G.R. No.

174937

Jovina Davon VDA. De Mendez vs. CA and SPS. Mineo and Trinidad B. Dabon

Forgery; Handwriting experts; Considering the technical nature of the procedure in

examining the forged documents, handwriting experts are often offered as expert
witnesses- but although their testimonies are useful, resort to these experts is not
mandatory or indispensable because a finding of forgery does not depend entirely on
their testimonies.

In the absence of satisfactory explanation, one who is found in possession of, and who
has used, a forged document, is the forger and, therefore, guilty of falsification.

The value of the opinion of a handwriting expert depends not upon his mere statements
of whether a writing is genuine or false, but upon the assistance he may afford in
pointing out distinguishing marks, characteristics and discrepancies in and between
genuine and false specimens of writing which would ordinarily escape notice or
detection from an unpracticed observer.

GR No. 170865
PNB V Sps. Cheah Chee Chong and Ofelia Camacho Cheah

GR No. 170892
Sps. Cheah Chee Chong and Ofelia Camacho Cheah v. PNB

Civil Law: Quasi-Delicts;Damages;Proximate Cause; Words and Phrases; Proximate

Cause is that cause, which in natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any
efficient intervening cause, produces the injury and without which the result would not
have occurred. To determine the proximate cause of a controversy, the question that
needs to be asked is: If the event did not happen, would the injury have resulted? If the
answer is no, then the event is the proximate cause.

Banks and Banking: Checks:

The payment of the amounts of checks without previously clearing them with the
drawee bank especially so where the drawee is a foreign bank and the amounts
involved were large is contrary to normal or ordinary banking practice. Also, in
Associated Bank v. Tan, 446 SCRA 282 (2002) wherein the bank allowed the withdrawal
of the value of a check prior to its clearing, we said that “before the check shall have
been cleared for deposit, the collecting bank can only “assume at its own risk x x x that
the check would be cleared and paid out”. The delay in the receipt by PNB Buendia
Branch of the November 13, 1992 SWIFT message notifying it of the dishonor of the
subject check is of no moment, because had PNB Buendia Branch waited for the
expiration of the clearing period and had never released during that time the proceeds
of the check, it would have already been notified of its dishonor. Clearly, PNB’s
disregard of its preventive and protective measure against the possibility of being
victimized by bad checks had brought upon itself the injury of losing a significant
amount of money.
 Bank is expected to be an expert in banking procedures and it has necessary
means to ascertain whether a check, local or foreign, is sufficiently funded. It bears
stressing that “the diligence required of bank is more than that of a Roman pater
familias or a good father of a family. The highest degree of diligence is expected.” PNB
miserably failed and reasonable business prudence. The disregard of its own banking
policy amounts to gross negligence, which the law defines as “negligence
characterized by the want of even slight care, acting or omitting to act in an situation
where there is duty to act, not inadvertently but willfully and intentionally with a
conscious indifference to consequences in so far as other persons may be affected.”
With regard to collection or encashment of check, suffice it to say that the law imposes
on the collecting bank the duty to scrutinize diligently the checks deposited with it for the
purpose of determining their genuineness and regularity. “The collecting bank, being
primarily engaged in banking, holds it to a high standard of conduct.” A bank is expected
to be an expert in banking procedures and it has the necessary means to ascertain
whether a check, local or foreign, is sufficiently funded.

Civil Law: Solutio Indebiti; The indispensable requisites of the judicial relation
known as solution indebiti, are, (a) that he who paid was not under obligation to do so;
(b) that the payment was made by breason of an essential mistake of fact.

The principle of solutio indebiti applies in case of erroneous payment of undue

interest. (Siga-an vs. Villanueva, 576 SCRA 696, [2009]).

Unjust enrichment exists “when a person unjustly retains a benefit to the loss of
another, or when a person retains money or property of another against the
fundamental principles of justice, equity and good conscience.” (Land Bank of the
Philippines vs. Ong, 636 SCRA 266, [2010]).

Where the bank’s negligence is the proximate cause of the loss and the
depositor is guilty of contributory negligence, we allocated the damages between the
bank and the depositor on 60-40 ratio. (Philippine National Bank vs. F. F. Cruz and Co.,
Inc., 654 SCRA 333 [2011]).
G.R. No. 175042

Danilo A. Du vs. Venancio R. Jayoma, then Municipal Mayor of Mabini, Bohol,

Vicente Gulle, Jr., Joveniano Miano, Wilfredo Mendez, Agapito Vallespin, Rene
Bucio, Jesus Tutor, Cresencio Bernales, Edgardo Ybanez and Rey Pagalan, then
members of the Sangguniang Bayan (SB) of Mabini, Bohol, respondents.

Remedial Law; Cause of Action; Elements of a Cause of Action; Words and Phrases; A
cause of action is defined as “the act or omission by which a party violates a right of
another.” Corollarily, the essential elements of a cause of action are: (1) a right in favor
of the plaintiff; (2) an obligation on the part of the defendant to respect such right; and
(3) an act or omission on the part of the defendant to respect such right; (3) an act of
omission on the part of the defendant in violation of the plaintiff’s right with a resulting
injury or damage to the plaintiff for which the latter may file an action for the recovery of
damages or other appropriate relief.

Administrative Law; Local Government Code; Cockpits and Cockfighting; It is the

Sangguniang Bayan which is empowered to “authorize and license the establishment,
operation and maintenance of cockpits, and regulate cockfighting and commercial
breeding of gamecocks.” Under Section 447 (a)(3)(v) of the LGC, it is the Sangguninang
Bayan, which is empowered to “authorize and license the establishment, operation and
maintenance of cockpits, and regulate cockpits, and regulate cockfighting and
commercial breeding of gamecocks”. Considering that no public bidding was conducted
for the operation of a cockpit from January 1, 1993 to December 31, 1997, petitioner
cannot claim that he was duly authorized by the Sangguniang Bayan to operate his
cockpit in the municipality for the period January 1, 1997 to December 31, 1997.
Respondent members of the Sangguniang Bayan, therefore, had every reason to
suspend the operation of petitioner’s cockpit by enacting Municipal Resolution No. 065,
series of 1997. As the chief executive of the municipal government, respondent mayor
was duty-bound to enforce the suspension of the operation of petitioner’s cockpit
pursuant to the said Resolution.

G.R. No. 177761

People of the Philippines v. Remedios Tangchanco y Pineda

Criminal Law; Theft; Elements of the Crime of Theft. – The elements of the crime of
Theft as provided for in Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code [RPC] are: (1) there was
taking of property; (2) property belongs to another, (3) the taking was done with intent to
gain; (4) the taking was without the consent of the owner; and (5) the taking was
accomplished without the use of violence against or intimidation of persons or force
upon things.

Remedial Law; Evidence; Circumstantial Evidence; Requisites that must concur to

prove guilt and justify conviction based on circumstantial evidence. – Circumstantial
evidence may prove the guilt of appellant and “justify a conviction if the following
requisites concur: (a) there is more than one circumstance; (b) the facts from which the
inferences are derived are proven; and (c) the combination of all circumstances is such
as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt”. In other words, “for circumstantial
evidence to be sufficient to support conviction all circumstances must be consistent with
each other, consistent with the hypothesis that the accused is guilty and at the same
time inconsistent with the hypothesis that he is innocent, and with every other rational
hypothesis except that of guilt,”

Criminal Law; Qualified Theft; Under Article 310 of the Revised Penal Code, theft
becomes qualified when it is, among others, committed with grave abuse of confidence.
The grave abuse of confidence must be the result of the relation by reason of
dependence, guardianship , or vigilance, between he appellant and the offended party
that might create a high degree of confidence between them which the appellant
abused.

G. R. No. 175139

Hermojina Estores v Sps. Arturo and Laura Supangan

When the obligation is breached, and it consists in the payment of a sum of money, ie.,
a loan or forbearance of money, the interest due should be that which may have been
stipulated in writing, and in the absence of stipulation, the rate of the interest shall be
12% per annum to be computed from default, i.e., from judicial or extrajudicial demand
under and subject to the provisions of Article 1169 of the Civil code.

Forbearance of money refers to the obligation of the creditor to desist for a fixed period
from requiring the debtor to repay the debt then due and for which 12% per annum is
imposed as interest rate.

G. R. No. 173951
Daniel M. Ison v. Antonio Galvez, Jr., and Marlow Navigation Co., LTD.,

Under Section 1(b), Rule III implementing P.D. no. 626, sickness or death is
compensable if the cause is included in the list of occupational diseases annexed to the
Rules, and if not so listed, compensation may still be recovered if the illness is caused
or precipitated by factors inherent in the employee’s work and working conditions; What
the law requires is a reasonable work-connection and not a direct causal relation – it is
sufficient that the hypothesis on which the workmen’s claim is based is probable since
probability, not certainty, is the touchstone.

If the doctor appointed by the seafarer disagrees with 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.
G. R. No. 176066
People of the Philippines v Estela Tuan y Baludda

The Supreme Court – as the staunch guardian of the citizen’s rights and welfare –
cradles no compassion to peddlers of death in our streets.

Probable cause need not be based on clear and convincing evidence of guilt, as the
investigating officer acts upon reasonable belief – probable cause implies probability of
guilt and requires more than bare suspicion but less than evidence which would justify a
conviction.

G. R. No. 175980

People of the Philippines v Adriano Cabrillas, accused, Benny Cabtalan,

Appellant.

Murder is the unlawful killing by the accused of a person, which is not parricide or
infanticide, committed with any of the attendant circumstances enumerated in Article
248 of the Revised Penal Code, among which is treachery. There is no dispute that the
killing of the victim in this case is neither parricide nor infanticide. The issue that must
therefore be resolved is whether treachery attended the killing as to qualify the crime to
murder.

The amendment of the information from homicide to murder is a substantial amendment

which would make it not just a right but a duty of the prosecution to ask for a preliminary
investigation.

Abuse of superiority is determined by the excess of the aggressor’s natural strength

over that of the victim, considering the position of both and the employment of means to
weaken the defense, although not annulling it.
The essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack on an unsuspecting
victim by the perpetrator of the crime, depriving the victim of any chance to defend
himself or repel the aggression, thus, insuring its commission without risk to the
aggressor and without any provocation on the part of the victim.

