ISSUE:
Is accused-appellant guilty of murder or homicide?
RULING:
He is guilty of Homicide.x x x an accused cannot be convicted of an offense,
unless it is clearly charged in the complaint or information. Constitutionally,
he has a right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation
against him. To convict him of an offense other than that charged in the
complaint or information would be violative of this constitutional right.
Indeed, the accused cannot be convicted of a crime, even if duly proven,
unless it is alleged or necessarily included in the information filed against
him.Treachery, which both the CA and the RTC ruled to be attendant, has
basic constitutive elements. Article 14, paragraph 16, of the Revised Penal
Code states that "[t]here is treachery when the offender commits any of the
crimes against the person, employing means, methods or forms in the
execution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its execution,
without risk to himself arising from the defense which offended party might
make." For treachery to be appreciated, therefore, two elements must be
Bar Operations 2
alleged and proved, namely: (1) that the means of execution employed gave
the person attacked no opportunity to defend himself or herself, or retaliate;
and (2) that the means of execution were deliberately or consciously
adopted,29 that is, the means, methods or forms of execution must be
shown to be deliberated upon or consciously adopted by the offender.The
information herein did not make any factual averment on how Dasmariñas
had deliberately employed means, methods or forms in the execution of the
act - setting forth such means, methods or forms in a manner that would
enable a person of common understanding to know what offense was
intended to be charged - that tended directly and specially to insure its
execution without risk to the accused arising from the defense that the victim
might make. As earlier indicated, to merely state in the information that
treachery was attendant is not enough because the usage of such term is not
a factual averment but a conclusion of law.
V. A WRIT OF PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION IS ISSUED TO:

PRESERVE THE STATUS QUO ANTE, UPON THE APPLICANT’S
SHOWING OF TWO IMPORTANT REQUISITE CONDITIONS,
NAMELY: (1) THE RIGHT TO BE PROTECTED EXISTS PRIMA FACIE,
AND (2) THE ACTS SOUGHT TO BE ENJOINED ARE VIOLATIVE OF
THAT RIGHT.
BICOL MEDICAL CENTER, represented by DR. EFREN SJ. NERVA, and

the DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, represented by HEALTH SECRETARY
ENRIQUE T. ONA, petitioners, vs. NOE B. BOTOR, CELJUN F. YAP,
ISMAEL A. ALBAO, AUGUSTO S. QUILON, EDGAR F. ESPLANA II, and
JOSEFINA F. ESPLANA, respondents.G.R. No. 214073. October 4,
2017.*
FACTS:
Sometime in 2009, BMC constructed a steel gate along J. Miranda Avenue to
control the flow of vehicle and pedestrian traffic entering the hospital
premises. Dr. Efren SJ. Nerva, BMC Chief I, issued Hospital Memorandum No.
0310,13 which ordered the rerouting of traffic inside the BMC Compound.The
gate closure drew a lot of criticism from the community, and Atty. Noe Botor
wrote to Naga City Mayor John Bongat, asking for the reopening or
dismantling of the gate for being a public nuisance.The Sangguniang
Panlungsod of Naga City passed a resolution authorizing Mayor Bongat to
dismantle the gate. However, instead of dismantling it, Mayor Bongat filed a
Verified Petition with Prayer for a Writ of Preliminary Injunction against BMC.
Atty. Botor, Yap, Albao, Quilon, E. Esplana II, and J. Esplana (Intervenors)
were allowed to intervene and submit their complaint-in-intervention.
The RTC denied Naga City's application for injunctive relief, ruling that Naga
City failed to prove a clear and unmistakable right to the writ prayed for. RTC
denied the motion for reconsideration filed by the Intervenors. Only the
Intervenors filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals. The CA
granted the petition and emphasized that only a prima facie showing of an
Bar Operations 2
applicant's right to the writ is required in an application for writ of injunctive

relief. The CA opined that the Intervenors were able to prove the public
character of Road Lot No. 3, considering that "the general public had been
using [it] since time immemorial," with even Dr. Nerva admitting that he
passed through it when he was young. The Court of Appeals also gave due
weight to the 1970s Revised Assessor's Tax Mapping Control Roll and its
Identification Map, which support the Intervenors' assertion of the public
nature of Road Lot No. 3. The Court of Appeals concluded that Naga City and
the Intervenors were able to present prima facie evidence of their right to
the writ. However, the Court of Appeals pointed out that whether or not the
Revised Assessor's Tax Mapping Control Roll should prevail over BMC's title
over the property is a factual matter that should be threshed out in the trial
court.
ISSUE:
whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in directing the Regional Trial
Court to issue a writ of preliminary injunction on the closure of Road Lot No.
3.
RULING:
Yes. A writ of preliminary injunction is an ancillary and interlocutory order
issued as a result of an impartial determination of the context of both
parties. It entails a procedure for the judge to assess whether the reliefs
prayed for by the complainant will be rendered moot simply as a result of the
parties' having to go through the full requirements of a case being fully heard
on its merits.A writ of preliminary injunction is issued to: Preserve the status
quo ante, upon the applicant's showing of two important requisite conditions,
namely: (1) the right to be protected exists prima facie, and (2) the acts
sought to be enjoined are violative of that right. It must be proven that the
violation sought to be prevented would cause an irreparable injustice.
A careful reading of the records convinces this Court that respondents failed
to establish prima facie proof of their clear legal right to utilize Road Lot No,
3. Whatever right they sought to establish by proving the public nature of
Road Lot No. 3 was rebutted by the Department of Health's certificate of title
and the City Engineer's categorical statement that "the road from Panganiban
Drive up to the entrance and exit gate of [BJ\1C] was not included in the list"
of city roads under Naga City's control. Instead of merely relying on a tax
map and claims of customary use, Naga City or respondents should have
presented a clear legal right to support their claim over Road Lot No. 3.
Executive Secretary v. Forerunner Multi Resources, Inc. explained that a
clear legal right which would entitle the applicant to an injunctive writ
"contemplates a right 'clearly founded in or granted by law.' Any hint of
doubt or dispute on the asserted legal right precludes the grant of
preliminary injunctive relief."
VI. The abuse of discretion must be grave as where the power is

exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion
Bar Operations 2
or personal hostility and must be so patent and gross as to

amount to an evasion of positive duty or to a virtual refusal to
perform the duty enjoined by or to act at all in contemplation of
law.
SAN FERNANDO COCA-COLA RANK-AND-FILE UNION (SACORU),

represented by its President, ALFREDO R. MARAÑON, petitioner,
vs. COCA-COLA BOTTLERS PHILIPPINES, INC. (CCBPI),
respondent. G.R. No. 200499. October 4, 2017.
FACTS:
Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines., Inc. ("CCBPI") issued notices of
termination to twenty seven (27) rank-and-file, regular employees and
members of the San Fernando Rank-and-File Union ("SACORU'),
collectively referred to as "union members", on the ground of redundancy
due to the ceding out of two selling and distribution systems, the
Conventional Route System ("CRS') and Mini Bodega System ("MB") to
the Market Execution Partners ("MEPS''), better known as "Dealership
System". The termination of employment was made effective on June 30,
2009, but the union members were no longer required to report for work
as they were put on leave of absence with pay until the effectivity date of
their termination. The union members were also granted individual
separation packages, which twenty-two (22) of them accepted, but under
protest. To SACORU, the new, reorganized selling and distribution
systems adopted and implemented by CCBPI would result in the
diminution of the union membership amounting to union busting and to a
violation of the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) provision against
contracting out of services or outsourcing of regular positions; hence,
they filed a Notice of Strike with the National Conciliation and Mediation
Board (NCMB) on June 3, 2009 on the ground of unfair labor practice,
among others. On June 11, 2009, SACORU conducted a strike vote where
a majority decided on conducting a strike. The NLRC dismissed the
complaint for unfair labor practice and declared as valid the dismissal of
the employees due to redundancy.
With the NLRC's denial of its motion for reconsideration, SACORU filed a
petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court before the CA.
The CA, however, dismissed the petition and found that the NLRC did not
commit grave abuse of discretion. Hence, this petition.
ISSUE:
Whether CCBPI validly implemented its redundancy program and thus
there is no grave abuse of discretion in this case made by the NLRC.
RULING:
Yes. As a general rule, in certiorari proceedings under Rule 65 of the
Rules of Court, the appellate court does not assess and weigh the
sufficiency of evidence upon which the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC based
Bar Operations 2
their conclusion. The query in this proceeding is limited to the

determination of whether or not the NLRC acted without or in excess of its
jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in rendering its decision.
However, as an exception, the appellate court may examine and measure
the factual findings of the NLRC if the same are not supported by
substantial evidence. Here, the Court finds that the CA was correct in its
determination that the NLRC did not commit grave abuse of discretion.
CCBPI's redundancy program is valid. For there to be a valid
implementation of a redundancy program, the following should be
present: (1) written notice served on both the employees and the
Department of Labor and Employment at least one month prior to the
intended date of retrenchment; (2) payment of separation pay equivalent
to at least one month pay or at least one month pay for every year of
service, whichever is higher; (3) good faith in abolishing the redundant
positions; and (4) fair and reasonable criteria in ascertaining what
positions are to be declared redundant and accordingly abolished.
The NLRC found the presence of all the foregoing when it ruled that the
termination was due to a scheme that CCBPI adopted and implemented
which was an exercise of management prerogative,16 and that there was
no proof that it was exercised in a malicious or arbitrary manner.
VII. THE “SECOND” MOTION DOES NOT PARTAKE THE NATURE OF

A PROHIBITED PLEADING BECAUSE THE AMENDED DECISION IS
AN ENTIRELY NEW DECISION WHICH SUPERSEDES THE
ORIGINAL, FOR WHICH A NEW MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
MAY BE FILED AGAIN
ANGELITO L. CRISTOBAL, Petitioner vs. PHILIPPINE AIRLINES,

INC., AND LUCIO TAN,, Respondents. G.R. No. 201622 OCTOBER 4,
2017
FACTS:
Cristobal became a pilot for respondent PAL on October 16, 1971. In May
1998, in line with a downsizing program of PAL, Cristobal applied for leave
without pay from PAL to enter into a four year contract with EVA Air. PAL
approved the application and advised him that he would continue to
accrue seniority during his leave and that he could opt to retire from PAL
during this period.7 In a letter dated March 10, 1999, Cristobal advised
PAL of his intent to retire.8 In response, PAL advised him that he was
deemed to have lost his employment status on June 9, 1998.9 Thus, on
May 12, 1999, Cristobal filed a complaint with the National Labor
Relations Commission. The Labor Arbiter found Cristobal's dismissal
illegal. On the matter of retirement benefits, the Labor Arbiter noted PAL's
claim that Cristobal could only be entitled to a retirement pay of
₱5,000,00 per year, pursuant to the Philippine Airlines, Inc.-Airline Pilots
Association of the Philippines (PAL-ALPAP) Retirement Plan of 1967.
Bar Operations 2
However, he found that Cristobal's retirement benefits should not be less

than the amount provided under the law. Thus, the Labor Arbiter found
him entitled to an amount computed pursuant to Article 287 of the Labor
Code.the National Labor Relations Commission affim1ed the Labor Arbiter
Decision but reduced the award of moral and exemplary damages to
₱l00,000.00 each.The National Labor Relations Commission resolved both
motions in its Decision20 dated May 31, 2011, deleting the award of
moral and exemplary damages and reducing the amount of Cristobal's
retirement benefits.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the June 24, 2011 Motion for Reconsideration filed by
petitioner Angelito L. Cristobal assailing the National Labor Relations
Commission May 31, 2011 Decision was a prohibited second motion for
reconsideration.
RULING:
No. Motion for reconsideration of any decision, resolution or order of the
Commission shall not be entertained except when based on palpable or
patent errors; provided that the motion is under oath and filed within ten
(10) calendar days from receipt of decision, resolution or order, with proof
of service that a copy of the same has been furnished, within the
reglementary period, the adverse party; and provided further, that only
one such motion from the same party shall be entertained.
The National Labor Relations Commission Rules of Procedure prohibits a

party from questioning a decision, resolution, or order, twice. In other
words, this rule prohibits the same party from assailing the same
judgment. However, a decision substantially reversing a determination in
a prior decision is a discrete decision from the earlier one. Thus, in
Poliand Industrial Ltd. v. National Development Co., 38 this Court held:
Ordinarily, no second motion for reconsideration of a judgment or final

resolution by the same party shall be entertained.1âwphi1 Essentially,
however, the instant motion is not a second motion for reconsideration
since the viable relief it seeks calls for the review, not of the Decision
dated August 22, 2005, but the November 23, 2005 Resolution which
delved for the first time on the issue of the reckoning date of the
computation of interest. Thus, this Court finds that the Court of Appeals
committed reversible error in dismissing the petition outright, considering
the circumstances of this case.
VIII. IT IS ONLY WHEN THESE TAX DECLARATIONS ARE COUPLED