G. R. No. 174445
Sps. William Guidangen and Mary Guidangen v. Devota B. Wooden

Where the ownership of a parcel of land was decreed in the judgment, the delivery of
the possession of the land should be considered included in the decision, it appearing
that the defeated party's claim to the possession thereof is based on his claim of
ownership.

In civil case, the party having the burden of proof must establish his case by a
preponderance of evidence; Preponderance of evidence is a phrase which, in the last
analysis, means probability of the truth.
Whoever owns the property has the right to possess it.

G. R. No. 173882

Julie’s Bakeshop and/or Edgar Reyes v. Henry Arnaiz, Edgar Napal and Jonathan
Tolores

Constructive dismissal occurs when there is cessation of work because continued

employment is rendered impossible, unreasonable or unlikely, or, when there is a
demotion in rank or diminution in pay or both, or when a clear discrimination,
insensibility, or disdain by an employer becomes unbearable to the employee.

The reason why an employer has a much wider discretion in terminating the
employment of managerial personnel as compared to rank and file employees is that
officers in such key position perform not only functions which by nature require the
employer’s full trust and confidence but also functions that spell the success or failure of
a business.

G. R. No. 184606

People of the Philippines v Calexto Duque Fundales, Jr.

Conviction is proper in prosecutions involving illegal sale of dangerous drugs if the

following elements are present: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object,
and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment thereto.

In prosecutions for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the existence of dangerous drugs is
a condition sine qua non for conviction.

In a prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drug, what is crucial if the identity of the
buyer and seller, the object and its consideration, the delivery of the thing sold, and the
payment for it – there can be no such crime when nagging doubts persists on whether
the specimen submitted for examination and presented in court was what was
recovered from, or sold by, the accused.

G. R. No. 175170

Misamis Oriental II Electric Service Coop v. Virgilio M. Cagalawan

The rule is that it is within the ambit of the employer’s prerogative to transfer an
employee for valid reasons and according to the requirement of its business, provided
that the transfer does not result in demotion in rank or diminution in salary, benefits and
other privileges. This court has always considered the management’s prerogative to
transfer its employees in pursuit of its legitimate interests. But this prerogative should be
exercised without grave abuse of discretion and with due regard to the basic elements
of justice and fair play, such that if there is a showing that the transfer was unnecessary
or inconvenient and prejudicial to the employee, it cannot be upheld.

The transfer of employees has been traditionally among the acts identified as a
management prerogative subject only to limitation found in the law, collective bargaining
agreement, and general principles of fair play and justice. (Aguanza v. Asian Terminal,
Inc. 596 SCRA 104, [2009].

The determination of the continuing necessity of a particular officer or position in a

business corporation is a management prerogative, and the courts will not interfere
unless arbitrary ot malicious action on the part of the management is shown. (Lowe, Inc.
v CA, 596 SCRA 140 [2009].

G. R. No. 178431

V.C. Ponce Company, Inc. v. Municipality of Paranaque and Sampaguita Hills

Homeowners Assoc., Inc.

The period to file Motion for Reconsideration is not extendible. It is a basic rule of
Remedial Law that a motion for extension of time to file a pleading must be filed before
the expiration of the period sought to be extended. Posiquit v. People, 663 SCRA 110
[2012].

G. R. No. 159460

Solidbank Corp v. Ernesto Gamier et. al.,

G. R. No. 159461

Solidbank Corp., First Metro Investment Corp and Deogracias Vistan et. al, v.
Solidbank Union and its Dismissed Officers and Members

Article 212 of the Labor Code, as amended, defines strike as any temporary stoppage
of work by the concerted action of employees as a result of an industrial or labor
dispute. A labor dispute includes any controversy or matter concerning terms and
conditions of employment or the association or representation of persons in negotiating,
fixing, maintaining, changing or arranging the terms and conditions of employment,
regardless of whether or not the disputants stand in the proximate relation of employers
and employees. The term “strike’ shall comprise not only concerted work stoppages, but
also slowdowns, mass leaves, sitdowns, attempts to damage, destroy, or sabotage
plant equipment and facilities and similar activities. Thus, the fact that the conventional
term “strike” was not used by the striking employees to describe their common course of
action is inconsequential, since the substance of the situation, and not its appearance,
will be deemed to be controlling.
G. R. No. 176740

People v. Carlo Dumadag y Romio

The gravamen of the offense of rape is sexual intercourse with a woman against her will
or without her consent; As a rule, testimonies of child victims of rape are given full
weight and credit for youth and immaturity are badges of truth.

It is a common judicial experience that rapists are not deterred from committing their
odious act by the presence of people nearby. Lust is no respecter of time and place.

Human reactions vary and are unpredictable whe facing a shocking and horrifying
experience such as sexual assault; Not all rape victims can be expected to act
conformably to the usual expectations of everyone.
Well-settled is the rule that where the victim is threatened with bodily injury, as when the
rapist is armed with a deadly weapon, such constitutes intimidation sufficient to bring
the victim to submission to the lustful desires of the rapist.

A rape victim is oftentimes overwhelmed by fear rather than by reason.

G. R. No. 177137

People v. Pedro Banig

Conviction of rape may be solely based on the victim’s testimony provided it is credible,
natural, convincing, and consistent with human nature and the normal course of things.

There is no rule that rape can be committed only in seclusion. It is well-settled rule that
lust respects neither time nor place.

Physical resistance need not be established in rape when threats and intimidation are
employed and the victim submits herself to the embrace of her rapist because of fear.

Delay in reporting of rape incident renders the charge doubtful only if the delay in
unreasonable and unexplained. There is no uniform behavior expected of victims after
being raped.

It is well entrenched in our jurisprudence that a medical examination of the victim is not
indispensable in a prosecution for inasmuch as the victim’s testimony alone, if credible,
is sufficient to convict the accused of the crime.
G. R. No. 175256

Lily Lim v. Kou Co Ping

G. R. No. 179160

Kou Co Ping v. Lily Lim

A single act or omission that causes damage to an offended party may give rise to two
separate civil liabilities on the part of the offenders. – (1) civil liability ex delicto , that
is civil liability arising from criminal offense under Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code,
and (2) independent civil liability, that is civil liability that may be pursued
independently of the criminal proceedings. The independent civil liability may be based
on “an obligation not arising from the act or omission complained of as a felony,’ as
provided in Article 31 of the Civil Code. It may also be based on an avct or omission that
may constitute felony but, nevertheless, treated independently from the criminal action
by specific provision of Article 33 of the Civil Code (in cases of defamation, fraud and
physical injuries).

G. R. No. 175851
Emilia Lim v. Mindanao Wines & Liqour Galleria

With the insistence under the amended rules that the civil and criminal liability attaching
to the bounced check be pursued jointly, the previous option to directly pursue the civil
liability against the person who incurred the civil obligation – the corporation itself – is
no longer clear. (gosiaco v. Ching, 585 SCRA 471 [2009]).

Civil liability to the offended party cannot be denied; the payee of the check is entitled to
receive the payment of money for which the worthless check was issued. (Heirs of
Eduardo Simon v. Chan, 644 SCRA 13 [2011]).

G. R. No. 176949

Asian Construction and Development Corp., v. Lourdes K. Mendoza

Actionable Documents. A document is actionable when an action or defense is

grounded upon such writted instrument or document; These documents need not be
attached to or stated in the complaint as these are evidentiary in nature.

When the insurer alluded to an actionable document, a Marine Insurance Policy, in its
complaint, the contract of insurance between it and the insured, as integral to its cause
of action against the shipping company, said Marine Insurance Policy should have been
attached to the complaint. (Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. v. Prudential Guarantee and
Assurance, Inc. 599 SCRA 565 [2009]).
Sales invoice are not actionable documents – an invoice is nothing more than a detailed
statement of the nature, quantity and cst of the thing sold and has been considered not
a bill of a sale. (Lazaro v. Brewsmaster International, Inc, 628 SCRA 574 [2010]).

G.R. No. 190622 October 7, 2013

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, vs.RODOLFO DE JESUS Y
MENDOZA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
Art. 266-B. Penalties. - Rape under paragraph 1 of the next preceding article shall be
punished by reclusion perpetua.
Rape of a minor under 12 years of age is statutory rape. "The elements of statutory rape
are that: (a) the victim is a female under 12 years or is demented; and (b) the offender
has carnal knowledge of the victim. x x x [N]either the use of force, threat or intimidation
on the female, nor the female’s deprivation of reason or being otherwise unconscious,
nor the employment on the female of fraudulent machinations or grave abuse of
authority is necessary to commit statutory rape."

G.R. No. 183110 October 7, 2013

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, vs. AZUCENA SAAVEDRA BATUGAS,
Respondent.
"It is universally accepted that a State, in extending the privilege of citizenship to an
alien wife of one of its citizens could have had no other objective than to maintain a
unity of allegiance among the members of the family."
Under existing laws, an alien may acquire Philippine citizenship through either judicial
naturalization under CA 473 or administrative naturalization under Republic Act No.
9139 (the "Administrative Naturalization Law of 2000"). A third option, called derivative
naturalization, which is available to alien women married to Filipino husbands is found
under Section 15 of CA 473, which provides that: "any woman who is now or may
hereafter be married to a citizen of the Philippines and who might herself be lawfully
naturalized shall be deemed a citizen of the Philippines."
In Moy Ya Lim Yao v. Commissioner of Immigration:
Accordingly, We now hold, all previous decisions of this Court indicating otherwise
notwithstanding, that under Section 15 of Commonwealth Act 473, an alien woman
marrying a Filipino, native born or naturalized, becomes ipso facto a Filipina provided
she is not disqualified to be a citizen of the Philippines under Section 4 of the same law.
Likewise, an alien woman married to an alien who is subsequently naturalized here
follows the Philippine citizenship of her husband the moment he takes his oath as
Filipino citizen, provided that she does not suffer from any of the disqualifications under
said Section 4.

G.R. Nos.195011-19 September 30, 2013

GREGORIO SINGIAN, JR., Petitioner, vs. SANDIGANBAYAN (3RD DIVISION), THE
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, and THE PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSIONON GOOD
GOVERNMENT, Respondents.
The grant or denial of a Demurrer to Evidence is left to the sound discretion of the court,
and its ruling on the matter shall not be disturbed in the absence of a grave abuse of
such discretion.
Elements of Section 3(g), RA 3019
For one to be successfully prosecuted under Section 3(g) of RA 3019, the following
elements must be proven: "1) the accused is a public officer; 2) the public officer
entered into a contract or transaction on behalf of the government; and 3) the contract
or transaction was grossly and manifestly disadvantageous to the government."
"the presence or absence of the elements of the crime is evidentiary in nature and is a
matter of defense that may be passed upon after a full-blown trial on the merits," and
"the validity and merits of a party's defense or accusation, as well as admissibility of
testimonies and evidence, are better ventilated during trial proper."
When there is no showing of such grave abuse, certiorari is not the proper remedy.
The determination of the sufficiency or insufficiency of the evidence presented by the
prosecution as to establish a prima facie case against an accused is left to the exercise
of sound judicial discretion. Unless there is a clear showing of a grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, the trial court’s denial of a motion
to dismiss or a demurrer to evidence may not be disturbed.

G.R. No. 167174 September 23, 2013

SPOUSES CARMELITO and ANTONIA ALDOVER, Petitioners, vs. THE COURT OF
APPEALS
A Petition for Certiorari lies only to correct acts rendered without or in excess of
jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion. "Its principal office is only to keep the
inferior court within the parameters of its jurisdiction or to prevent it from committing
such a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction."
It is true that the buyer in a foreclosure sale becomes the absolute owner of the property
if it is not redeemed within one year from registration of the sale and title is consolidated
in his name. "As the confirmed owner, the purchaser’s right to possession becomes
absolute. There is even no need for him to post a bond, and it becomes the ministerial
duty of the courts," upon application and proof of title, to issue a Writ of Possession to
place him in possession. This rule is clear from the language of Section 33, Rule 39 of
the Rules of Court.
"between an unrecorded sale of a prior date and a recorded mortgage of a later date the
former is preferred to the latter for the reason that if the original owner had parted with
his ownership of the thing sold then he no longer had the ownership and free disposal of
that thing so as to be able to mortgage it again."
In Land Bank of the Phils. v. Continental Watchman Agency, Inc, we reiterated our ruling
that there can be no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the respondent court in
issuing a Writ of Preliminary Injunction when the parties were amply heard thereon.
We have consistently held that there is no grave abuse of discretion in the issuance of a
Writ of Preliminary Injunction where a party was not deprived of its day in court, as it
was heard and had exhaustively presented all its arguments and defenses. Hence,
when contending parties were both given ample time and opportunity to present their
respective evidence and arguments in support of their opposing contentions, no grave
abuse of discretion can be attributed to the x x x court which issued the Writ of
Preliminary Injunction, as it is given a generous latitude in this regard, pursuant to
Section 4, Rule 58 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
G.R. No. 187731 September 18, 2013
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. SPO1 ALFREDO ALAWIG,
Accused-Appellant.
The rules on evidence allow a trial court to rely on circumstantial evidence to support its
conclusion of guilt. Circumstantial evidence is that evidence "which indirectly proves a
fact in issue through an inference which the fact-finder draws from the evidence
established."
"Under Article 8 of the Revised Penal Code [RPC], there is conspiracy if two or more
persons agree to commit a felony and decide to commit it. It must be proven during trial
with the same quantum of evidence as the felony subject of the agreement of the
parties either by direct or circumstantial evidence of the conspirators’ conduct before,
during and after the commission of the felony to achieve a common design or purpose."

G.R. Nos. 171594-96 September 18, 2013

ASIA BREWERY, INC., Petitioner, vs. TUNAY NA PAGKAKAISA NG MGA
MANGGAGAWA SA ASIA (TPMA), Respondent.

In cases of compulsory arbitration before the Secretary of Labor pursuant to Article

263(g) of the Labor Code, the financial statements of the employer must be properly
audited by an external and independent auditor in order to be admissible in evidence for
purposes of determining the proper wage award.
In Restaurante Las Conchas v. Llego, several employees filed a case for illegal
dismissal after the employer closed its restaurant business. The employer sought to
justify the closure through unaudited financial statements showing the alleged losses of
the business. We ruled that such financial statements are mere self-serving declarations
and inadmissible in evidence even if the employees did not object to their presentation
before the Labor Arbiter.
In Uichico v. National Labor Relations Commission,the services of several employees
were terminated on the ground of retrenchment due to alleged serious business losses
suffered by the employer.
x x x It is true that administrative and quasi-judicial bodies like the NLRC are not bound
by the technical rules of procedure in the adjudication of cases. However, this
procedural rule should not be construed as a license to disregard certain fundamental
evidentiary rules. While the rules of evidence prevailing in the courts of law or equity are
not controlling in proceedings before the NLRC, the evidence presented before it must
at least have a modicum of admissibility for it to be given some probative value.

G.R. No. 170388 September 4, 2013

COLEGIO DEL SANTISIMO ROSARIO AND SR. ZENAIDA S. MOFADA, OP,
PETITIONERS, vs.
EMMANUEL ROJO,* RESPONDENT.

In Mercado v. AMA Computer College-Parañaque City, Inc.,32 we had occasion to rule

that cases dealing with employment on probationary status of teaching personnel are
not governed solely by the Labor Code as the law is supplemented, with respect to the
period of probation, by special rules found in the Manual of Regulations for Private
Schools (the Manual).
Section 92. Probationary Period. – Subject in all instances to compliance with the
Department and school requirements, the probationary period for academic personnel
shall not be more than three (3) consecutive years of satisfactory service for those in
the elementary and secondary levels, six (6) consecutive regular semesters of
satisfactory service for those in the tertiary level, and nine (9) consecutive trimesters of
satisfactory service for those in the tertiary level where collegiate courses are offered on
a trimester basis.
In Magis Young Achievers’ Learning Center v. Manalo, The common practice is for the
employer and the teacher to enter into a contract, effective for one school year. At the
end of the school year, the employer has the option not to renew the contract,
particularly considering the teacher’s performance. If the contract is not renewed, the
employment relationship terminates. If the contract is renewed, usually for another
school year, the probationary employment continues. Again, at the end of that period,
the parties may opt to renew or not to renew the contract.
If the termination is brought about by the completion of a contract or phase thereof, or
by failure of an employee to meet the standards of the employer in the case of
probationary employment, it shall be sufficient that a written notice is served the
employee, within a reasonable time from the effective date of termination.
As a matter of due process, teachers on probationary employment, just like all
probationary employees, have the right to know whether they have met the standards
against which their performance was evaluated. Should they fail, they also have the
right to know the reasons therefor.

G.R. No. 189822 September 2, 2013

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, vs. BRION, JOJIE
SUANSING, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

Carnal knowledge of a woman suffering from mental retardation is rape since she is
incapable of giving consent to a sexual act. Under these circumstances, all that needs
to be proved for a successful prosecution are the facts of sexual congress between the
rapist and his victim, and the latter’s mental retardation.
"[T]he crying of a victim during her testimony is evidence of the credibility of the rape
charge with the verity borne out of human nature and experience."
The mental deficiency of "AAA" does not diminish the reliability of her testimony. It has
been our consistent ruling that the RTC’s assessment of the credibility of witnesses
deserves great respect in the absence of any attendant grave abuse of discretion since
it had the advantage of actually examining the real and testimonial evidence, including
the conduct of the witnesses, and is in the best position to rule on the matter.
Even a mental retardate qualifies as a competent witness if she can perceive, and can
make known her perception to others.
Absence of fresh lacerations does not negate sexual intercourse. In fact, rupture of the
hymen is not essential as the mere introduction of the male organ in the labia majora of
the victim’s genitalia consummates the crime.
G.R. No. 178031 August 28, 2013
VIRGINIA M. VENZON, Petitioner, vs. RURAL BANK OF BUENAVISTA (AGUSAN
DEL NORTE), INC., represented by LOURDESITA E. PARAJES, Respondent.

"If an allegation is not specifically denied or the denial is a negative pregnant, the
allegation is deemed admitted."
"Where a fact is alleged with some qualifying or modifying language, and the denial is
conjunctive, a ‘negative pregnant’ exists, and only the qualification or modification is
denied, while the fact itself is admitted."
"A denial in the form of a negative pregnant is an ambiguous pleading, since it cannot
be ascertained whether it is the fact or only the qualification that is intended to be
denied."
"Profession of ignorance about a fact which is patently and necessarily within the
pleader's knowledge, or means of knowing as ineffectual, is no denial at all."

G.R. No. 172293 August 28, 2013

ARACELI J. CABRERA and ARNEL CABRERA and in behalf of the heirs of
SEVERINO CABRERA, Petitioners, vs. ANGELA G. FRANCISCO, FELIPE C.
GELLA, VICTOR C. CELLA, ELENA LEILANI G. REYES, MA. RIZALINA G.ILIGAN
and DIANA ROSE GELLA, Respondents.

"The nature of an action, as well as which court or body has jurisdiction over it, is
determined based on the allegations contained in the Complaint of the plaintiffs x x x.
The averments in the Complaint and the character of the relief sought arc the ones to
be consulted.” This is because the jurisdiction of the court is determined by the nature
of the action pleaded as appearing from the allegations in the Complaint.

G.R. No. 174727 August 12, 2013

ANTIPOLO INING vs. LEONARDO R. VEGA,

One who is merely related by affinity to the decedent does not inherit from the latter and
cannot become a co-owner of the decedent’s property. Consequently, he cannot effect a
repudiation of the co-ownership of the estate that was formed among the decedent’s
heirs.
Time and again, it has been held that "a co-owner cannot acquire by prescription the
share of the other co-owners, absent any clear repudiation of the co-ownership. In order
that the title may prescribe in favor of a co-owner, the following requisites must concur:
(1) the co-owner has performed unequivocal acts of repudiation amounting to an ouster
of the other co-owners; (2) such positive acts of repudiation have been made known to
the other co-owners; and (3) the evidence thereof is clear and convincing."
In 1943, Leon remained the rightful owner of the land, and Lucimo Sr. knew this very
well, being married to Teodora, daughter of Antipolo, a nephew of Leon. More
significantly, the property, which is registered under the Torrens system and covered by
OCT RO-630, is in Leon’s name. Leon’s ownership ceased only in 1962, upon his death
when the property passed on to his heirs by operation of law.
G.R. No. 185549 August 7, 2013
VICENTE ANG, PETITIONER, vs. CEFERINO SAN JOAQUIN, JR., AND DIOSDADO
FERNANDEZ, RESPONDENTS.