WITH PROOF OF ACTUAL POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY THAT
THEY MAY BECOME THE BASIS OF A CLAIM OF OWNERSHIP
Bar Operations 2
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner vs. METRO CEBU

PACIFIC* SAVINGS BANK and CORDOVA TRADING POST, INC.,
Respondents
G.R. No. 205665 OCTOBER 4, 2017
FACTS:
Metro Cebu Public Savings Bank and Cordova Trading Post, Inc. filed
MCTC of Consolacion-Cordova, Cebu separate applications for original
registration of two parcels of land situated in Barangay Poblacion,
Cordova, Cebu. Metro Cebu applied for the original registration of Lot No.
325-A, while Cordova Trading applied for Lot No. 325-B. Lot Nos. 325-A
and 325-B (subject properties) are both covered by the Cordova Cad. 670
and contains an area of 933 square meters and 531 sq m, respectively.
Cordova Trading claimed that it acquired Lot No. 325-B from (Benthel)
Development Corporation, through an exchange of properties, as regards
393-sq-m portion thereof, and by sale, as regards the remaining 118 sq
m. In turn, Benthel bought the said parcels of land from Dalumpines as
evidenced by two (2) Deeds of Absolute Sale executed for the 393-sq-m
parcel of land, and for the remaining 118-sq-m parcel of land. Cordova
Trading claimed that the parcels of land bought by Benthel from
Dalumpines, which it eventually acquired, have been consolidated and is
now denominated as Lot No. 325-B.
On the other hand, Metro Cebu averred that Dalumpines, as security for
his loan, mortgaged in its favor Lot No. 325-A; and that the mortgage
was subsequently foreclosed in favor of Metro Cebu as evidenced by an
Affidavit of Consolidation of Ownership.The case was set for hearing by
the MCTC. The respondents attached the following documents in support
of their respective applications for original registration: (1) tracing plan;
(2) blue print copies; (3) technical description of the subject properties;
(4) surveyor's certificate/exemption; (5) certified true copy of the latest
tax declaration; (6) Clearance from the Regional Trial Court and Municipal
Trial Court in Cities; and (7) Certification issued by the Community
Environment and Natural Resources Office (CENRO) that the subject
properties are alienable and disposable. Thus, the MCTC granted the
application of the respondents. Aggrieved, the OSG appealed the MCTC's
Decision. the CA rendered the herein assailed Decision,17 which affirmed
the MCTC's ruling.The CA opined that the evidence presented by the
respondents reflect the twin requirements of ownership and possession
over the subject properties for at least 30 years.
ISSUE:
whether the CA erred in granting the respondents' Application for Original
Registration of the subject properties.
RULING:
The petition is granted. The lower courts should have denied the
respondents' applications for original registration of the subject properties
Bar Operations 2
since they miserably failed to prove their entitlement thereto.Contrary to

the respondents' claim, their respective applications for original
registration of the subject properties should be denied. Under Section
14(1) of P.D. No. 1529, it is imperative for an applicant for registration of
title over a parcel of land to establish the following: (1) possession of the
parcel of land under a bona fide claim of ownership, by himself and/or
through his predecessors-in-interest since June 12, 1945, or earlier; and
(2) that the property sought to be registered is already declared alienable
and disposable at the time of the application.The lower courts erred in
ruling that the respondents were able to establish that they and their
predecessors-in-interest have been in peaceful, open, continuous,
exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation of the same in the
concept of owners prior to June 12, 1945.1âwphi1 It is settled that the
applicant must present proof of specific acts of ownership to substantiate
the claim and cannot just offer general statements, which are mere
conclusions of law rather than factual evidence of possession.25 Actual
possession consists in the manifestation of acts of dominion over it of
such a nature as a party would actually exercise over his own property.
IX. WHILE IT IS THE COMPANY-DESIGNATED PHYSICIAN WHO IS

ENTRUSTED WITH THE TASK OF ASSESSING THE SEAMAN’S
DISABILITY, WHETHER TOTAL OR PARTIAL, DUE TO EITHER
INJURY OR ILLNESS, DURING THE TERM OF THE LATTER’S
EMPLOYMENT, THE SAME IS NOT AUTOMATICALLY FINAL,
BINDING OR CONCLUSIVE.
DOHLE PHILMAN MANNING AGENCY, INC., DOHLE (IOM) LIMITED

and/or CAPT. MANOLO T. GACUTAN, petitioners, vs. JULIUS REY
QUINAL DOBLE, respondent.
G.R. No. 223730. October 4, 2017.
JULIUS REY QUINAL DOBLE, petitioner, vs. DOHLE PHILMAN

MANNING AGENCY, INC., DOHLE (IOM) LIMITED and/or CAPT.
MANOLO T. GACUTAN, respondents.
G.R. No. 223782. October 4, 2017.
FACTS:
The respondent is a Filipino seafarer, who signed a Contract of
Employment for the position of Ordinary Seaman with petitioner DOHLE
Penned by Associate Justice (IOM) Ltd., through its manning agent in the
Philippines, DOHLE Philman Manning Agency, Inc. The duration of the
contract was for nine months, with a basic monthly salary of US$350.00.
The contract specified a 44-hour work week with overtime and vacation
leave with pay. The respondent departed the Philippines on board the
vessel "MVTS JAKARTA."According to the respondent, on December of the
same year, and while the vessel was approaching the port of Hong Kong,
he accidentally stepped on the mooring line while preparing to heave the
same. As a result, he "twisted his right foot and he immediately fell on
Bar Operations 2
the floor." He reported to the ship doctor, and was declared fit to return
to work.
A few months afterwhile the vessel was docked at the port of Karachi,
Pakistan, the respondent alleged another incident. He was referred for a
medical consult upon arriving again at the port of Hong Kong. He was
repatriated back to the Philippines for medical reasons. Medical tests were
conducted upon the respondent, who was then eventually diagnosed with
"Right ankle sprain; Carpal Tunnel Syndrome, Bilateral; and
Osteochondral Defect Femoral Trochlea, Right Knee." He likewise
underwent surgery for the injury, and physical therapy thereafter. The
company-designated physician eventually issued a medical report stating
that, according to the respondent's surgeons, he is fit to work in relation
to both his "Carpal Tunnel Syndrome" and his ankle sprain. Unsatisfied by
this diagnosis, the respondent consulted his own medical expert and
sought another opinion on his condition. Upon due examination and
evaluation, a medical report was issued stating that the respondent "is
now permanently disabled and is therefore now permanently UNFIT in any
capacity to resume his usual sea duties."
Considering that the petitioners have already terminated the respondent's

treatment, and in light of the findings of his personal physician, the
respondent insisted on his disability benefits, including expenses for
medical treatment and transportation. The respondents refused.Thus, the
filing of the case before the Labur Arbiter (LA). It rendered a
Decisiondated in favor of the respondent, finding him to be permanently
and totally disabled and thus entitled to disability
compensation.Aggrieved, herein petitioners appealed to the NLRC, which
eventually affirmed in toto the LA decision.The petitioners elevated the
case to the CA via a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of
Court. Once again, the case moved in favor of the respondent. The CA
affirmed the NLRC decision
ISSUE:
whether or not the respondent is fit to work, and thus, entitled to the
disability benefits claimed
RULING:
No. The petitioners' contentions are impressed with merit. The issue of
whether the petitioner can legally demand and claim disability benefits
from the respondents for an illness suffered is best addressed by the
provisions of the POEA-SEC which incorporated the 2000 Amended
Standard Terms and Conditions Governing the Employment of Filipino
Seafarers on Board Ocean-Going Vessels. x x x If a doctor appointed by
the seafarer disagrees with the assessment, a third doctor may be agreed
jointly between the Employer and the seafarer. The third doctor's decision
shall be final and binding on both parties.23 If a doctor appointed by the
seafarer disagrees with the assessment, a third doctor may be agreed
Bar Operations 2
jointly between the Employer and the seafarer. The third doctor's decision
shall be final and binding on both parties.
In the case at hand, there is no question that the company-designated

physician and the respondent's personal physician had two very different
assessment of the respondent's illness. On the one hand, the respondent
was declared ''fit to work" by the petitioners' doctor. On the other hand,
upon examination and evaluation of the respondent's own medical expert.
Mr. Doble is now permanently disabled and is therefore now permanently
UNFIT in any capacity to resume his usual sea duties.However, contrary
to the mandatory proceedings identified by the Court, the respondent
herein did not demand for his re-examination by a third doctor, and
instead opted to initiate the instant case.
This, as the Court already ruled, is a fatal defect that militates against his
claims. To reiterate, the referral to a third doctor is now a mandatory
procedure, and that the failure to abide thereby is a breach of the
POEASEC, and has the effect of consolidating the finding of the company
designated physician as final and binding.
X. MISCONDUCT IS DEFINED AS A TRANSGRESSION OF SOME

ESTABLISHED AND DEFINITE RULE OF ACTION, A FORBIDDEN
ACT, A DERELICTION OF DUTY, UNLAWFUL BEHAVIOR, WILLFUL
IN CHARACTER, IMPROPER OR WRONG BEHAVIOR.
Re: Anonymous Complaints against Hon. Dinah Evangeline B.

Bandong, former Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, Branch 59,
Lucena City, Quezon Province.
A.M. No. rtj-17-2507 October 9, 2017
FACTS:
On April 16, 2013, the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) received
two letters-complaints, one from an anonymous sender (first letter-
complaint) and the other under the pseudonym "Shirley Gomez" (second
letter-complaint), both narrating the difficulties encountered by the
employees of, and litigants appearing before, the RTC of Lucena City,
Branch 59 concerning then Presiding Judge Dinah Evangeline B.
Bandong.Legal researcher to resolve the cases; (2) she would not
acquaint herself with the case status and would instead ask counsels
about the same; (3) she would admit in open court that she could not
resolve the case for failing to understand it; (4) she would spend most of
her time watching television inside her chambers; in fact, she would call
for a recess in order to watch her favorite telenovelas; and, (5) Judge
Bandong would unreasonably demand that all checks covering her salaries
and allowances be immediately delivered to her upon release.The second
letter-complaint was of similar import. It claimed that Judge Bandong was
not keen on studying cases, and would instead direct her staff, except the
utility worker, to talk to the parties to settle the case at the outset. If the
Bar Operations 2
parties disagreed, Judge Bandong would repeatedly postpone the hearing

until such time that the parties would just opt to settle.
On November 20, 2013, the Court. approved the application of Judge

Bandong for optional retirement effective at the close of office hours of
September 30, 2013.5 However, her retirement benefits, except for the
money value of her accrued leave credits, were ordered withheld pending
resolution of the two aforementioned letters-complaints against her and of
two other administrative complaints. The OCA Ruled against the judge
and the court partly adopts the findings and recommendations of the
OCA.
ISSUE:
Is the judge liable for grave misconduct.
RULING:
Yes. Here, the misconduct committed by Judge Bandong was grave since
the circumstances obtaining established her flagrant disregard of the rules
on referral of cases for mediation. Judge Bandong committed a patent
deviation from the rules when she wrongfully referred a non-mediatable
case to her staff, a court stenographer, who was not an accredited
mediator. This was despite the expectation that as a member of the
bench, she not only knows the rules and regulations promulgated by this
Court but also faithfully complies with it. Indeed, Judge Bandong is guilty
of grave misconduct. Judge Bandong's delegation of the functions and
duties of Clerk III Fehrer to Process Server Atienza. In Executive Judge
Apita v. Estanislao, 38 the Court had the occasion to explain that:
While the [2002 Revised Manual for Clerks of Court which defines the
general functions of all court personnel in the judiciary] provides that
court personnel may perform other duties the presiding judge may assign
from time to time, said additional duties must be directly related to, and
must not significantly vary from, the court personnel's job description. x x
x
Section 7, Canon IV of the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel expressly

states that court personnel shall not be required to perform any work
outside the scope of their job description, thus:
Sec. 7. Court personnel shall not be required to perform any work or duty
outside the scope of their assigned job description.
XI. FRAUD, IN ITS GENERAL SENSE, IS DEEMED TO COMPRISE

ANYTHING CALCULATED TO DECEIVE, INCLUDING ALL ACTS,
OMISSIONS, AND CONCEALMENT INVOLVING A BREACH OF LEGAL
OR EQUITABLE DUTY, TRUST, OR CONFIDENCE JUSTLY REPOSED,
RESULTING IN DAMAGE TO ANOTHER, OR BY WHICH AN UNDUE
AND UNCONSCIENTIOUS ADVANTAGE IS TAKEN OF ANOTHER.
Bar Operations 2
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ERVIN Y.