Respondents did not pray for reinstatement, this is no valid indication that they
abandoned their employment. It is, on the other hand, proof of strained relations, such
that they would seek separation pay and risk unemployment, rather than fight for their
reinstatement and maintain themselves under petitioner’s employ.
The immediate filing of the labor case negates the claim of abandonment. Employees
who immediately protest their dismissal, as by filing a labor case, cannot logically be
said to have abandoned their employment.
An employee cannot be expected to work efficiently in an atmosphere where the
employer’s hostility pervades; certainly, it is too stressful and depressing – the threat of
immediate termination from work, if not aggression, is a heavy burden carried on the
employee’s shoulder. Respondents may have stayed away from work to cool off, but not
necessarily to abandon their employment.

G.R. No. 179648 August 7, 2013

PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, PETITIONER, vs. MARY SHEILA ARCOBILLAS,
RESPONDENT.

"The rule is well-settled that the filing of a [M]otion for [R]econsideration is an

indispensable condition to the filing of a special civil action for certiorari”
It bears to stress that the filing of a Motion for Reconsideration is not a mere technicality
of procedure. It is a jurisdictional and mandatory requirement which must be strictly
complied with.Thus, PNB’s "failure to file a [M]otion for [R]econsideration with the NLRC
before availing [itself] of the special civil action for certiorari is a fatal infirmity." In view
thereof, the CA erred in entertaining the Petition for Certiorari filed before it. It follows,
therefore, that the proceedings before it and its assailed Decision are considered null
and void.

G.R. No. 181359 August 5, 2013

SPOUSES CLEMENCIO C. SABITSANA, JR. and MA. ROSARIO M. SABITSANA,
Petitioners, vs. JUANITO F. MUERTEGUI, represented by his Attorney-in-Fact
DOMINGO A. MUERTEGUI, JR., Respondent.

A lawyer may not, for his own personal interest and benefit, gamble on his client's word,
believing it at one time and disbelieving it the next. He owes his client his undivided
loyalty.

G.R. No.179326 July 31, 2013

LUCIANO P. CANEDO,* Petitioner, vs. KAMPILAN SECURITY AND DETECTIVE
AGENCY, INC. and RAMONCITO L. ARQUIZA, Respondents.

In illegal dismissal cases, "while the employer bears the burden x x x to prove that the
termination was for a valid or authorized cause, the employee must first establish by
substantial evidence the fact of dismissal from service." The burden of proving the
allegations rests upon the party alleging and the proof must be clear, positive and
convincing. Thus, in this case, it is incumbent upon petitioner to prove his claim of
dismissal.
The fact of dismissal must be evidenced by positive and overt acts of an employer
indicating an intention to dismiss.
"Such a ‘floating status’ is lawful and not unusual for security guards employed in
security agencies as their assignments primarily depend on the contracts entered into
by the agency with third parties." A floating status can ripen into constructive dismissal
only when it goes beyond the six-month maximum period allowed by law.

G.R. No. 182280 July 29, 2013

TERESA C. AGUILAR, CESAR D. RAAGAS, VILLAMOR VILLEGAS, and THE
REGISTER OF DEEDS FOR THE CITY OF MAKATI,* Petitioners, vs. MICHAEL J.
O'PALLICK, Respondent.

"The principle that a person cannot be prejudiced by a ruling rendered in an action or

proceeding in which he was not made a party conforms to the constitutional guarantee
of due process of law."
Thus, we agree with the CA’s pronouncement that since respondent was not impleaded
in the HLURB case, he could not be bound by the decision rendered therein. Because
he was not impleaded in said case; he was not given the opportunity to present his case
therein. But, more than the fact that O’Pallick was not impleaded in the HLURB case, he
had the right to vindicate his claim in a separate action, as in this case. As a prior
purchaser of the very same condominium unit, he had the right to be heard on his claim.

G.R. No. 190524 February 17, 2014

MICHAELINA RAMOS BALASBAS, Petitioner, vs.PATRICIA B. MONAYAO,
Respondent.

Government workers, whatever their ranks, have as much right as any person in the
land to voiceout their protests against what they believe to be a violation of their rights
and interests.
The law and justice abhor all forms of abuse committed by public officers and
employees whose sworn duty is to discharge their duties with utmost responsibility,
integrity, competence, accountability, and loyalty, the Court must protect them against
unsubstantiated charges that tend to adversely affect, rather than encourage, the
effective performance of their duties and functions.
G.R. No. 171590 February 12, 2014
BIGNA Y EX-IM PHILIPPINES, INC., Petitioner, vs.UNION BANK OF THE
PIDLIPPINES, Respondent.

G.R. No.171598
UNION BANK OF THE PIDLIPPINES, Petitioner, vs.BIGNAY EX-IM PHILIPPINES,
INC., Respondent.

The gross negligence of the seller in defending its title to the property subject matter of
the sale - thereby contravening the express undertaking under the deed of sale to
protect its title against the claims of third persons resulting in the buyer's eviction from
the property -. amounts to bad faith, and the buyer is entitled to the remedies afforded
under Article 1555 of the Civil Code.
“Negligence may be occasionally so gross as to amount to malice [or bad faith].”
Indeed, in culpa contractual or breach of contract, gross negligence of a party
amounting to bad faith is a ground for the recovery of damages by the injured party.

G.R. No. 190621 February 10, 2014

PEOPLE OF THE PIDLIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. GLENN SALVADOR y
BALVERDE, Accused-Appellant.

Section 21(a) of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of R.A. No. 9165
provides that non-compliance with the procedure shall not render void and invalid the
seizure of and custody of the drugs only when: (1) such non-compliance was under
justifiable grounds; and (2) the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are
properly preserved by the apprehending team. There must be proof that these two (2)
requirements were met before any such non-compliance may be said to fall within the
scope of the proviso.

G.R. No. 195525 February 5, 2014

PEOPLE OF THE PIDLIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. WILFREDO GUNDA alias
FRED, Accused-Appellant.

Under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, the penalty for murder is reclusion
perpetua to death.
“There is treachery when the offender commits a crime 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 the offended
party might make.” It is not a circumstance which would aggravate or qualify the crime.
There being no other aggravating circumstance other than the qualifying circumstance
of treachery, the proper imposable penalty is reclusion perpetua, the lower of the two
indivisible penalties.
“It must be emphasized, however, that [appellant is] not eligible for parole pursuant to
Section 3 of Republic Act No. 9346 which states that ‘persons convicted of offenses
punished with reclusion perpetua, or whose sentence will be reduced to reclusion
perpetua by reason of this Act, shall not be eligible for parole under Act No. 4180,
otherwise known as the Indeterminate Sentence Law, as amended”

G.R. No. 185145 February 5, 2014

SPOUSES VICENTE AFULUGENCIA and LETICIA AFULUGENCIA, Petitioners, vs.
METROPOLITAN BANK & TRUST CO. and EMMANUEL L. ORTEGA, Clerk of
Court, Regional Trial Court and Ex-Officio Sheriff, Province of Bulacan,
Respondents.

Section 6,1 Rule 25 of the Rules of Court (Rules) provides that "a party not served with
written interrogatories may not be compelled by the adverse party to give testimony in
open court, or to give a deposition pending appeal." The provision seeks to prevent
fishing expeditions and needless delays. Its goal is to maintain order and facilitate the
conduct of trial.

G.R. No. 191215 February 3, 2014

THENAMARIS PHILIPPINES, INC. (Formerly INTERMARE MARITIME AGENCIES,
INC.)/ OCEANIC NAVIGATION LTD. and NICANOR B. ALTARES, Petitioners,
vs.
COURT OF APPEALS and AMANDA C. MENDIGORIN (In behalf of her deceased
husband GUILLERMO MENDIGORIN), Respondents.

a decision that has acquired finality becomes immutable and unalterable and may no
longer be modified in any respect, even if the modification is meant to correct erroneous
conclusions of fact or law and whether it will be made by the court that rendered it or by
the highest court of the land. All the issues between the parties are deemed resolved
and laid to rest once a judgment becomes final and executory; execution of the decision
proceeds as a matter of right as vested rights are acquired by the winning party. Just as
a losing party has the right to appeal within the prescribed period, the winning party has
the correlative right to enjoy the finality of the decision on the case. After all, a denial of
a petition for being time-barred is tantamount to a decision on the merits. Otherwise,
there will be no end to litigation, and this will set to naught the main role of courts of
justice to assist in the enforcement of the rule of law and the maintenance of peace and
order by settling justiciable controversies with finality.

G.R. No. 196435 January 29, 2014

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee vs. JOEL CRISOSTOMO y
MALLIAR,1 Accused-Appellant.

When the offended party is of tender age and immature, courts are inclined to give
credit to her account of what transpired, considering not only her relative vulnerability
but also the shame to which she would be exposed if the matter to which she testified is
not true.
The gravamen of the crime of rape by sexual assault x x x is the insertion of the penis
into another person’s mouth or anal orifice, or any instrument or object, into another
person’s genital or anal orifice."25 In any event, "inconsistencies in a rape victim’s
testimony do not impair her credibility, especially if the inconsistencies refer to trivial
matters that do not alter the essential fact of the commission of rape."
When the offended party is under 12 years of age, the crime committed is "termed
statutory rape as it departs from the usual modes of committing rape. What the law
punishes is carnal knowledge of a woman below 12 years of age. Thus, the only subject
of inquiry is the age of the woman and whether carnal knowledge took place.

G.R. No. 191189 January 29, 2014

MANLAR RICE MILL, INC., Petitioner, vs. LOURDES L. DEYTO, doing business
under the trade name "J.D. Grains Center" and JENNELITA DEYTO ANG, a.k.a.
"JANET ANG," Respondents.

As a general rule, a contract affects only the parties to it, and cannot be enforced by or
against a person who is not a party thereto.
In civil cases, the quantum of proof required is preponderance of evidence, which
connotes "that evidence that is of greater weight or is more convincing than that which
is in opposition to it. It does not mean absolute truth; rather, it means that the testimony
of one side is more believable than that of the other side, and that the probability of truth
is on one side than on the other."
It is a basic rule in evidence that he who alleges must prove his case or claim by the
degree of evidence required.

G.R. No. 178184 January 29, 2014

GRAND ASIAN SHIPPING LINES, INC., EDUARDO P. FRANCISCO and WILLIAM
HOW, Petitioners, vs. WILFREDO GALVEZ, JOEL SALES, CRISTITO GRUTA,
DANILO ARGUELLES, RENATO BATAYOLA, PATRICIO FRESMILLO,* JOVY
NOBLE, EMILIO DOMINICO, BENNY NILMAO, and JOSE AUSTRAL, Respondents.

The employer has broader discretion in dismissing managerial employees on the

ground of loss of trust and confidence than those occupying ordinary ranks. While plain
accusations are not sufficient to justify the dismissal of rank and file employees, the
mere existence of a basis for believing that managerial employees have breached the
trust reposed on them by their employer would suffice to justify their dismissal
ART. 223. Appeal. – Decisions, awards, or orders of the Labor Arbiter are final and
executory unless appealed to the Commission by any or both parties within ten (10)
calendar days from receipt of such decisions, awards, or orders.
Nonetheless, we have consistently held that rules should not be applied in a very rigid
and strict sense.This is especially true in labor cases wherein the substantial merits of
the case must accordingly be decided upon to serve the interest of justice. When there
has been substantial compliance, relaxation of the Rules is warranted.
The rule that the employer bears the burden of proof in illegal dismissal cases finds no
application when the employer denies having dismissed the employee. The employee
must first establish by substantial evidence the fact of dismissal59 before shifting to the
employer the burden of proving the validity of such dismissal.
G.R. No. 194612 January 27, 2014
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. FLORO MANIGO y
MACALUA, Accused-Appellant.

Rape is generally unwitnessed and oftentimes, the victim is left to testify for herself
Thus, in resolving rape cases, the victim's credibility becomes the primordial
consideration. If a victim's testimony is straightforward, convincing and consistent with
human nature and the normal course of things, unflawed by any material or significant
inconsistency, it passes the test of credibility and the accused may be convicted solely
on the basis thereof.
In Vidar v. People,the Court laid down the following:
In ascertaining whether an out-of-court identification is positive or derivative, the Court
has adopted the totality of circumstances test wherein the following factors are taken
into consideration: (1) the witness’s opportunity to view the criminal at the time of the
crime; (2) the witness’s degree of attention at that time; (3) the accuracy of any prior
description given by the witness; (4) the level of certainty demonstrated by the witness
at the identification; (5) the length of time between the crime and the identification; and
(6) the suggestiveness of the identification procedure.
In People v. Rivera, it was ruled that "even assuming arguendo that the out-of-court
identification was defective, the defect was cured by the subsequent positive
identification in court for the ‘inadmissibility of a police line-up identification x x x should
not necessarily foreclose the admissibility of an independent in-court identification.’"

G.R. No. 180972 January 20, 2014

JONAS MICHAEL R. GARZA, Petitioner, vs.COCA-COLA BOTILERS PHILIPPINES,
INC. and CHRISTINE BANAL/CALIXTO MANAIG, Respondents.

Unsubstantiated accusations or baseless conclusions of the employer are insufficient

legal justifications to dismiss an employee. "The unflinching rule in illegal dismissal
cases is that the employer bears the burden of proof”

G.R. No. 192371 January 15, 2014

LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, vs. EMMANUEL OÑATE,
Respondent.

In every case, the depositor expects the bank to treat his account with the utmost
fidelity, whether such account consists only of a few hundred pesos or of millions. The
bank must record every single transaction accurately, down to the last centavo and as
promptly as possible. This has to be done if the account is to reflect at any given time
the amount of money the depositor can dispose of as he sees fit, confident that the
bank will deliver it as and to whomever he directs.

The point is that as a business affected with public interest and because of the nature of
its functions, the bank is under obligations to treat the accounts of its depositors with
meticulous care, always having in mind the fiduciary nature of their relationship.
Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas Circular No. 799, Series of2013, which took effect on July
1, 2013. Hence, the 12% annual interest mentioned above shall apply only up to June
30, 2013. Thereafter, or starting July 1, 2013, the applicable rate of interest for both the
debited amount and undocumented withdrawals shall be 6% per annum compounded
annually, until fully paid.

G.R. No. 183918 January 15, 2014

FRANCISCO LIM, Petitioner, vs. EQUITABLE PCI BANK, now known as the
BANCO DE ORO UNIBANK, INC.,* Respondent.

The basic rule is that he who alleges must prove his case.
"Art. 160. All property of the marriage is presumed to belong to the conjugal partnership,
unless it be proved that it pertains exclusively to the husband or to the wife."
The presumption applies to property acquired during the lifetime of the husband and
wife. In this case, it appears on the face of the title that the properties were acquired by
Donata Montemayor when she was already a widow. When the property is registered in
the name of a spouse only and there is no showing as to when the property was
acquired by said spouse, this is an indication that the property belongs exclusively to
said spouse. And this presumption under Article 160 of the Civil Code cannot prevail
when the title is in the name of only one spouse and the rights of innocent third parties
are involved.

G.R. No. 176043 January 15, 2014

SPOUSES BERNADETTE and RODULFO VILBAR, Petitioners, vs. ANGELITO L.
OPINION, Respondent.

It is worth stressing at this point that bad faith cannot be presumed. "It is a question of
fact that must be proven"by clear and convincing evidence. The burden of proving bad
faith rests on the one alleging it."
"Registration is the operative act which gives validity to the transfer or creates a lien
upon the land."
It is a fundamental principle in land registration that a certificate of title serves as
evidence of an indefeasible and incontrovertible title to the property in favor of the
person whose name appears therein.

G.R. No. 192034 January 13, 2014

ALPHA SHIP MANAGEMENT CORPORATION/JUNEL M CHAN and/or CHUO-
KAIUN COMPANY, LIMITED, Petitioners, vs. ELEOSIS V. CALO, Respondent.

An employee s disability becomes permanent and total when so declared by the

company-designated physician, or, in case of absence of such a declaration either of
fitness or permanent total disability, upon the lapse of the 120-or 240-day treatment
period, while the employee s disability continues and he is unable to engage in gainful
employment during such period, and the company-designated physician fails to arrive at
a definite assessment of the employee s fitness or disability.
It is settled that the above provisions of the Labor Code and the Amended Rules on
Employees Compensation on disabilities apply to seafarers;42 the POEA Standard
Employment Contract, which respondent holds, is not the sole basis for determining
their rights in the event of work-related injury, illness or death. It may likewise be true
that under respondent’s POEA Standard Employment Contract, only those injuries or
disabilities that are classified as Grade 1 are considered total and permanent. However,
the Court has made it clear, in Kestrel Shipping Co., Inc. v. Munar, that –
x x x if those injuries or disabilities with a disability grading from 2 to 14, hence, partial
and permanent, would incapacitate a seafarer from performing his usual sea duties for a
period of more than 120 or 240 days, depending on the need for further medical
treatment, then he is, under legal contemplation, totally or permanently disabled. In
other words, an impediment should be characterized as partial and permanent not only
under the Schedule of Disabilities found in Section 32 of the POEA-SEC but should be
so under the relevant provisions of the Labor Code and the Amended Rules on
Employee[s] Compensation (AREC) implementing Title II, Book IV of the Labor Code.
That while the seafarer is partially injured or disabled, he is not precluded from earning
doing [sic] the same work he had before his injury or disability or that he is accustomed
or trained to do. Otherwise, if his illness or injury prevents him from engaging in gainful
employment for more than 120 or 240 days, as the case may be, he shall be deemed
totally and permanently disabled.

G.R. No. 183204 January 13, 2014

THE METROPOLITAN BANK AND TRUST COMPANY, Petitioner, vs. ANA GRACE
ROSALES AND YO YUK TO, Respondents.

Bank deposits, which are in the nature of a simple loan or mutuum, must be paid upon
demand by the depositor.
it must be stressed that while we recognize that petitioner has the right to protect itself
from fraud or suspicions of fraud, the exercise of his right should be done within the
bounds of the law and in accordance with due process, and not in bad faith or in a
wanton disregard of its contractual obligation to respondents.
The "Hold Out" clause applies only if there is a valid and existing obligation arising from
any of the sources of obligation enumerated in Article 115779 of the Civil Code, to wit:
law, contracts, quasi-contracts, delict, and quasi-delict. In this case, petitioner failed to
show that respondents have an obligation to it under any law, contract, quasi-contract,
delict, or quasi-delict.
And although a criminal case was filed by petitioner against respondent Rosales, this is
not enough reason for petitioner to issue a "Hold Out" order as the case is still pending
and no final judgment of conviction has been rendered against respondent Rosales. In
fact, it is significant to note that at the time petitioner issued the "Hold Out" order, the
criminal complaint had not yet been filed. Thus, considering that respondent Rosales is
not liable under any of the five sources of obligation, there was no legal basis for
petitioner to issue the "Hold Out" order.
G.R. No. 189840 December 11, 2013
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. JAY MONTEVIRGEN y
OZARAGA, Accused-Appellant.

The failure of the prosecution to show that the police officers conducted the required
physical inventory and take photograph of the objects confiscated does not ipso facto
render inadmissible in evidence the items seized. There is a proviso in the implementing
rules stating that when it is shown that there exist justifiable grounds and proof that the
integrity and evidentiary value of the evidence have been preserved, the seized items
can still be used in determining the guilt or innocence of the accused.

G.R. NO. 192105 December 9, 2013

ANTONIO LOCSIN, II, Petitioner, vs. MEKENI FOOD CORPORATION, Respondent.

In the absence of specific terms and conditions governing a car plan agreement
between the employer and employee former may not retain the instalment payments
made by the latter on the car plan and treat them as rents for the use of the service
vehicle, in the event that the employee ceases his employment and is unable to
complete the instalment payments on the vehicle. The underlying reason is that the
service vehicle was precisely used in the former’s business; any personal benefit
obtained by the employee from its use is merely incidental.
There is unjust enrichment ''when a person unjustly retains a benefit to the loss of
another, or when a person retains money or property of another against the
fundamental principles of justice, equity and good conscience." The principle of unjust
enrichment requires two conditions: (1) that a person is benefited without a valid basis
or justification, and (2) that such benefit is derived at the expense of another. The main
objective of the principle against unjust enrichment is to prevent one from enriching
himself at the expense of another without just cause or consideration

G.R. No. 194169 December 4, 2013

ROMEO R. ARAULLO, Petitioner, vs. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, HON.
MERCEDITAS N. GUTIERREZ, HON. GERARDO C. NOGRALES, HON. ROMEO L.
GO, HON. PERLITA B. VELASCO, and ARDEN S. ANNI, Respondents.