MATEO, EVELYN E. MATEO, CARMELITA B. GALVEZ, ROMEO L.
ESTEBAN, GALILEO J. SAPORSANTOS and NENITA S.
SAPORSANTOS, accused, ERVIN Y. MATEO, accused-appellant.
G.R. No. 210612. October 9, 2017.
FACTS:
Private complainant Herminia Alcid, Jrmet a certain Geraldine Alejandro
(Geraldine) who introduced herself as the head of the Business Center of
MMG International Holdings Co., Ltd. (MMG). Geraldine was then soliciting
investments and has shown a brochure showcasing the investments and
businesses of the said entity. Herminia, Jr. was also shown Articles of
Partnership to prove that MMG is registered with the SEC. The Articles of
Partnership showed accused-appellant as a general partner who has
contributed ₱49,750,000.00 to MMG. The other accused were shown to be
limited partners who have contributed ₱50,000.00 each. Convinced by the
representations of Geraldine, Herminia, Jr. invested ₱50,000.00 with MMG
on April 20, 2002. Subsequently, all the interests and principal were
promptly paid, which induced him to make a bigger investment. Herminio,
Jr. and his father, Herminia, Sr., made a joint investment of ₱200,000.00.
Later, Geraldine was also able to convince Herminia, Jr.'s sister, Melanie,
who made an investment of ₱50,000.00 with MMG. The private
complainants' investments were covered by a notarized Memorandum of
Agreement (MOA), signed by accused-appellant, which stipulated, among
others, that MMG was being represented by its President, herein accused-
appellant, and that the investors will be earning 2.5o/o monthly interest
income from the capital they have invested. Subsequently, the
complainants received several post-dated checks covering their
investments. However, when they tried to deposit the checks, their banks
informed them that these were dishonored because MMG's accounts in the
bank from which the checks were drawn were already closed. The
complainants then demanded from the accused the return of their money,
but their demands were unheeded. The private complainants and other
investors then went to the SEC to file a complaint, where they discovered
that MMG was not a registered issuer of securities. The SEC forwarded
their complaint to the City Prosecutor of Makati. Subsequently, the
Assistant City Prosecutor of Makat1 City filed two separate Informations4
with the RTC of Makati City charging accused-appellant, together with
Evelyn E. Mateo, Carmelita B. Galvez, Romeo L. Esteban, Galileo J.
Saporsantos and Nenita S. Saporsantos with the crime of syndicated
estafa.
The RTC found that all the elements of the crime of syndicated estafa are
present, to wit: (1) MMG was formed by accused-appellant, together with
five (5) other persons; (2) accused-appellant, together with his co-
accused, committed fraud in inducing private complainants to part with
their money; and (3) the fraud resulted in the misappropriation of the
Bar Operations 2
money contributed by the private complainants.On July 16, 2012, the CA

promulgated its assailed Decision affirming the judgment of the RTC in
toto.
ISSUE:
Is the element of defraudation was proven beyond reasonable doubt
RULING:
Yes. The elements of estafa by means of deceit under Article 315 (2 )(a)
of the RPC are the following: (a) that there must be a false pretense or
fraudulent representation as to his power, influence, qualifications,
property, credit, agency, business or imaginary transactions; (b) that
such false pretense or fraudulent representation was made or executed
prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud; (c) that the
offended party relied on the false pretense, fraudulent act, or fraudulent
means and was induced to part with his money or property; and (d) that,
as a result thereof, the offended party suffered damage.
In addition, fraud, in its general sense, is deemed to comprise anything

calculated to deceive, including all acts, omissions, and concealment
involving a breach of legal or equitable duty, trust, or confidence justly
reposed, resulting in damage to another, or by which an undue and
unconscientious advantage is taken of another. It is a generic term
embracing all multifarious means which human ingenuity can devise, and
which are resorted to by one individual to secure an advantage over
another by false suggestions or by suppression of truth and includes all
surprise, trick, cunning, dissembling and any unfair way by which another
is cheated. On the other hand, deceit is the false representation of a
matter of fact, whether by words or conduct, by false or misleading
allegations, or by concealment of that which should have been disclosed
which deceives or is intended to deceive another so that he shall act upon
it to his legal injury.
With respect to the presence of the elements of fraud and deceit, the
Court agrees with the arguments and conclusions of the OSG, to wit: In
pursuit of their fraudulent investment scheme, appellant and his partners
formed a partnership which, by its Amended Article of Partnership, had
the end in view "to acquire, manage, own, hold, buy, sell, and/or
encumber securities or equity participation of other persons, partnership,
corporation, or any other entities, as permitted or may be authorized by
law as well as to [purchase] or otherwise acquire the whole or any [part]
of the property, assests, business and goodwill of any other persons, firm,
corporation or association and to conduct in any lawful measures the
business so acquired and to express all the powers necessary or
[convenient] in and about the conduct, management and carrying on of
such business. However, the [partnership] shall not engage in stock
brokerage or dealership of securities."
Bar Operations 2
XII. THE PROSECUTION MUST BE ABLE TO ACCOUNT FOR EACH

LINK IN THE CHAIN OF CUSTODY OVER THE DANGEROUS
DRUG/PARAPHERNALIA FROM THE MOMENT OF SEIZURE UP TO
ITS PRESENTATION IN COURT AS EVIDENCE OF THE CORPUS
DELICTI
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. MANUEL LIM

CHING, accused-appellant.
G.R. No. 223556. October 9, 2017.
FACTS:
After the conduct of surveillance on the suspected illegal drug activities of
Ching, as well as a test-buy wherein a civilian asset purchased one (1)
sachet of suspected shabu worth ₱300.00, P/Supt. Tonog, formed a buy-
bust team composed of, among others, PO I Lim, the designated poseur-
buyer, with the rest of the members serving as backup officers.9 At
around four o'clock in the afternoon of even date, the team proceeded to
Ching's house located at Purok 4, Barangay Jose Abad Santos, Catarman,
Northern Samar and upon arrival thereat, PO1 Lim approached Ching and
bought a sachet of suspected shabu worth ₱500.00, handing as payment
the marked money. As soon as PO1 Lim received the sachet, he gave the
pre-arranged signal and the other team members, who were stationed
more or less 15-20 meters from the target area, approached, causing
Ching to run and hide in his room. The team followed Ching inside his
house where he was eventually arrested for selling shabu. A subsequent
search of the premises produced the following: two (2) sachets in a
chicken cage outside the house, two (2) sachets on the wooden frames
nailed to a wall inside the house, and one (1) sachet found in a pail
outside the house. Similarly, the following drug paraphernalia were
recovered in an adjacent makeshift structure outside the house: twenty-
three (23) pieces of aluminum foil, six (6) pieces of improvised tooters,
one (1) piece of plastic tooter, seven (7) pieces of disposable lighters, one
(1) pair of scissors, two (2) pieces of cutter blade, one (1) piece of alcohol
lamp and one (1) piece of color blue plastic case.11 The sachets of shabu
were sealed and labeled "MLC-1 to MLC-9" afterwhich, they were brought
to the Northern Samar Police Provincial Office, Camp Carlos Delgado,12
where P/Supt. Tonog signed four (4) Receipts for Property Seized as
witnessed by barangay officials Benito Calindong, Leon Rosales, and
Felipe Aurel.
Upon arraignment, Ching pleaded not guilty and proceeded to deny the
charges leveled against him. He claimed that on said date, he was in his
house with his nephews and was about to leave when policemen,
including P/Supt. Tonog, together with some barangay officials, arrived
and roamed around his residence. He later saw one of the men insert a
plastic inside the chicken cage and thereafter, gathered some things and
placed them on top of a table. Not long after, a pedicab arrived and he
was brought to the police station and detained. Ching further claimed that
he was very close with P/Supt. Tonog, but the latter bore personal
Bar Operations 2
grudges against him. The RTC ruled against the accused. The CA upheld
the ruling of the RTC.
ISSUE:
whether or not Ching is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating
Sections 11, 12, and 5, Article II of RA 9165.
RULING:
No. Jurisprudence states that in these cases, it is essential that the
identity of the seized drug/paraphernalia be established with moral
certainty. Thus, in order to obviate any unnecessary doubts on such
identity, the prosecution has to show an unbroken chain of custody over
the same. It must be able to account for each link in the chain of custody
over the dangerous drug/paraphernalia from the moment of seizure up to
its presentation in court as evidence of the corpus delicti. Pertinently,
Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 provides the chain of custody rule,
outlining the procedure that police officers must follow in handling the
seized drugs/paraphernalia, in order to preserve their integrity and
evidentiary value. Under the said section, the apprehending team shall,
among others, immediately after seizure and confiscation conduct a
physical inventory and photograph the seized items in the presence of the
accused or the person from whom the items were seized, or his
representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the
Department of Justice, and any elected public official who shall be
required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy of the
same, and the seized items must be turned over to the PNP Crime
Laboratory within twenty-four (24) hours from confiscation for
examination.
it is well to note that the delivery of the seized items to the PNP Crime
Laboratory was made way beyond the (24)-hour period from seizure. To
reiterate, the drugs/paraphernalia were seized during the buy-bust
operation on June 29, 2003, but were delivered to the PDEA and the PNP
crime laboratory only ten (10) days later, or on July 9, 2003. In People v.
Gamboa, the Court explained that "when police officers do not turn over
dangerous drugs to the laboratory within twenty-four (24) hours from
seizure, they must identify its custodian, and the latter must be called to
testify. The custodian must state the security measures in place to ensure
that the integrity and evidentiary value of the confiscated items were
preserved," which did not take place in this case.
XIII. THE TEST TO DETERMINE THE EXISTENCE OF FORUM

SHOPPING IS WHETHER THE ELEMENTS OF LITIS PENDENTIA, OR
WHETHER A FINAL JUDGMENT IN ONE CASE AMOUNTS TO RES
JUDICATA IN THE OTHER.
SENATOR LEILA M. DE LIMA, Petitioner vs. HON. JUANITA

GUERRERO
Bar Operations 2
G.R. No. 229781 October 10, 2017
FACTS:
The Senate and the House of Representatives conducted several inquiries
on the proliferation of dangerous drugs syndicated at the New Bilibid
Prison (NBP), inviting inmates who executed affidavits in support of their
testimonies.That within the period from November 2012 to March 2013, in
the City of Muntinlupa, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, accused Leila M. De Lima, being then the Secretary of
the Department of Justice, and accused Rafael Marcos Z. Rages, being
then the Officer-in-Charge of the Bureau of Corrections, by taking
advantage of their public office, conspiring and confederating with
accused Ronnie P. Dayan, being then an employee of the Department of
Justice detailed to De Lima, all of them having moral ascendancy or
influence over inmates in the New Bilibid Prison, did then and there
commit illegal drug trading, in the following manner: De Lima and Ragos,
with the use of their power, position, and authority, demand, solicit and
extort money from the high profile inmates in the New Bilibid Prison to
support the senatorial bid of De Lima in the May 2016 election; by reason
of which, the inmates, not being lawfully authorized by law and through
the use of mobile phones and other electronic devices, did then and there
willfully and unlawfully trade and traffic dangerous drugs, and thereafter
give and deliver to De Lima, through Ragos and Dayan, the proceeds of
illegal drug trading amounting to Five Million (₱5,000,000.00) Pesos on 24
November 2012, Five Million (₱5,000,000.00) Pesos on 15 December
2012, and One Hundred Thousand (₱100,000.00) Pesos weekly "tara"
each from the high profile inmates in the New Bilibid Prison.
ISSUE:
Is the petitioner guilty of forum shopping?
RULING:
Yes. It is settled that forum shopping exists when a party repetitively
avails himself of several judicial remedies in different courts,
simultaneously or successively, all substantially founded on the same
transactions and the same essential facts and circumstances, and all
raising substantially the same issues either pending in, or already
resolved adversely by, some other court. It is considered an act of
malpractice as it trifles with the courts and abuses their processes.
The test to determine the existence of forum shopping is whether the

elements of litis pendentia, or whether a final judgment in one case
amounts to res judicata in the other. Forum shopping therefore exists
when the following elements are present: (a) identity of parties, or at
least such parties representing 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,
Bar Operations 2
such that any judgment rendered in the other action will, regardless of
which party is successful, amount to res judicata in the action under
consideration.
Anent the first requisite, there is an identity of parties when the parties in
both actions are the same, or there is privity between them, or they are
successors-in-interest by title subsequent to the commencement of the
action litigating for the same thing and under the same title and in the
same capacity. Meanwhile, the second and third requisites obtain where
the same evidence necessary to sustain the second cause of action is
sufficient to authorize a recovery in the first, even if the forms or the
nature of the two (2) actions are different from each other. If the same
facts or evidence would sustain both, the two (2) actions are considered
the same within the rule that the judgment in the former is a bar to the
subsequent action; otherwise, it is not. All these requisites are present in
this case.
The presence of the first requisite is at once apparent. The petitioner is an

accused in the criminal case below, while the respondents in this case, all
represented by the Solicitor General, have substantial identity with the
complainant in the criminal case still pending before the trial court. As for
the second requisite, even a cursory reading of the petition and the
Motion to Quash will reveal that the arguments and the reliefs prayed for
are essentially the same. With the presence of the first two requisites, the
third one necessarily obtains in the present case. Should we grant the
petition and declare the RTC without jurisdiction over the offense, the RTC
is bound to grant De Lima's Motion to Quash in deference to this Court's
authority. In the alternative, if the trial court rules on the Motion to Quash
in the interim, the instant petition will be rendered moot and academic.
XIV. THE IMAGE OF A COURT OF JUSTICE IS NECESSARILY

MIRRORED IN THE CONDUCT, OFFICIAL OR OTHERWISE, OF THE
MEN AND WOMEN WHO WORK THEREAT, FROM THE JUDGE TO THE
LEAST AND LOWEST OF ITS PERSONNEL.
JUDGE LITA S. TOLENTINO-GENILO, complainant, vs. ROLANDO S.

PINEDA, respondent.
A.M. No. P-17-3756. October 10, 2017. (formerly OCA I.P.I. No.
16-4634-P)
FACTS:
Complainant alleged that she owns a payroll account with the LBP Quezon
City Hall branch with account number 1727-1197-24, and along with the
said account was an Automated Teller Machine (ATM) card issued to her.
Despite the issuance of the said ATM card, complainant prefers to make
her withdrawals over the counter, every five (5) months, and usually by
hundreds of thousands per withdrawal. She likewise alleged that she can
no longer recall the PIN for her ATM card.
Bar Operations 2
Complainant received an SMS or text message alert from LBP informing

her that an amount of (₱50,000. 00) has been withdrawn from her
account on September 27, 2016. By reason thereof, complainant went to
LBP Quezon City Hall branch on the same day to inquire on the matter.
The LBP's staff confirmed the said withdrawal. Thus, complainant
requested for the records and surveillance footage to determine how the
unauthorized withdrawal was made.
On September 29, 2016, respondent did not report for work. On the same
day, another SMS or text message alert from LBP was received by
complainant that an amount of ₱50,000.00 was again withdrawn from her
account on September 28, 2016. This was also confirmed by the staff of
LBP Quezon City Hall branch. LBP issued a Transaction Journal,2
indicating the withdrawals made on September 27, 2016. A copy of the
CCTV footage was also secured by complainant, showing respondent
wearing a yellow shirt, coming from Quezon City Hall's LBP A TM machine
and counting the money he withdrew. The LBP also issued a Transaction
Journal4 exhibiting the withdrawals made on September 28, 2016, and
the CCTV footage of the LBP ATM, again showing respondent in a red
shirt, making multiple withdrawals.
On October 1, 2016, complainant received a text message from

respondent, admitting the unauthorized withdrawal. It was sent through
respondent's mobile number at 0928-5656484. His exact text message
reads:Maam di ko alm paano hihingi ng kapatawaran sa i[n]yo wala po
akong balak kumuha o mgnakaw nalukso po ako at nalulong sa sugal.
Sana po maam magbabayad 3thou kada buwan. ngsis[i] po ako sinira ko
ang trabaho at kinabukasan ko at ng mga anak ko.
ISSUE:
Is respondent guilty of grave misconduct and dishonesty?
RULING:
Yes. Respondent, by committing the act of unauthorized withdrawal from
complainant's ATM account, patently committed grave misconduct and
dishonesty. Consequently, he does not deserve to stay a minute longer in
the judicial service. There is no place in the judiciary for those who cannot
meet the exacting standards of judicial conduct and integrity.17 This is
because the image of a court of justice is necessarily mirrored in the
conduct, official or otherwise, of the men and women who work thereat,
from the judge to the least and lowest of its personnel. Thus, it becomes
the imperative sacred duty of each and every one in the court to maintain
its good name and standing as a true temple of justice.
Accordingly, Section 46, Rule 10 of the Revised Rules on Administrative

Cases in the Civil Service, promulgated on November 8, 2011, provides
that the penalty for grave offenses such as Serious Dishonesty and Grave
Bar Operations 2
Misconduct is dismissal from service. Also, Section 52 (a) of the same

Rule states that the penalty of dismissal shall carry with it the cancellation
of eligibility, forfeiture of retirement benefits, and the perpetual
disqualification for holding public office, and bar from taking civil service
examinations.
XV.CLERKS OF COURTS, AS CUSTODIAN OF COURT FUNDS AND

REVENUES, HAVE THE DUTY TO IMMEDIATELY DEPOSIT THE
VARIOUS FUNDS RECEIVED BY THEM, AS WELL AS SUBMIT
MONTHLY FINANCIAL REPORTS THEREIN AS MANDATED UNDER
OCA CIRCULAR NOS. 50-95 AND 113-2004 AND ADMINISTRATIVE
CIRCULAR NO. 35-7-2004. ANY SHORTAGES IN THE AMOUNTS TO
BE REMITTED AND DELAY IN THE REMITTANCE, COUPLED WITH
MISAPPROPRIATION, RENDER THEM ADMINISTRATIVELY LIABLE
FOR GROSS NEGLECT OF DUTY, GRAVE MISCONDUCT, AND
SERIOUS DISHONESTY.
OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, complainant, vs.

REMEDIOS R. VIESCA, Clerk of Court II, Municipal Trial Court of
San Antonio, Nueva Ecija, respondent.
A.M. No. P-12-3092. October 10, 2017.(formerly A.M. No. 12-7-
54-MTC)
FACTS:
The Court adjudged Viesca guilty of Gross Neglect of Duty, Grave
Misconduct, and Serious Dishonesty and imposed on her the following
penalties: (i) dismissal from service; (ii) forfeiture of all her retirement
benefits, except accrued leave benefits; (iii) perpetual disqualification
from re-employment in any government-owned and controlled corporation
or government financial institution; (iv) cancellation of her civil service
eligibility; and (v) disqualification from taking the civil service
examination.
In her motion, Viesca begs for the Court's compassion and implores it to
mitigate the penalty imposed on her by taking into account her full
restitution of the total amount of shortage, her thirty-four (34) years of
government service, the lack of irregularities in the receipts she
submitted, and the fact that this is her first administrative case. She also
alleges that she is already sixty-eight (68) years old and pleads that she
be allowed to enjoy the fruit of her long years of service, which were all
spent in the Judiciary.
ISSUE:
Is the respondent entitled to mitigating circumstances despite the fact
that she acted with gross neglect of duty, grave misconduct and serious
dishonesty?
RULING:
Bar Operations 2
Yes. Records reveal that she fully restituted the shortages in judicial
collections after the meeting with the audit team. Moreover, the interests
that could have been earned had she timely deposited the amounts have
already been deducted from her withheld salaries, leaving no outstanding
accountabilities. The Court also notes that she fully cooperated with the
audit team during the investigation of her infractions and soon thereafter,
submitted the financial records without any irregularities, tampering, or
falsifications. To the Court's mind, these acts amount to taking full
responsibility for the infractions committed, and thus, may be duly
appreciated in imposing the penalty.
Furthermore, the Court considers Viesca's advanced age, her more than
three (3) decades of service to the Judiciary, and the fact that this is her
first administrative offense. Considering the circumstances of this case in
light of the above-stated jurisprudential pronouncements, the Court
partially reconsiders the penalty of dismissal initially meted against Viesca
and instead, imposes a fine of ₱50,000.00, deductible from her retirement
benefits.
XVI. ARTICLE 1108(4) OF THE CIVIL CODE EXPRESSLY PROVIDES

THAT PRESCRIPTION DOES NOT RUN AGAINST THE STATE AND
ITS SUBDIVISIONS
JOSE S. RAMISCAL, JR., petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON AUDIT,

respondent
G.R. No. 213716. October 10, 2017.
FACTS:
During the 11th Congress (1998 to 2001), Blue Ribbon Committee and
National Defense and Security held hearings to investigate the alleged
anomalous acquisitions of land by the AFP-RSBS in Calamba, Laguna and
Tanauan, Batangas. Prompted by a series of resolutions by the Senate,
the Deputy Ombudsman for the Military and other Law Enforcement
Offices sent to the COA a request dated April 29, 2004 for the conduct of
audit on past and present transactions of the AFP-RSBS. Thus, the COA
constituted SAT to conduct the special audit/investigation. The SAT found,
among others, that the AFP-RSBS, represented by petitioner, purchased
from Concord Resources, Inc.6 four parcels of land with a total area of
227,562 square meters in Calamba, Laguna (collectively, the Calamba
properties). The SAT discovered that two deeds of sale containing
different considerations were executed to cover the purchase. The deed of
sale recorded with the Registry of Deeds of Calamba, Laguna disclosed
that the total purchase price was P91,024,800. On the other hand, the
records obtained by the audit team from the AFP-RSBS management
revealed that another deed of sale was executed by Concord Resources,
Inc. alone and has a purchase price of P341,343,000. The AFP-RSBS paid
Concord Resources, Inc. this consideration as was recorded in its books of
account.
Bar Operations 2
The SAT concluded that the deed of sale filed before the Registry of Deeds
was the true deed of sale, considering that it was signed by both parties.
It followed then that the true purchase price was P91,024,800 and as
such, the government lost P250,318,200 when it allegedly paid Concord
Resources, Inc. P341,343,000.On October 10, 2005, the SAT issued AOM
No. 2005-01 to then AFP-RSBS President, Cesar Jaime for comment. the
SAT issued ND No. 2010-07-084-(1996)12 and NC No. 2010-07-001-
(1996). The ND directed petitioner, Elizabeth Liang, Jesus Garcia, and
Rosemarie Ragasa to immediately settle the amount of P250,318,200
representing excess payment for the Calamba properties. The NC, on the
other hand, directed petitioner, Oscar Martinez,15 and Alma Paraiso16 to
immediately settle the amount of P16,270,683 representing the deficiency
for capital gains and documentary stamp taxes. Petitioner appealed the
ND and the NC before the Commission Proper, but the same was denied
for lack of merit.
ISSUE:
Is the action for the recovery of public funds had prescribed?
RULING:
Petitioner is mistaken. The right of the State, through the COA, to recover
public funds that have been established to be irregularly and illegally
disbursed does not prescribe.
Article 1108 (4) of the Civil Code expressly provides that prescription does
not run against the State and its subdivisions. This rule has been
consistently adhered to in a long line of cases involving reversion of public
lands, where it is often repeated that when the government is the real
party in interest, and it is proceeding mainly to assert its own right to
recover its own property, thee can, as a rule, be no defense grounded on
laches or prescription.22 We find that this rule applies, regardless of the
nature of the government property. Article 1108 (4) does not distinguish
between real or personal properties of the State. There is also no reason
why the logic behind the rule's application to reversion cases should not
equally apply to the recovery of any form of government property. In fact,
in an early case involving a collection suit for unpaid loans between the
Republic and a private party, the Court, citing Article 1108 (4) of the Civil
Code, held that the case was brought by the Republic in the exercise of its
sovereign functions to protect the interests of the State over a public
property.
XVII. THE EVALUATION OF THE WITNESSES’ CREDIBILITY IS A