A public officer who acts pursuant to the dictates of law and within the limits of allowable
discretion can hardly be considered guilty of misconduct.
"A void judgment or order has no legal and binding effect, force or efficacy for any
purpose. In contemplation of law, it is non-existent. It is not even necessary to take any
steps to vacate or avoid a void judgment or final order; it may simply be ignored."
"Misconduct is a transgression of some established and definite rule of action, more
particularly, unlawful behaviour or gross negligence by a public officer. x x x [And when]
the elements of corruption, clear intent to violate the law or flagrant disregard of
established rule [are] manifest,"
G.R. No. 175356 December 3, 2013
MANILA MEMORIAL PARK, INC. AND LA FUNERARIA PAZ-SUCAT, INC.,
Petitioners, vs. SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE AND
DEVELOPMENT and THE SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE,
Respondents.

When a party challenges the constitutionality of a law, the burden of proof rests upon
him.
When the constitutionality of a law is put in issue, judicial review may be availed of only
if the following requisites concur: "(1) the existence of an actual and appropriate case;
(2) the existence of personal and substantial interest on the part of the party raising the
[question of constitutionality]; (3) recourse to judicial review is made at the earliest
opportunity; and (4) the [question of constitutionality] is the lis mota of the case."
Validity of the tax deduction scheme as a reimbursement mechanism for the twenty
percent (20%) discount that they extend to senior citizens. Based on the afore-stated
DOF Opinion, the tax deduction scheme does not fully reimburse petitioners for the
discount privilege accorded to senior citizens. This is because the discount is treated as
a deduction, a tax-deductible expense that is subtracted from the gross income and
results in a lower taxable income. Stated otherwise, it is an amount that is allowed by
law to reduce the income prior to the application of the tax rate to compute the amount
of tax which is due. Being a tax deduction, the discount does not reduce taxes owed on
a peso for peso basis but merely offers a fractional reduction in taxes owed.
Theoretically, the treatment of the discount as a deduction reduces the net income of
the private establishments concerned.

G.R. NO. 184496 December 2, 2013

HADJI HASHIM ABDUL, Petitioner, vs. HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN (FIFTH
DIVISION) and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.

Mattel, Inc. v. Francisco we have ruled that "[w]here the issue has become moot and
academic, there is no justiciable controversy, and an adjudication thereof would be of no
practical use or value as courts do not sit to adjudicate mere academic questions to
satisfy scholarly interest however intellectually challenging."
The acquittal of herein petitioner operates as a supervening event that mooted the
present Petition. Any resolution on the validity or invalidity of the issuance of the order of
suspension could no longer affect his rights as a ranking public officer, for legally
speaking he did not commit the offense charged.

A.C. No. 4549 December 2, 2013

NESTOR FELIPE, ALBERTO V. FELIPE, AURORA FELIPE-ORANTE, ASUNCION
FELIPE-DOMINGO, MILAGROS FELIPE CABIGTING, and RODOLFO V. FELIPE,
Complainants, vs. ATTY. CIRIACO A. MACAPAGAL, Respondent.

x x x it is imperative to first determine whether the matter falls within the disciplinary
authority of the Court or whether the matter is a proper subject of judicial action against
lawyers. If the matter involves violations of the lawyer's oath and code of conduct, then
it falls within the Court's disciplinary authority. However, if the matter arose from acts
which carry civil or criminal liability, and which do not directly require an inquiry into the
moral fitness of the lawyer, then the matter would be a proper subject of a judicial action
which is understandably outside the purview of the Court's disciplinary authority. x x x

G.R. No. 191756 November 25, 2013

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. JONAS GUILLEN y
ATIENZA, Accused-Appellant.

A person who is accused of a felony/offense which he did not commit should be as

BOLD and FEROCIOUS as a LION in protecting the trampled rights as an innocent
person.

Appellant claims that his silence should not be used against him as he was just
exercising his constitutional right to remain silent.
The failure of "AAA" to shout for help and seek assistance should not be construed as
consent, or as voluntarily engaging in an illicit relationship with the appellant, as implied
by the defense. It would be recalled that appellant poked a knife at "AAA’s" neck. Such
threat of immediate danger to her life cowed "AAA" to submit to the carnal desires of the
appellant.
Hymenal laceration, whether fresh or healed, is not an element of the crime of rape.
Even a medical examination is not necessary as it is merely corroborative. As we
mentioned before, the fact of rape in this case was satisfactorily established by the
testimony of "AAA" alone.

G.R. No. 180200 November 25, 2013

DIGITAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS PHILIPPINES, INC., Petitioner, vs. JESSIE E.
CANTOS, Respondent.

"It is of the utmost importance x x x that the modes adopted to enforce the taxes levied
should be interfered with as little as possible. Any delay in the proceedings of the
officers, upon whom the duty is devolved of collecting the taxes, may derange the
operations of government, and thereby cause serious detriment to the public."
"Contempt of court is defined as a disobedience to the court by acting in opposition to
its authority, justice, and dignity. It signifies not only a wilful disregard or disobedience of
the court’s order, but such conduct which tends to bring the authority of the court and
the administration of law into disrepute or, in some manner, to impede the due
administration of justice. It is a defiance of the authority, justice, or dignity of the court
which tends to bring the authority and administration of the law into disrespect or to
interfere with or prejudice party-litigants or their witnesses during litigation."
In PLDT v. City of Davao the Court held that ‘tax exemptions should be granted only by
clear and unequivocal provision of law on the basis of language too plain to be
mistaken. They cannot be extended by mere implication or inference.
G.R. No. 184565 November 20, 2013
MANOLITO DE LEON and LOURDES E. DE LEON, Petitioners, vs. BANK OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

"In the course of trial in a civil case, once plaintiff makes out a prima facie case in his
favor, the duty or the burden of evidence shifts to defendant to controvert plaintiffs prima
facie case, otherwise, a verdict must be returned in favor of plaintiff."
Testimonial evidence, to be believed, must come not only from the mouth of a credible
witness, but must also "be credible, reasonable, and in accord with human experience."
A credible witness must, therefore, be able to narrate a convincing and logical story.
The mere loss of the mortgaged vehicle does not automatically relieve petitioner-
spouses of their obligation.

A.C. No. 10043 November 20, 2013

AURORA H. CABAUATAN, Complainant, vs. ATTY. FREDDIE A. VENIDA,
Respondent.

When a lawyer takes a client's cause, he covenants that he will exercise due diligence
in protecting the latter's rights. Failure to exercise that degree of vigilance and attention
expected of a good father of a family makes the lawyer unworthy of the trust reposed on
him by his client and makes him answerable not just to his client but also to the legal
profession, the courts and society
As an officer of the court, [he] is expected to know that a resolution of this Court is not a
mere request but an order which should be complied with promptly and completely. This
is also true of the orders of the IBP as the investigating arm of the Court in
administrative cases against lawyers.
Respondent should strive harder to live up to his duties of observing and maintaining
the respect due to the courts, respect for law and for legal processes, and of upholding
the integrity and dignity of the legal profession in order to perform his responsibilities as
a lawyer effectively.

A.C. No. 5239 November 18, 2013

SPOUSES GEORGE A. WARRINER and AURORA R. WARRINER, Complainants,
vs. ATTY. RENI M. DUBLIN, Respondent.

If respondent truly believes that the exhibits to be presented in evidence by his clients
were fabricated, then he has the option to withdraw from the case. Canon 22 allows a
lawyer to withdraw his services for good cause such as "[w]hen the client pursues an
illegal or immoral course of conduct with the matter he is handling" or "[w]hen the client
insists that the lawyer pursue conduct violative of these canons and rules."
As a lawyer and an officer of the Court, he "owes candor, fairness and good faith to the
court." He "shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court; nor shall
he mislead, or allow the Court to be misled by any artifice."
"Suspension is not primarily intended as a punishment but a means to protect the public
and the legal profession."
A.C. No. 8954 November 13, 2013
HON. MARIBETH RODRIGUEZ-MANAHAN, Presiding Judge, Municipal Trial Court,
San Mateo, Rizal, Complainant, vs. ATTY. RODOLFO FLORES, Respondent.

A lawyer owes absolute fidelity to the cause of his client full devotion to his client's
genuine interest and warm zeal in the maintenance and defense of his client's rights, as
well as the exertion of his utmost learning and ability, he must do so only within the
bounds of law. A lawyer is entitled to voice his criticism within the context of the
constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech which must be exercised responsibly.
After all, every right carries with it the corresponding obligation. Freedom is not freedom
from responsibility, but freedom with responsibility. The lawyer's fidelity to his client must
not be pursued at the expense of truth and orderly administration of justice. It must be
done within the confines of reason and common sense.

G.R. No. 192183 November 11, 2013

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. ANDY ZULIETA a.k.a.
"Bogarts," Accused-Appellant.

"The essence of treachery is that the attack comes without a warning and in a swift,
deliberate, and unexpected manner, affording the hapless, unarmed, and unsuspecting
victim no chance to resist or escape."

G.R. No. 181473 November 11, 2013

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. DONEY GADUYON y
TAPISPISAN, Accused-Appellant.

Rape can now be committed either through sexual intercourse or through sexual
assault. In rape under sexual intercourse, carnal knowledge is the crucial element which
must be proven beyond reasonable doubt. This is also referred to as "organ rape" or
"penile rape". There must be evidence to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the
perpetrator’s penis touched the labia of the victim or slid into her female organ, and not
merely stroked the external surface thereof, to ensure his conviction of rape by sexual
intercourse.
On the other hand, rape under sexual assault. The perpetrator, under any of the
attendant circumstances, commits this kind of rape by inserting his penis into another
person’s mouth or anal orifice, or any instrument or object into the genital or anal orifice
of another person. It is also called "instrument or object rape", also "gender-free rape",
or the narrower "homosexual rape."
On the other hand, RA 7610, otherwise known as the "Special Protection of Children
Against Child Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act", defines and penalizes child
prostitution and other sexual abuse. "Sexual abuse includes the employment, use,
persuasion, inducement, enticement or coercion of a child to engage in, or assist
another person to engage in, sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct or the
molestation, prostitution, or incest with children. Lascivious conduct means the
intentional touching, either directly or through clothing, of the genitalia, anus, groin,
breast, inner thigh, or buttocks, or the introduction of any object into the genitalia, anus
or mouth, of any person, whether of the same or opposite sex, with an intent to abuse,
humiliate, harass, degrade, or arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person,
bestiality, masturbation, lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of a person."
it is noteworthy that even without said psychiatric test, the finding of the trial court would
still be affirmed considering that the sole testimony of the victim is sufficient basis for
conviction in rape.