MATTER BEST LEFT TO THE SOUND DISCRETION OF THE TRIAL
COURT BECAUSE OF ITS UNIQUE AND DIRECT OPPORTUNITY TO
OBSERVE THE WITNESSES FIRSTHAND, TO NOTE THEIR
DEMEANOR, CONDUCT AND ATTITUDE, AND, IN THE PROCESS, TO
ASCERTAIN IF THEY WERE TELLING THE TRUTH OR NOT
Bar Operations 2
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. HERMIN

ROMOBIO y PAULER, accused-appellant.G.R. No. 227705. October
11, 2017.
FACTS:
AAA is a 44-year-old woman, separated in fact from her husband, and a
mother of a child. In the early morning of August 9, 2009, she was
sleeping in her house, which was lighted with a 20 watts fluorescent lamp.
She was alone because her daughter slept in the house of her (AAA's)
sister. just few steps away. Around past 1:00 a.m., she was awakened
when she felt the presence of somebody inside the house. When she
opened her eyes, she saw a man armed with a knife, wearing a ball cap,
and whose face was covered by a white "Good Morning" towel from the
middle of the nose to the chin. He made a gesture by placing his
forefinger on his lips, warning her not to make a noise if she wanted to
live. She was surprised and afraid. He demanded for her cellular phone
and bag, and proceeded to open the drawers.
AAA observed that the man was of medium built and height, with fair
complexion and curly hair. As she kept on watching him, with his eyes
and forehead exposed, she recognized him as Hermin, a person who used
to work as a helper/mechanic at her brother BBB's auto repair shop
located in the same compound as her house. He likewise did some
carpentry and masonry works for her sister. In fact, she had previously
talked to him when he was requested by her sister to install the
clothesline.
He tightly tied her hands and feet. Her arms were raised wide open, while
her legs were spread apart. He tied her left hand with one end of a plastic
yellow cord and the other end was tied to her right hand and the middle
portion of the cord was placed under the mattress. Both of her ankles
were "spread-eagle" and tied with a cord to the cabinet ("aparador"). The
black strap of her bag was also used to tie her. He then inserted a piece
of cloth inside her mouth and tied it up with a handkerchief. Hermin sat at
AAA's bed side, removed her blanket, tore her pink T-shirt and white
underwear, and removed his belt. He placed himself on top of her, licked
her nipples, and inserted his penis inside her vagina. While he was doing
it, he said: "Pasensiya ka na kan gigibohon ko saimo." She begged him to
stop, reasoning that she is already old. Upon learning her age, however,
he told her that she is old yet she is still hardheaded. He ordered her to
do what he wanted since her life was in his hands.
Sensing that Hermin already left. She called out her nephew, CCC, who
lived nearby, but there was no response. When she heard someone
murmuring at the adjoining house, she shouted the name of her neighbor,
Ruel, eventually went inside the house, untied her, and later on called her
relatives. Meantime, she went to the bathroom to wash herself.
Bar Operations 2
Tiya Rose and her husband went to the nearby police station. AAA told
PO2 Lapid the physical appearance of the perpetrator and that he looked
familiar to her. She identified him as Hermin, who, incidentally, was also
known to him because there were two to three instances when he
personally arrested him and recovered from him things belonging to other
persons. Subsequently, the police officers conducted a hot pursuit
operation. They went to his residence and that of his brother, but he was
not there. The next day Hermin was arrested. At the Naga City Central
Police Office, AAA positively pinpointed him as the person who robbed and
raped her. She recalled that the perpetrator wore a silver square ring on
his right hand so she asked the police to check whether he was wearing
one. The police replied in the affirmative. Hennin was then detained and
the necessary papers were prepared for the filing of a complaint.
ISSUE:
Is the accused guilty of the crime of robbery with rape?
RULING:
Yes. The true intent of the accused must first be determined in robbery
with rape, because it determines the offense committed.18 For a
conviction of the crime of robbery with rape to stand, it must be shown
that the rape was committed by reason or on the occasion of a robbery
and not the other way around. This felony contemplates a situation where
the original intent of the accused was to take, with intent to gain,
personal property belonging to another, and rape is committed on the
occasion thereof or as an accompanying crime. In other words, the
offenders had an intent to rob personal property belonging to another,
and such intent preceded the rape. If the original plan was to rape but the
accused after committing the rape also committed the robbery when the
opportunity presented itself, the offense should be viewed as separate
and distinct; if the intention of the accused was to rob, but rape was
committed even before the asportation, the crime is robbery with rape.
The rape must be contemporaneous with the commission of the robbery.
Article 294 of the RPC does not distinguish whether the rape was
committed before, during or after the robbery; it suffices that the robbery
was accompanied by rape.
In this case, the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt all the
elements of robbery with rape. The RTC found, which the CA substantially
adopted, as follows:
It can be culled from the evidence presented by the Prosecution that

before HERMIN raped [AAA] he first ransacked the drawers inside her
room and even had a plastic where the things he took from the drawers
and "aparador" such as her jewelries and cellular phones were placed.
Afterwards, HERMIN sat on the bed where [AAA] was lying and tied,
removed her blanket, tore her T-shirt and underwear then raped her. The
Bar Operations 2
primary intention of HERMIN was made manifest by his actions - that is,
to rob [AAA] which precedes his intention to rape her.
XVIII. IN EJECTMENT CASES, THE COMPLAINT SHOULD EMBODY

SUCH STATEMENT OF FACTS AS TO BRING THE PARTY CLEARLY
WITHIN THE CLASS OF CASES FOR WHICH THE STATUTES
PROVIDE A REMEDY, AS THESE PROCEEDINGS ARE SUMMARY IN
NATURE
SPOUSES ERWIN C. SANTIAGO and MARINELA A. SANTIAGO;

SPOUSES GAUDENCIO A. MANIMTIM, JR. and EDITHA P.
MANIMTIM; SPOUSES RAMIRO C. ALBARAN and ELVA C. ALBARAN;
and CESAR F. ODAN, petitioners, vs. NORTHBAY KNITTING, INC.,
respondent.
G.R. No. 217296. October 11, 2017.
FACTS:
Respondent Northbay Knitting, Inc. (NKI) filed a Complaint for Ejectment
before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Navotas City against
petitioners spouses Ramiro and Elva Albaran (the Spouses Albaran) who
were doing business under the name REA General Marine Services (REA),
spouses Gaudencio and Editha Manimtim (the Spouses Manimtim) who
were doing business under the name Junedith Brokerage Corporation
(JBC), spouses Erwin and Marinela Santiago (the Spouses Santiago) who
were doing business under the name Quick Care Cargo Handler (QCCH),
and Cesar Odan who was doing business under the name Transment
Freight Forwarder (TFF).
NKI alleged that it owns the subject property, a parcel of land in Phase I,
North Side of the Dagat-Dagatan Project in Navotas covered by Transfer
Certificate of Title (TCT) No. M-38092. All petitioners were simply allowed
to occupy said property by NKI and they were not paying any rent. On
March 5, 2009, NKI sent demand letters to petitioners asking them to
vacate the property within five (5) days from receipt and to pay rent in
the event that they refuse to vacate within the grace period given.
However, despite receipt of said letters, petitioners refused to vacate or
pay the necessary rent. Thus, on April 14, 2009, NKI filed an ejectment
complaint against petitioners.the Navotas Me TC rendered a Decision in
favor of NKI. the Malabon RTC set aside the MeTC Decision for lack of
jurisdiction, since NKI failed to show a case of Unlawful Detainer. Upon
appeal, the CA ruled: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant
Petition for Review is hereby GRANTED.
ISSUE:
Should the unlawful detainer case prosper?
RULING:
Bar Operations 2
Yes. The petition is devoid of merit. Settled is the rule that jurisdiction
over the subject matter is conferred by law and is determined by the
material allegations of the complaint. It cannot be acquired through, or
waived by, any act or omission of the parties, neither can it be cured by
their silence, acquiescence, or even express consent.7 In ejectment
cases, the complaint should embody such statement of facts as to bring
the party clearly within the class of cases for which the statutes provide a
remedy, as these proceedings are summary in nature. The complaint
must show enough on its face to give the court jurisdiction without resort
to parol evidence.8
A complaint sufficiently alleges a cause of action for unlawful detainer if it

states the following:
1) possession of property by the defendant was initially by contract with

or by tolerance of the plaintiff;
2) eventually, such possession became illegal upon notice by plaintiff to

defendant of the termination of the latter's right of possession;
3) thereafter, the defendant remained in possession of the property and

deprived the plaintiff of the enjoyment of the same; and
4) within one (1) year from the last demand on defendant to vacate the
property, the plaintiff instituted the complaint for ejectment.9
The statements in the complaint that petitioners' possession of the

property in question was by mere tolerance of NKI clearly make out a
case for unlawful detainer. Unlawful detainer involves the person's
withholding from another of the possession of the real property to which
the latter is entitled, after the expiration or termination of the former's
right to hold possession under the contract, either expressed or implied. A
requisite for a valid cause of action in an unlawful detainer case is that
possession must be originally lawful, and such possession must have
turned unlawful only upon the expiration of the right to possess. It must
be shown that the possession was initially lawful; hence, the basis of such
lawful possession must be established. If, as in the instant case, the claim
is that such possession is by mere tolerance of the plaintiff, the acts of
tolerance must be proved.
XIX. THE PRINCIPLE OF RES JUDICATA DOES NOT REQUIRE

ABSOLUTE IDENTITY OF PARTIES. IT REQUIRES, AT THE VERY
LEAST, SUBSTANTIAL IDENTITY OF PARTIES. THERE IS
SUBSTANTIAL IDENTITY OF PARTIES WHEN THERE EXISTS A
"COMMUNITY OF INTEREST BETWEEN A PARTY IN THE FIRST
CASE AND A PARTY IN THE SECOND CASE EVEN IF THE LATTER
WAS NOT IMPLEADED IN THE FIRST CASE."
Bar Operations 2
FRANCISCA TAAR, JOAQUINA TAAR, LUCIA TAAR and HEIRS OF

OSCAR L. GALO, Petitioners
vs. CLAUDIO LAWAN, MARCELINO L. GALO, ARTEMIO ABARQUEZ,
AUGUSTO B. LA.WAN, ADOLFO L. GALO and EDUARDO R. ERMITA,
Respondents
G.R. No. 190922 October 11, 2017
FACTS:
The present case involves two (2) free patent applications5 over a
71,014-square-meter parcel of land (the Property) located in Barangay
Parsolingan, Genova, Tarlac. Narcisa Taar, Alipio Duenas, Fortunata
Duenas, and Pantaleon Taar inherited two (2) vast tracts of land situated
in Tarlac. One parcel of land was adjudicated exclusively in favor of
Pantaleon while the other parcel of land was given to Pantaleon, Narcisa,
Alipio, and Fortunata.7 Narcisa sold her share to the Adaoag Spouses and
to the Gragasin Spouses.
Later, Pantaleon, Alipio, Fortunata, the Adaoag Spouses, and the Gragasin
Spouses executed an agreement to partition the second parcel of land.
This agreement was approved by the Court of First Instance of Tarlac in
its February 18, 1948 Decision. Pantaleon, Alipio, and Fortunata were the
predecessors-in-interest of Francisca,10 Joaquina, Lucia, and Oscar L.
Galo. Based on the February 18, 1948 Decision, petitioners prepared a
subdivision plan12 over the Property in 2000. The subdivision plan,
denominated as Subdivision Plan No. Ccs-03-000964-D, was approved on
February 6, 2001. Petitioners then applied for free patents over the
Property. On March 16, 2001, Claudio Lawan, Marcelino M. Galo (,
A.rtemio Abarquez, Augusto B. Lawan, and Adolfo L. Galo (filed a verified
protest16 alleging that their predecessors-in-interest had been in "actual,
physical, exclusiveand notorious possession and occupation of the land ...
since 1948," Petitioners countered that private respondents occupied the
property as tenants.Department of Environment and Natural Resoqrces
Regional Executive Director for Region III found that private respondents
were the actual occupants of the Property. There were no improvements
or other traces of possession by petitioners.
ISSUE:
whether or not private respondents are barred by the principle of res
judicata from instituting free patent applications over the Property
claimed by petitioners.
RULING:
No. The rule on res judicata states that a '"final judgment or decree
rendered on the merits . . . by a court of competent jurisdiction . . . is
conclusive of the rights of the parties or their privies, in all other
[subsequent] actions or suits" and on all points and matters determined in
the first suit. Res judicata has two (2) aspects. The first aspect refers to
bar by prior judgment while the second refers to conclusiveness of
Bar Operations 2
judgment. In bar by prior judgment, the first judgment "precludes the

prosecution of a second action upon the same claim, demand or cause of
action." On the other hand, conclusiveness of judgment states that
"issues actually and directly resolved in a former suit cannot again be
raised in any future case between the same parties involving a different
cause of action.'' Thus, the concept of conclusiveness of judgment is also
known as preclusion of issues. All that is required is identity of issues.
Parties invoking the application of res judicata must establish the

following elements:
(1) the judgment sought to bar the new action must be final;
(2) the decision must have been rendered by a court having jurisdiction
over the subject matter and the parties;
(3) the disposition of the case must be a judgment on the merits; and
(4) there must be as between the first and second action identity of
parties, subject matter, and causes of action.103
In this case, only the first three (3) elements of res judicata are present.
The February 18, 1948 Decision of the Court of First Instance is a final
judgment on the merits rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction.
However, it does not bar private respondents from instituting their free
patent applications over the Property. There is no identity or substantial
identity of parties and identity of subject matter between the February
18, 1948 Decision of the Court of First Instance and private respondents'
free patent applications.
XX. MERE SHOWING OF 'IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES' AND

'CONFLICTING PERSONALITIES' [AS IN THE PRESENT CASE,] IN
NO WISE CONSTITUTES PSYCHOLOGICAL INCAPACITY."
MARIA VICTORIA SOCORRO LONTOC-CRUZ, Petitioner vs. NILO

SANTOS CRUZ, Respondent
G.R. No. 201988 October 11, 2017
FACTS:
Twenty-two-year-old Marivi met 28-year old Nilo sometime in March
1986. They became steady in August of the same year. Nilo, whose job
was then in Hong Kong, prodded Marivi to marry him so she could join
him there soonest. Marivi agreed. The couple married in a civil ceremony5
on October 21, 1986 followed by a church wedding6 on February 8, 1987.
The marriage produced two sons: Antonio Manuel, born on April 25, 1988,
and Jose Nilo, born on September 9, 1992.
Bar Operations 2
On July 7, 2005, Marivi filed with the RTC of Muntinlupa City a petition for
declaration of nullity of marriage7 based on psychological incapacity. She
averred that it had been medically ascertained that Nilo was suffering
from "inadequate personality disorder related to masculine strivings
associated with unresolved oedipal complex,"8 while she herself was
found to be suffering from a "personality disorder of the mixed type,
[h]istrionic, [n]arcissistic with immaturity x x x."On October 11, 2006, the
trial court rendered a Partial Decision13 approving the parties'
Compromise Agreement14 pertaining to custody, support, and dissolution
of the properties. Trial on the issue of the nullity of marriage on the
ground of psychological incapacity ensued.In support of her claim that she
and Nilo were suffering from psychological incapacity, Marivi presented
Dr. Cecilia Villegas (Dr. Villegas), a psychiatrist, and Dr. Ruben
Encarnacion (Dr. Encarnacion), a clinical psychologist.
Dr. Villegas diagnosed Nilo to have "inadequate personality disorder

related to masculine strivings associated with unresolved oedipal
complex,"37 while she diagnosed Marivi to have "personality disorder of
the mixed type, [h]istrionic, [n]arcissistic, with immaturity x x x."The RTC
took a dim view of the expert witnesses' attribution of a double
psychological incapacity to Marivi's nature of being a "father figure
woman," and to Nilo's "oedipal complex."
the CA united with the RTC in rejecting the alleged existence of
psychological incapacity pointed out by Dr. Villegas and by Dr.
Encarnacion.
ISSUE:
whether the psychological conditions of the parties fall under Article 36 of
the Family Code to warrant the declaration of nullity of marriage.
RULING:
We sustain the findings of both the RTC and the CA.
Article 36 of the Family Code states:
Art. 36. A marriage contracted by any party who, at the time of the
celebration, was psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential
marital obligations of marriage, shall likewise be void even if such
incapacity becomes manifest only after its solemnization.
We have laid down guidelines in interpreting and applying this provision.

In Republic v. De Gracia, 55 we reiterated the doctrine in Santos v. Court
of Appeals, 56 "that psychological incapacity must be characterized by:
(a) gravity (i.e., it must be grave and serious such that the party would
be incapable of carrying out the ordinary duties required in a marriage);
(b) juridical antecedence (i.e., it must be rooted in the history of the
party antedating the marriage, although the overt manifestations may
emerge only after the marriage); and (c) incurability (i.e., it must be
Bar Operations 2
incurable, or even if it were otherwise, the cure would be beyond the

means of the party involved)."
Notably, "mere showing of 'irreconcilable differences' and 'conflicting

personalities' [as in the present case,] in no wise constitutes psychological
incapacity."59 "Nor does failure of the parties to meet their
responsibilities and duties as married persons" amount to psychological
incapacity.Upon the view we take of this case, thus, this Court believes
that the protagonists in this case are in reality simply unwilling to work
out a solution for each other's personality differences, and have thus
become overwhelmed by feelings of disappointment or disillusionment
toward one another. Sadly, a marriage, even if unsatisfactory, is not a
null and void marriage.
XXI. The burden of proving that the dismissal of the employees was for a
valid and authorized cause rests on the employer.
G.R. No. 229746. October 11, 2017.*
ABBOTT LABORATORIES (PHILIPPINES), INC. and STEPHANE LANGEVIN,

petitioners, vs. MANUEL F. TORRALBA, ROSELLE P. ALMAZAR, and REDEL
ULYSSES M. NAVARRO, respondents.
FACTS:
Respondent Roselle P. Almazar (Almazar) was employed by Abbott as the National
Sales Manager of its PediaSure Division, while respondents Redel Ulysses M.
Navarro (Navarro) and Manuel F. Torralba (Torralba) were Regional Sales Managers
of the same department.
Sometime in November 2012, Abbott decided to integrate into one sales unit its
PediaSure Division and its Medical Nutrition Division, both under the Specialty
Nutrition Group. The decision was made after a study, entitled "Specialty Nutrition
Group Sales Force Restructure Philippines," (Study) revealed that both departments
have similar business models and sales execution methods. As a result of the
merger, respondents' positions were declared redundant.
Abbott informed both the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) and
respondents of the latter's termination due to redundancy. Thereafter, the company
offered respondents the District Sales Manager positions, with a lower job rate and
with duties and responsibilities different from that of a National or Regional Sales
Manager.
Respondents rejected the offer and instead signed their respective Deeds of Waiver,
Release, and Quitclaim (Deeds) after receiving the amount offered by Abbott.
Hence, respondents filed a complaint for illegal dismissal on the ground that Abbott
allegedly did not observe the criteria of preference of status, efficiency, and
seniority in determining who among its redundant employees are to be retained.
Bar Operations 2
They also filed a claim for underpayment of separation pay and discrimination
because other former employees who were terminated due to redundancy allegedly
received 250% of their monthly salaries per year of service as separation pay, while
they only received 150o/o thereof. Likewise included in the complaint was a claim
for moral and exemplary damages and attorney's fees.
Abbott maintained that respondents were terminated for authorized cause; that
respondents' functions as sales managers were redundant because they were
already being performed by the Medical Nutrition Division; that respondents'
separation pays were equivalent to one-and-a-half month pay for every year of
service plus three (3) months gratuity, which is more than what the Labor Code
requires; that in addition to their separation pays, respondents were able to acquire
their service vehicles at a big discount; and that respondents voluntarily signed the
Deeds.
The Labor Arbiter rendered a Decision holding that respondents were illegally
dismissed, and granted the complaint. According to the Labor Arbiter, Abbott failed
to overcome the burden of proving that the adoption and implementation of the
redundancy program was not in violation of law, and that it was not attended by
malice or arbitrariness. The Labor Arbiter found wanting the evidence presented to
establish that Abbott followed the required preference criteria of status, efficiency,
and proficiency in determining who among the employees are going to be retained.
There being no job evaluation conducted to gauge how the allegedly redundant
employees would fare against the criteria, the Labor Arbiter deemed that
respondents were arbitrarily and illegally dismissed. Moreover, the Labor Arbiter
ruled that the execution of the Deeds did not bar respondents from contesting the
validity of their termination.
Aggrieved, Abbott appealed the Labor Arbiter's Decision to the National Labor
Relations Commission (NLRC). The NLRC promulgated its Decision reversing the
Labor Arbiter's findings.
The NLRC was in agreement with the Labor Arbiter that Abbott failed to prove that
respondents' positions were superfluous or unnecessary. However, the NLRC
nevertheless ruled that the Deeds precluded them from claiming that they were
illegally dismissed. It then affirmed its Decision through its June 23, 2014
Resolution denying petitioners' motion for reconsideration therefrom. Thus,
respondents elevated the case to the CA on certiorari. The appellate court
reinstatrd, with modification, the ruling of the Labor Arbiter,
ISSUE:
Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the finding of the LA
and the NLRC that the redundancy implemented by petitioners was invalid.
RULING:
We deny the petition. No fair and reasonable criteria were utilized in determining
who among the employees are to be redundated.
Bar Operations 2
In the controversy before Us, Abbott attempts to persuade the Court that the
respondents' dismissal is justified under its redundancy program. Indeed,
redundancy is a recognized authorized cause for validly terminating employment.
Redundancy exists where the services of an employee are in excess of what is

reasonably demanded by the actual requirement of the enterprise. For a valid
implementation of a redundancy program, the employer must comply with the
following requisites: (1) written notice served on both the employee and the DOLE
at least one month prior to the intended date of termination; (2) payment of
separation pay equivalent to at least one month pay or at least one month pay for
every year of service, whichever is higher; (3) good faith in abolishing the
redundant position; and (4) fair and reasonable criteria in ascertaining what
positions are to be declared redundant. The burden is on the employer to prove by
substantial evidence the factual and legal basis for the dismissal of its employees
on the ground of redundancy. Substantial evidence, in turn, is defined as that
amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to
justify a conclusion. Failure to discharge this duty would mean that the dismissal is
illegal.
XXII. Mere passive presence at the scene of the crime does not implicate
one who is not shown to have conspired with another in killing the victim.
G.R. No. 206292 October 11, 2017
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee

vs.
ESTRILLO ESCOBAL y SALVACION and MELVIN E. ABANO, Accused-
Appellants
FACTS:
Estrillo Escobal y Salvacion and Melvin E. Abafio were found and declared guilty of
murder for the killing of the late SPO 1 Fernando Gaabucayan, Jr. under the
decision rendered on November 26, 2009 by the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch
21, in Cagayan de Oro City.1The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed their conviction on
December 20, 2011.2 Hence, they appeal to the Court for exoneration.
On November 26, 2009,5 the RTC convicted Escobal and Abafio of murder, holding
that they had conspired in killing the late Fernando Gaabucayan, Jr. with treachery;
that Escobal had shot the victim to death despite the victim having been already
rendered helpless, lying on the ground and pleading for his life; that Abafio had
done nothing to prevent the shooting of the victim; and that even assuming that
the victim had initially committed unlawful aggression against them, the peril he
had thereby posed had already ceased by the time he had fallen to the ground from
the shots fired at him.
Bar Operations 2
On appeal, the accused-appellants submitted that prosecution witness Cesar