A.C. No. 9385 November 11, 2013

MARIANO AGADAN, EDEN MOLLEJON, ARSENIO IGME, JOSE NUMBAR, CECILIA
LANGAWAN, PABLO PALMA, JOSELITO CLAVERIA, MIGUEL FLORES, and
ALBERT GAYDOWEN, Complainants, vs. ATTY. RICHARD BALTAZAR KILAAN,
Respondent.

In Gemina v. Atty. Madamba,we have also ruled that –

x x x The inaccuracies in his Notarial Register entitles and his failure to enter the
documents that he admittedly notarized constitute dereliction of duty as a notary public.
He cannot escape liability by putting the blame on his secretary. The lawyer himself, not
merely his secretary, should be held accountable for these misdeeds.
A notary public is empowered to perform a variety of notarial acts, most common of
which are the acknowledgement and affirmation of documents or instruments. In the
performance of these notarial acts, the notary public must be mindful of the significance
of the notarial seal affixed on documents. The notarial seal converts a document from a
private to a public instrument, after which it may be presented as evidence without need
for proof of its genuineness and due execution.1âwphi1 Thus, notarization should not
be treated as an empty, meaningless or routinary act. A notary public exercises duties
calling for caretl1lness and faithfulness. Notaries must inform themselves of the facts
they certify to; most importantly, they should not take pmt or allow themselves to be pmt
of illegal transactions.
Under the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, the respondent s failure to make the proper
entry or entries in his Notarial Register of his notarial acts, his failure to require the
presence of a principal at the time of the notarial acts, and his failure to identify a
principal on the basis of personal knowledge by competent evidence are grounds for the
revocation of a lawyer s commission as a notary public.

G.R. No. 191362 October 9, 2013

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs.MARCIANO CIAL y LORENA,
Accused-Appellant.

Testimonies of child-victims are normally given full weight and credit, since when a girl,
particularly if she is a minor, says that she has been raped, she says in effect all that is
necessary to show that rape has in fact been committed. When the offended party is of
tender age and immature, courts are inclined to give credit to her account of what
transpired, considering not only her relative vulnerability but also the shame to which
she would be exposed if the matter to which she testified is not true. Youth and
immaturity are generally badges of truth and sincerity. Considering her tender age, AAA
could not have invented a horrible story.
In any case, a medical examination is not even indispensable in prosecuting a rape
charge. In fact, an accused’s conviction for rape may be anchored solely on the
testimony of the victim. At best, the medical examination would only serve as
corroborative evidence.
The terms "common-law husband" and "step-father" have different legal connotations.
For appellant to be a step-father to "AAA," he must be legally married to "AAA's"
mother.
Suffice it to state that qualifying circumstances must be proved beyond reasonable
doubt just like the crime itself. In this case, the prosecution utterly tailed to prove beyond
reasonable doubt the qualifying circumstances of minority and relationship. As such,
appellant should only be convicted of the crime of simple rape.

G. R. No. 175055

LBP v. Heirs of Maximo Puyat and Gloria Puyat

Although Presidential Decree No. 27 states that the tenant-farmers are already deemed
owners of the land they till, it is understood tat full payment of just compensation has to
be made first before title is transferred to them. (Mago v Barbin, 603 SCRA 383 [2009]).

The concept of just compensation and timely payment, it embraces not only the correct
determination of the amount to be paid to the landowner but also the payment of the
land within a reasonable time from its taking.

G. R. No. 174181

Andre L. D’ Aigle v. People of the Philippines

In any event, a judgment of conviction, pursuant to Section 2, Rule 120 of the Rules of
Court, is sufficient if it states: “(1) the legal qualification of the offense constituted by the
acts committed by the accused and the aggravating or mitigating circumstances which
attended its commission; (2) the participation of the accused in the offense, whether as
principal, accomplice or accessory; (3) the penalty imposed upon the accused; and (4)
the civil liability or damages caused by his wrongful act or omission to be recovered
from the accused by the offended party, if there is any, unless the enforcement of the
civil liability by a separate civil action has been reserved or waived.’
G. R. No. 175430

Republic v. Kerry Lao Ong

Constitutional Law.

Naturalization should be rigidly enforced and strictly construed in favor of the

government and against the applicant. The courts must always be mindful that
naturalization proceedings are imbued with the highest public interest. The burden of
proof rest upon the applicant to show full and complete compliance with the
requirements of the law.

G. R. No. 173531

Leoncio C. Oliveros and Heirs of Lucio De La Cruz v. San Miguel Corp., Registry
of Deeds Caloocan and Valenzuela, MM

Civil Law;Property;LTD
The principle that the earlier title prevails over a subsequent one applies when there are
two apparent valid titles over a single property. The existence of the earlier valid title
renders the subsequent title void because a single property cannot be registered twice.
As stated in Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage Systems V. CA, 215 SCRA 783
(1992), which the petitioners themselves cite, “a certificated is not conclusive evidence
of title if it shown that the same land had already been registered and an earlier
certificate for the same is in existence.” Clearly, a mere allegation of an earlier title will
not suffice.

G. R. No. 173774

Manila Electric Company v. Ma. Luisa Beltran

Labor Law. Termination of employment

Lost of Trust and Confidence. For Loss of trust and confidence to be a valid ground for
dismissal, it must be based on a willful breach of trust and founded on clearly
established facts. A breach is willful if it is done intentionally, knowingly and purposely,
without justifiable excuse, as distinguished from an act done carelessly, thoughtlessly,
heedlessly or inadvertently. In addition, loss of trust and confidence must rest on
substantial ground and not on the employer’s arbitrariness, whims, caprices or
suspicion.

The elements of simple negligence are: (1) that there is lack of precaution on the part of
the offender; and (2) that the damage impending to be caused is not immediate or the
damage is not clearly manifest. (Gaid v. People, 584 SCRA 489 [2009]).
G. R. No. 179497
People v. Renandang Mamaruncas, Pendatum Ampuan and Baginda Palao

Remedial Law; Evidence

The Supreme Court has held that although there may be inconsistencies in the
testimonies on minor details, they do not impair their credibility where there is
consistency in relating the principal occurrence and positive identification of the
assailant.

Witnessing a crime is an unusual experience which elicits different reactions from the
witnesses and for which no clear-cut standard from of behavior can be drawn.

For treachery to qualify to murder, the prosecution had to prove (1) that accused used
means to ensure his safety from the victims defensive or retaliatory acts; and (2) that
accused deliberately adopted such means.

The essence of treachery is the sudden attackby an aggressor without the slightest
provocation on the part of the victim, depriving the latter of any real chance to defend
himself, thereby ensuring the commission of the crime without risk to the aggressor.
(People v. Sanchez, 622 SCRA 548, [2010]).

G.R. No. 190622 October 7, 2013

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, vs.RODOLFO DE JESUS Y
MENDOZA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

Art. 266-B. Penalties. - Rape under paragraph 1 of the next preceding article shall be
punished by reclusion perpetua.
Rape of a minor under 12 years of age is statutory rape. "The elements of statutory rape
are that: (a) the victim is a female under 12 years or is demented; and (b) the offender
has carnal knowledge of the victim. x x x [N]either the use of force, threat or intimidation
on the female, nor the female’s deprivation of reason or being otherwise unconscious,
nor the employment on the female of fraudulent machinations or grave abuse of
authority is necessary to commit statutory rape."

G.R. No. 183110 October 7, 2013

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, vs. AZUCENA SAAVEDRA BATUGAS,
Respondent.

"It is universally accepted that a State, in extending the privilege of citizenship to an

alien wife of one of its citizens could have had no other objective than to maintain a
unity of allegiance among the members of the family."
Under existing laws, an alien may acquire Philippine citizenship through either judicial
naturalization under CA 473 or administrative naturalization under Republic Act No.
9139 (the "Administrative Naturalization Law of 2000"). A third option, called derivative
naturalization, which is available to alien women married to Filipino husbands is found
under Section 15 of CA 473, which provides that: "any woman who is now or may
hereafter be married to a citizen of the Philippines and who might herself be lawfully
naturalized shall be deemed a citizen of the Philippines."
In Moy Ya Lim Yao v. Commissioner of Immigration:
Accordingly, We now hold, all previous decisions of this Court indicating otherwise
notwithstanding, that under Section 15 of Commonwealth Act 473, an alien woman
marrying a Filipino, native born or naturalized, becomes ipso facto a Filipina provided
she is not disqualified to be a citizen of the Philippines under Section 4 of the same law.
Likewise, an alien woman married to an alien who is subsequently naturalized here
follows the Philippine citizenship of her husband the moment he takes his oath as
Filipino citizen, provided that she does not suffer from any of the disqualifications under
said Section 4.

G.R. Nos.195011-19 September 30, 2013

GREGORIO SINGIAN, JR., Petitioner, vs. SANDIGANBAYAN (3RD DIVISION), THE
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, and THE PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSIONON GOOD
GOVERNMENT, Respondents.

The grant or denial of a Demurrer to Evidence is left to the sound discretion of the court,
and its ruling on the matter shall not be disturbed in the absence of a grave abuse of
such discretion.
Elements of Section 3(g), RA 3019
For one to be successfully prosecuted under Section 3(g) of RA 3019, the following
elements must be proven: "1) the accused is a public officer; 2) the public officer
entered into a contract or transaction on behalf of the government; and 3) the contract
or transaction was grossly and manifestly disadvantageous to the government."
"the presence or absence of the elements of the crime is evidentiary in nature and is a
matter of defense that may be passed upon after a full-blown trial on the merits," and
"the validity and merits of a party's defense or accusation, as well as admissibility of
testimonies and evidence, are better ventilated during trial proper."
When there is no showing of such grave abuse, certiorari is not the proper remedy.
The determination of the sufficiency or insufficiency of the evidence presented by the
prosecution as to establish a prima facie case against an accused is left to the exercise
of sound judicial discretion. Unless there is a clear showing of a grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, the trial court’s denial of a motion
to dismiss or a demurrer to evidence may not be disturbed.