Auxtero had only heard the gunshots but had not actually seen who had fired them;
that the result of the ballistic examination showing that the firearm of the victim
had been fired four times7 established unlawful aggression on the part of the
victim; that the victim had thereby forced them to act in self-defense; and that the
rebuttal testimony of Ruel Ramirez of his having himself fired the victim's firearm
about eight meters away from the crime scene in order to express his rage over the
killing of the victim contradicted the report of the investigator to the effect that he
had recovered the four shells fired from the victim's firearm from the area where
the victim had lain lifeless.8
In its decision promulgated on December 20, 2011,9 the CA rejected the plea of
self-defense and affirmed the conviction. Hence, this appeal.
ISSUE:
whether or not the conviction of Abaño on the sole basis of his having acted
in conspiracy with Escobal is proper.
RULING:
The appeal is partly meritorious.
The mere presence of Abaño at the scene of the crime did not establish his
conspiracy with Escobal to kill the victim.
We cannot uphold the conviction of Abaño on the sole basis of his having acted in
conspiracy with Escobal. The records do not sustain the finding of conspiracy.
The CA and the RTC agreed that Abaño did not perform any overt act during the
shooting of SPO 1 Gaabucayan by Escobal. That would have already sufficed to
absolve him. However, the CA concurred with the RTC's finding of conspiracy
between the accused on the basis of several circumstances. In so concurring with
the RTC, the CA completely dismissed as unsubstantiated Abaño's explanation of
his frequently accompanying Escobal on his way home to Bolonsiri whenever they
had drinks after work because Abaño did not demonstrate the regularity of their
drinking together on a weekly or monthly basis, and did not state the last time
when he had escorted Escobal home after drinking.
Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the
commission of a felony, and decide to commit it;21 hence, the agreement
concerning the commission of the crime must be shown to precede the decision to
commit it. Indeed, the acts of Abaño adverted to did not necessarily reflect his
community of purpose with Escobal in the killing of the victim. The former's mere
passive presence at the scene of the crime did not constitute proof of concerted
action between him and Escobal.
Bar Operations 2
XXIII. In every application for provisional injunctive relief, the applicant

must establish the actual and existing right sought to be protected. The
applicant must also establish the urgency of a writ's issuance to prevent
grave and irreparable injury. Failure to do so will warrant the court's
denial of the application.
G.R. No. 207938. October 11, 2017.*
EVY CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, petitioner, vs.

VALIANT ROLL FORMING SALES CORPORATION, respondent.
FACTS:
Evy Construction purchased a parcel of land covered by TCT No. 134890 in Lipa,
Batangas from Linda N. Ang (Ang) and Senen T. Uyan (Uyan). They executed a
Deed of Absolute Sale, which was notarized on September 11, 2007. At the time of
the sale, no lien or encumbrance was annotated on the title, except for a notice of
adverse claim filed by Ang.
The Register of Deeds annotated a Notice of Levy on Attachment on TCT No.

134890 was by virtue of the Writ of Preliminary Attachment issued by Branch 46,
Regional Trial Court, San Fernando, Parnpanga in Civil Case No. 13442 entitled
Valiant Roll Forming Sales Corporation v. Angeli Lumber and Hardware, Inc., and
Linda Ngo Ang. Two (2) other encumbrances were also annotated on the title.
Evy Construction registered the Deed of Absolute Sale with the Register of Deeds
on November 20, 2007. TCT No. 168590 was issued in its name; however, it
contained the annotation of the prior Notice of Levy on Attachment, as well as a
Notice of Attachment/Levy upon Realty dated October 2, 2007 and a Notice of Levy
on Preliminary Attachment dated November 8, 2007.
Subsequently, the Regional Trial Court rendered a Decision in Civil Case No. 13442
in favor of Valiant Roll Forming Sales Corporation (Valiant). A Writ of Execution and
a Notice of Levy were issued against the property covered by TCT No. 134890.
Evy Construction filed a Notice of Third-Party Claim informing the court that it had
already filed with the sheriff an Affidavit of Title/Ownership. Valiant posted an
Indemnity Bond to answer for any damages that Evy Construction may suffer
should execution of the Regional Trial Court Decision proceed.
By virtue of the July 18, 2008 Writ of Execution issued in Civil Case No. 13442, the
Sheriff issued a Notice of Sale on Execution of Real Property of Ang's properties,
including the property covered by TCT No. 134890. A Certificate of Sale was
eventually issued to Valiant as the winning bidder of the property covered by TCT
No. 134890.
On October 29, 2009, Evy Construction filed with the Regional Trial Court of Lipa
City, Batangas its Complaint for Quieting of Title/Removal of Cloud, Annulment of
Execution Sale and Certificate of Sale, and Damages, with application for temporary
restraining order and/or preliminary injunction.
Bar Operations 2
ISSUE:
whether or not the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion in denying
petitioner Evy Construction and Development Corporation's application for
injunctive relief.
RULING:
Injunction is defined as "a judicial writ, process or proceeding whereby a party is

ordered to do or refrain from doing a certain act." It may be filed as a main action
before the trial court or as a provisional remedy in the main action.
The main action for injunction is distinct from the provisional or ancillary remedy of
preliminary injunction which cannot exist except only as part or an incident of an
independent action or proceeding. As a matter of course, in an action for injunction,
the auxiliary remedy of preliminary injunction, whether prohibitory or mandatory,
may issue. Under the law, the main action for injunction seeks a judgment
embodying a final injunction which is distinct from, and should not be confused
with, the provisional remedy of preliminary injunction, the sole object of which is to
preserve the status quo until the merits can be heard. A preliminary injunction is
granted at any stage of an action or proceeding prior to the judgment or final order.
It persists until it is dissolved or until the termination of the action without the court
issuing a final injunction.
The issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction is considered an "extraordinary

event," being a ''strong arm of equity or a transcendent remedy." Thus, the power
to issue the writ "should be exercised sparingly, with utmost care, and with great
caution and deliberation."
An injunctive writ is granted only to applicants with "actual and existing substantial
rights" or rights in esse. Further, the applicant must show "that the invasion of the
right is material and substantial and that there is an urgent and paramount
necessity for the writ to prevent serious damage." Thus, the writ will not issue to
applicants whose rights are merely contingent or to compel or restrain acts that do
not give rise to a cause of action.
Thus, in determining whether or not petitioner is entitled to injunctive relief, the

courts would have to pass upon the inevitable issue of which between petitioner
and respondent has the better right over the property, the very issue to be resolved
in the main case. In this case, petitioner alleges that as the registered owner of the
property covered by TCT No. 168590, "it has the undeniable right to the full use
and possession [of it]."
However, at the time of the sale between petitioner Evy Construction, Uyan, and
Ang, TCT No. 134890 in Uyan's and Ang's names did not contain any liens or
encumbrances, except for a notice of adverse claim by Ang dated January 21,
1999. However, petitioner admitted that while the Deed of Absolute Sale was
Bar Operations 2
executed on September 4, 2007, the property was only registered in its name on
November 20, 2007. The encumbrances in respondent's favor were annotated on
September 18, 2007, October 2, 2007, and November 8, 2007, or when the
property was still registered under Uyan's and Ang's names.
This Court found the argument unmeritorious and held that no injunctive writ could
be issued pending a final determination of petitioner's actual and existing right over
the property. The grant of an injunctive writ could operate as a prejudgment of the
main case.
XXIV. An assignment of error is generally required for appellate review.

The purpose of the time limitation for filing claims is "to apprise the
arrastre operator of the existence of a claim and enable it to check on the
validity of the claimant's demand while the facts are still fresh for
recollection of the persons who took part in the undertaking and the
pertinent papers are still available.
G.R. No. 189524. October 11, 2017.*
ORIENTAL ASSURANCE CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. MANUEL ONG, doing

business under the business name of WESTERN PACIFIC TRANSPORT
SERVICES and/or ASIAN TERMINALS, INC., respondents.
FACTS:
JEA Steel Industries, Inc. (JEA Steel) imported from South Korea 72 aluminum-
zinc-alloy-coated steel sheets in coils. These steel sheets were transported to
Manila on board the vessel M/V Dooyang Glory as evidenced by a Bill of Lading.
Upon arrival of the vessel at the Manila South Harbor on June 10, 2002, the 72 coils
were discharged and stored in Pier 9 under the custody of the arrastre contractor,
Asian Terminals, Inc. (Asian Terminals).
From the storage compound of Asian Terminals, the coils were loaded on the trucks
of Manuel Ong (Ong) and delivered to JEA Steel's plant in Barangay Lapidario,
Trece Martirez, Cavite. Eleven of these coils ''were found to be in damaged
condition, dented or their normal round shape deformed."
JEA Steel filed a claim with Oriental for the value of the 11 damaged coils, pursuant
to Marine Insurance Policy.
Oriental paid JEA Steel the sum of ₱521,530.16 and subsequently demanded
indemnity from Ong and Asian Terminals (respondents), but they refused to pay.
On May 19, 2003, Oriental filed a Complaint before the Regional Trial Court of
Manila for sum of money against respondents.
Bar Operations 2
Ong countered that the 11 coils were already damaged when they were loaded on
board his trucks and transported to the consignee.
For its part, Asian Terminals claimed that it exercised due diligence in handling the
cargo, that the cargo was released to the consignee's representative in the same
condition as when received from the vessel, and that the damages were sustained
while in the custody of the vessel or the customs broker.
Asian Terminals further argued that Oriental's claim was barred for the latter's
failure to file a notice of claim within the 15-day period provided in the Gate Pass
and in Article VII, Section 7.01 of the Contract for Cargo Handling Services
(Management Contract) between the Philippine Ports Authority and Asian
Terminals. The Gate Pass was signed by the consignee's representative to
acknowledge the delivery and receipt of the shipment.
After trial, Branch 39, Regional Trial Court, Manila rendered its Decision on August
9, 2006 dismissing the complaint. It found no preponderance of evidence to
establish that respondents were the ones responsible for the damage to the 11
coils. Oriental's Motion for Reconsideration was likewise denied by the Regional Trial
Court in its Resolution dated June 6, 2007.
The Court of Appeals dismissed Oriental's appeal on the ground that its claim had
already prescribed. The Court of Appeals found that 11 of the coils were already
damaged before they were loaded in Ong's trucks. Hence, the legal presumption of
negligence applies against Asian Terminals unless it is able to prove that it
exercised extraordinary diligence in the handling of the cargo. The Court of Appeals
held that as an arrastre operator, Asian Terminals was bound to observe the same
degree of care required of common carriers. The Court of Appeals further ruled that
while Asian Terminals failed to rebut the presumption of negligence against it, it
cannot be held liable to pay the value of the damaged coils because Oriental's claim
was filed beyond the 15-day prescriptive period stated in the Gate Pass. According
to the Court of Appeals, it can resolve the issue of prescription despite not being
assigned as an error on appeal as it was already raised, although not tackled, in the
lower court. The Court of Appeals also denied petitioner's subsequent motion for
reconsideration.
ISSUE/S:
(1) whether or not the Court of Appeals gravely erred in passing upon the
issue of prescription even though it was not an assigned error in the appeal; and
(2) whether or not the claim against Asian Terminals, Inc. is barred by
prescription.
RULING:
Bar Operations 2
(1) This Court agrees that the Court of Appeals properly passed upon the issue of
prescription.
An assignment of error is generally required for appellate review. Section 8

provides that only errors which have been stated in the assignment of en-ors and
properly argued in the brief will be considered by the appellate court. The
exceptions to this rule are errors affecting jurisdiction over the subject matter as
well as plain and clerical errors.
However, in a number of cases, this Court recognized the appellate courts' ample
authority to consider errors that were not assigned. This is in accord with the liberal
spirit of the Rules of Court with a view to securing a "just, speedy and inexpensive
disposition" of every case.
(2) The issue of prescription is closely related to, and determinant of, the propriety
of the lower court's ruling, absolving respondents from liability for the damaged
goods and dismissing Oriental's complaint. Thus, this Court finds no error on the
part of the Court of Appeals in passing upon this issue.
With regard to the reckoning of the 15-day prescriptive period, Asian Terminals
posits that "the fifteen-day limit should be counted from the date consignee obtains
knowledge of the loss, damage or misdelivery of the shipment." The contractor's
issuance of a certificate of loss, damage, or non-delivery is not an indispensable
condition for the period to run. Asian Terminals adds that the consignee is
presumed to have learned of the damage on June 17, 2002, the date of complete
delivery of the shipment to the consignee's plant, since there was no showing that
the consignee learned of the damage later than this date. Thus, counting 15 days,
Oriental had until July 2, 2002 to file its claim. Asian Terminals received Oriental's
claim only on July 4, 2002; hence, the claim was barred by prescription.
This Court has ruled that the purpose of the time limitation for filing claims is "to
apprise the arrastre operator of the existence of a claim and enable it to check on
the validity of the claimant's demand while the facts are still fresh for recollection of
the persons who took part in the undertaking and the pertinent papers are still
available." Despite the changes introduced in the Management Contract on filing
claims, the purpose is still the same.
Bar Operations 2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Alberto Garong vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. no. 172539, 16 November
2016
II. SamsodenPangcatan vs. Alexandro “Dodong” Maghuyop, et al., G.R. No.

194412; November 16, 2016
III. VELIA J. CRUZ, petitioner, vs. SPOUSES MAXIMO and SUSAN CHRISTENSEN,
G.R. No. 205539. October 4, 2017
IV. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee vs. JERSON DASMARINAS y

GONZALES,, Accused-AppellantG.R. No. 203986 October 4, 2017
V. BICOL MEDICAL CENTER, represented by DR. EFREN SJ. NERVA, and the
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, represented by HEALTH SECRETARY ENRIQUE T. ONA,
petitioners, vs. NOE B. BOTOR, CELJUN F. YAP, ISMAEL A. ALBAO, AUGUSTO S.
QUILON, EDGAR F. ESPLANA II, and JOSEFINA F. ESPLANA, respondents.G.R. No.
214073. October 4, 2017.*
VI. SAN FERNANDO COCA-COLA RANK-AND-FILE UNION (SACORU), represented

by its President, ALFREDO R. MARAÑON, petitioner, vs. COCA-COLA BOTTLERS
PHILIPPINES, INC. (CCBPI), respondent. G.R. No. 200499. October 4, 2017.
VII. ANGELITO L. CRISTOBAL, Petitioner vs. PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC., AND

LUCIO TAN,, Respondents., G.R. No. 201622 OCTOBER 4, 2017
VIII. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner vs. METRO CEBU PACIFIC*

SAVINGS BANK and CORDOVA TRADING POST, INC., Respondents , G.R. No.
205665 , OCTOBER 4, 2017
IX. DOHLE PHILMAN MANNING AGENCY, INC., DOHLE (IOM) LIMITED and/or CAPT.
MANOLO T. GACUTAN, petitioners, vs. JULIUS REY QUINAL DOBLE, respondent.G.R.
No. 223730. October 4, 2017.
X. JULIUS REY QUINAL DOBLE, petitioner, vs. DOHLE PHILMAN MANNING AGENCY,
INC., DOHLE (IOM) LIMITED and/or CAPT. MANOLO T. GACUTAN, respondents.
G.R. No. 223782. October 4, 2017.
XI. Re: Anonymous Complaints against Hon. Dinah Evangeline B. Bandong, former
Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, Branch 59, Lucena City, Quezon Province.
A.M. No. rtj-17-2507 October 9, 2017
Bar Operations 2
XII. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ERVIN Y. MATEO, EVELYN

E. MATEO, CARMELITA B. GALVEZ, ROMEO L. ESTEBAN, GALILEO J. SAPORSANTOS
and NENITA S. SAPORSANTOS, accused, ERVIN Y. MATEO, accused-appellant. G.R.
No. 210612. October 9, 2017. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.
MANUEL LIM CHING, accused-appellant. G.R. No. 223556. October 9, 2017.
XIII. SENATOR LEILA M. DE LIMA, Petitioner vs. HON. JUANITA GUERRERO G.R.
No. 229781 October 10, 2017
XIV. JUDGE LITA S. TOLENTINO-GENILO, complainant, vs. ROLANDO S. PINEDA,

respondent. A.M. No. P-17-3756. October 10, 2017. (formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 16-
4634-P)
XV. OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, complainant, vs. REMEDIOS R.

VIESCA, Clerk of Court II, Municipal Trial Court of San Antonio, Nueva Ecija,
respondent. A.M. No. P-12-3092. October 10, 2017.(formerly A.M. No. 12-7-54-
MTC)
XVI. JOSE S. RAMISCAL, JR., petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON AUDIT, respondent

G.R. No. 213716. October 10, 2017.
XVII. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. HERMIN ROMOBIO y

PAULER, accused-appellant.G.R. No. 227705. October 11, 2017.
XVIII. SPOUSES ERWIN C. SANTIAGO and MARINELA A. SANTIAGO; SPOUSES

GAUDENCIO A. MANIMTIM, JR. and EDITHA P. MANIMTIM; SPOUSES RAMIRO C.
ALBARAN and ELVA C. ALBARAN; and CESAR F. ODAN, petitioners, vs. NORTHBAY
KNITTING, INC., respondent. G.R. No. 217296. October 11, 2017.
IX. FRANCISCA TAAR, JOAQUINA TAAR, LUCIA TAAR and HEIRS OF OSCAR L.
GALO, Petitioners vs. CLAUDIO LAWAN, MARCELINO L. GALO, ARTEMIO
ABARQUEZ, AUGUSTO B. LA.WAN, ADOLFO L. GALO and EDUARDO R. ERMITA,
Respondents G.R. No. 190922 October 11, 2017
XX. MARIA VICTORIA SOCORRO LONTOC-CRUZ, Petitioner vs. NILO SANTOS CRUZ,
Respondent G.R. No. 201988 October 11, 2017 G.R. No. 229746. October 11,
2017.*
XXI. ABBOTT LABORATORIES (PHILIPPINES), INC. and STEPHANE LANGEVIN,

petitioners, vs. MANUEL F. TORRALBA, ROSELLE P. ALMAZAR, and REDEL ULYSSES
M. NAVARRO, respondents. G.R. No. 206292 October 11, 2017
Bar Operations 2
XXII. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee vs. ESTRILLO ESCOBAL y

SALVACION and MELVIN E. ABANO, Accused-Appellants G.R. No. 207938. October
11, 2017.*
XXIII. EVY CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, petitioner, vs.

VALIANT ROLL FORMING SALES CORPORATION, respondent. G
XXIV. ORIENTAL ASSURANCE CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. MANUEL ONG, doing

business under the business name of WESTERN PACIFIC TRANSPORT SERVICES
and/or ASIAN TERMINALS, INC., respondents. .R. No. 189524. October 11, 2017.*

Cases Rodriguez 2ND

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Descrizione originale:

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Cases Rodriguez 2ND

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Mark G.

I. TO BE LIABLE FOR FALSIFICATION BY PUBLIC OFFICER, THE

Alberto Garong vs. People of the Philippines

On September 21, 1989, the petitioner delivered to Ricar a copy of a court

IN RE: PETITION FOR JUDICIAL

a manner as to easily lead to error as to its authenticity, constitutes

As to the aggravating circumstance of taking advantage his public position,

The penalty for falsification committed by a private individual is

Nonetheless, the omission of the justification was an obvious oversight by

II. INDIGENT LITIGANTS/CLIENTS OF PUBLIC ATTORNEYS OFFICE ARE

SamsodenPangcatan vs. Alexandro “Dodong” Maghuyop, et al.

Respondents claim that plaintiff is not an indigent based on the evidences he

exempt from payment of docket and other fees incidental to instituting an

III. THE JURISDICTIONAL REQUIREMENT OF PRIOR DEMAND IS

VELIA J. CRUZ, petitioner, vs. SPOUSES MAXIMO and SUSAN

Respondents cannot feign ignorance of petitioner’s demand to vacate since

IV. AN ACCUSED CANNOT BE CONVICTED OF AN OFFENSE, UNLESS

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee vs. JERSON

V. A WRIT OF PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION IS ISSUED TO:

BICOL MEDICAL CENTER, represented by DR. EFREN SJ. NERVA, and

applicant's right to the writ is required in an application for writ of injunctive

VI. The abuse of discretion must be grave as where the power is

or personal hostility and must be so patent and gross as to

SAN FERNANDO COCA-COLA RANK-AND-FILE UNION (SACORU),

their conclusion. The query in this proceeding is limited to the

VII. THE “SECOND” MOTION DOES NOT PARTAKE THE NATURE OF

ANGELITO L. CRISTOBAL, Petitioner vs. PHILIPPINE AIRLINES,

However, he found that Cristobal's retirement benefits should not be less

The National Labor Relations Commission Rules of Procedure prohibits a

Ordinarily, no second motion for reconsideration of a judgment or final

VIII. IT IS ONLY WHEN THESE TAX DECLARATIONS ARE COUPLED

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner vs. METRO CEBU

since they miserably failed to prove their entitlement thereto.Contrary to

IX. WHILE IT IS THE COMPANY-DESIGNATED PHYSICIAN WHO IS

DOHLE PHILMAN MANNING AGENCY, INC., DOHLE (IOM) LIMITED

JULIUS REY QUINAL DOBLE, petitioner, vs. DOHLE PHILMAN

Considering that the petitioners have already terminated the respondent's

In the case at hand, there is no question that the company-designated

X. MISCONDUCT IS DEFINED AS A TRANSGRESSION OF SOME

Re: Anonymous Complaints against Hon. Dinah Evangeline B.

parties disagreed, Judge Bandong would repeatedly postpone the hearing

On November 20, 2013, the Court. approved the application of Judge

Section 7, Canon IV of the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel expressly

XI. FRAUD, IN ITS GENERAL SENSE, IS DEEMED TO COMPRISE

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ERVIN Y.

money contributed by the private complainants.On July 16, 2012, the CA

In addition, fraud, in its general sense, is deemed to comprise anything

XII. THE PROSECUTION MUST BE ABLE TO ACCOUNT FOR EACH

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. MANUEL LIM

XIII. THE TEST TO DETERMINE THE EXISTENCE OF FORUM

SENATOR LEILA M. DE LIMA, Petitioner vs. HON. JUANITA

G.R. No. 229781 October 10, 2017

The test to determine the existence of forum shopping is whether the

The presence of the first requisite is at once apparent. The petitioner is an

XIV. THE IMAGE OF A COURT OF JUSTICE IS NECESSARILY

JUDGE LITA S. TOLENTINO-GENILO, complainant, vs. ROLANDO S.

Complainant received an SMS or text message alert from LBP informing

On October 1, 2016, complainant received a text message from

Accordingly, Section 46, Rule 10 of the Revised Rules on Administrative

Misconduct is dismissal from service. Also, Section 52 (a) of the same

XV.CLERKS OF COURTS, AS CUSTODIAN OF COURT FUNDS AND

OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, complainant, vs.