G.R. No. 167174 September 23, 2013

SPOUSES CARMELITO and ANTONIA ALDOVER, Petitioners, vs. THE COURT OF
APPEALS

A Petition for Certiorari lies only to correct acts rendered without or in excess of
jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion. "Its principal office is only to keep the
inferior court within the parameters of its jurisdiction or to prevent it from committing
such a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction."
It is true that the buyer in a foreclosure sale becomes the absolute owner of the property
if it is not redeemed within one year from registration of the sale and title is consolidated
in his name. "As the confirmed owner, the purchaser’s right to possession becomes
absolute. There is even no need for him to post a bond, and it becomes the ministerial
duty of the courts," upon application and proof of title, to issue a Writ of Possession to
place him in possession. This rule is clear from the language of Section 33, Rule 39 of
the Rules of Court.
"between an unrecorded sale of a prior date and a recorded mortgage of a later date the
former is preferred to the latter for the reason that if the original owner had parted with
his ownership of the thing sold then he no longer had the ownership and free disposal of
that thing so as to be able to mortgage it again."
In Land Bank of the Phils. v. Continental Watchman Agency, Inc, we reiterated our ruling
that there can be no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the respondent court in
issuing a Writ of Preliminary Injunction when the parties were amply heard thereon.
We have consistently held that there is no grave abuse of discretion in the issuance of a
Writ of Preliminary Injunction where a party was not deprived of its day in court, as it
was heard and had exhaustively presented all its arguments and defenses. Hence,
when contending parties were both given ample time and opportunity to present their
respective evidence and arguments in support of their opposing contentions, no grave
abuse of discretion can be attributed to the x x x court which issued the Writ of
Preliminary Injunction, as it is given a generous latitude in this regard, pursuant to
Section 4, Rule 58 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.

G.R. No. 187731 September 18, 2013

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. SPO1 ALFREDO ALAWIG,
Accused-Appellant.

The rules on evidence allow a trial court to rely on circumstantial evidence to support its
conclusion of guilt. Circumstantial evidence is that evidence "which indirectly proves a
fact in issue through an inference which the fact-finder draws from the evidence
established."
"Under Article 8 of the Revised Penal Code [RPC], there is conspiracy if two or more
persons agree to commit a felony and decide to commit it. It must be proven during trial
with the same quantum of evidence as the felony subject of the agreement of the
parties either by direct or circumstantial evidence of the conspirators’ conduct before,
during and after the commission of the felony to achieve a common design or purpose."

G.R. Nos. 171594-96 September 18, 2013

ASIA BREWERY, INC., Petitioner, vs. TUNAY NA PAGKAKAISA NG MGA
MANGGAGAWA SA ASIA (TPMA), Respondent.

In cases of compulsory arbitration before the Secretary of Labor pursuant to Article

263(g) of the Labor Code, the financial statements of the employer must be properly
audited by an external and independent auditor in order to be admissible in evidence for
purposes of determining the proper wage award.
In Restaurante Las Conchas v. Llego, several employees filed a case for illegal
dismissal after the employer closed its restaurant business. The employer sought to
justify the closure through unaudited financial statements showing the alleged losses of
the business. We ruled that such financial statements are mere self-serving declarations
and inadmissible in evidence even if the employees did not object to their presentation
before the Labor Arbiter.
In Uichico v. National Labor Relations Commission,the services of several employees
were terminated on the ground of retrenchment due to alleged serious business losses
suffered by the employer.
x x x It is true that administrative and quasi-judicial bodies like the NLRC are not bound
by the technical rules of procedure in the adjudication of cases. However, this
procedural rule should not be construed as a license to disregard certain fundamental
evidentiary rules. While the rules of evidence prevailing in the courts of law or equity are
not controlling in proceedings before the NLRC, the evidence presented before it must
at least have a modicum of admissibility for it to be given some probative value.

G.R. No. 170388 September 4, 2013

COLEGIO DEL SANTISIMO ROSARIO AND SR. ZENAIDA S. MOFADA, OP,
PETITIONERS, vs.
EMMANUEL ROJO,* RESPONDENT.

In Mercado v. AMA Computer College-Parañaque City, Inc.,32 we had occasion to rule

that cases dealing with employment on probationary status of teaching personnel are
not governed solely by the Labor Code as the law is supplemented, with respect to the
period of probation, by special rules found in the Manual of Regulations for Private
Schools (the Manual).
Section 92. Probationary Period. – Subject in all instances to compliance with the
Department and school requirements, the probationary period for academic personnel
shall not be more than three (3) consecutive years of satisfactory service for those in
the elementary and secondary levels, six (6) consecutive regular semesters of
satisfactory service for those in the tertiary level, and nine (9) consecutive trimesters of
satisfactory service for those in the tertiary level where collegiate courses are offered on
a trimester basis.
In Magis Young Achievers’ Learning Center v. Manalo, The common practice is for the
employer and the teacher to enter into a contract, effective for one school year. At the
end of the school year, the employer has the option not to renew the contract,
particularly considering the teacher’s performance. If the contract is not renewed, the
employment relationship terminates. If the contract is renewed, usually for another
school year, the probationary employment continues. Again, at the end of that period,
the parties may opt to renew or not to renew the contract.
If the termination is brought about by the completion of a contract or phase thereof, or
by failure of an employee to meet the standards of the employer in the case of
probationary employment, it shall be sufficient that a written notice is served the
employee, within a reasonable time from the effective date of termination.
As a matter of due process, teachers on probationary employment, just like all
probationary employees, have the right to know whether they have met the standards
against which their performance was evaluated. Should they fail, they also have the
right to know the reasons therefor.

G.R. No. 189822 September 2, 2013

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, vs. BRION, JOJIE
SUANSING, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

Carnal knowledge of a woman suffering from mental retardation is rape since she is
incapable of giving consent to a sexual act. Under these circumstances, all that needs
to be proved for a successful prosecution are the facts of sexual congress between the
rapist and his victim, and the latter’s mental retardation.
"[T]he crying of a victim during her testimony is evidence of the credibility of the rape
charge with the verity borne out of human nature and experience."
The mental deficiency of "AAA" does not diminish the reliability of her testimony. It has
been our consistent ruling that the RTC’s assessment of the credibility of witnesses
deserves great respect in the absence of any attendant grave abuse of discretion since
it had the advantage of actually examining the real and testimonial evidence, including
the conduct of the witnesses, and is in the best position to rule on the matter.
Even a mental retardate qualifies as a competent witness if she can perceive, and can
make known her perception to others.
Absence of fresh lacerations does not negate sexual intercourse. In fact, rupture of the
hymen is not essential as the mere introduction of the male organ in the labia majora of
the victim’s genitalia consummates the crime.

G.R. No. 178031 August 28, 2013

VIRGINIA M. VENZON, Petitioner, vs. RURAL BANK OF BUENAVISTA (AGUSAN
DEL NORTE), INC., represented by LOURDESITA E. PARAJES, Respondent.

"If an allegation is not specifically denied or the denial is a negative pregnant, the
allegation is deemed admitted."
"Where a fact is alleged with some qualifying or modifying language, and the denial is
conjunctive, a ‘negative pregnant’ exists, and only the qualification or modification is
denied, while the fact itself is admitted."
"A denial in the form of a negative pregnant is an ambiguous pleading, since it cannot
be ascertained whether it is the fact or only the qualification that is intended to be
denied."
"Profession of ignorance about a fact which is patently and necessarily within the
pleader's knowledge, or means of knowing as ineffectual, is no denial at all."
G.R. No. 172293 August 28, 2013
ARACELI J. CABRERA and ARNEL CABRERA and in behalf of the heirs of
SEVERINO CABRERA, Petitioners, vs. ANGELA G. FRANCISCO, FELIPE C.
GELLA, VICTOR C. CELLA, ELENA LEILANI G. REYES, MA. RIZALINA G.ILIGAN
and DIANA ROSE GELLA, Respondents.

"The nature of an action, as well as which court or body has jurisdiction over it, is
determined based on the allegations contained in the Complaint of the plaintiffs x x x.
The averments in the Complaint and the character of the relief sought arc the ones to
be consulted.” This is because the jurisdiction of the court is determined by the nature
of the action pleaded as appearing from the allegations in the Complaint.

G.R. No. 174727 August 12, 2013

ANTIPOLO INING vs. LEONARDO R. VEGA,

One who is merely related by affinity to the decedent does not inherit from the latter and
cannot become a co-owner of the decedent’s property. Consequently, he cannot effect a
repudiation of the co-ownership of the estate that was formed among the decedent’s
heirs.
Time and again, it has been held that "a co-owner cannot acquire by prescription the
share of the other co-owners, absent any clear repudiation of the co-ownership. In order
that the title may prescribe in favor of a co-owner, the following requisites must concur:
(1) the co-owner has performed unequivocal acts of repudiation amounting to an ouster
of the other co-owners; (2) such positive acts of repudiation have been made known to
the other co-owners; and (3) the evidence thereof is clear and convincing."
In 1943, Leon remained the rightful owner of the land, and Lucimo Sr. knew this very
well, being married to Teodora, daughter of Antipolo, a nephew of Leon. More
significantly, the property, which is registered under the Torrens system and covered by
OCT RO-630, is in Leon’s name. Leon’s ownership ceased only in 1962, upon his death
when the property passed on to his heirs by operation of law.

G.R. No. 185549 August 7, 2013

VICENTE ANG, PETITIONER, vs. CEFERINO SAN JOAQUIN, JR., AND DIOSDADO
FERNANDEZ, RESPONDENTS.

Respondents did not pray for reinstatement, this is no valid indication that they
abandoned their employment. It is, on the other hand, proof of strained relations, such
that they would seek separation pay and risk unemployment, rather than fight for their
reinstatement and maintain themselves under petitioner’s employ.
The immediate filing of the labor case negates the claim of abandonment. Employees
who immediately protest their dismissal, as by filing a labor case, cannot logically be
said to have abandoned their employment.
An employee cannot be expected to work efficiently in an atmosphere where the
employer’s hostility pervades; certainly, it is too stressful and depressing – the threat of
immediate termination from work, if not aggression, is a heavy burden carried on the
employee’s shoulder. Respondents may have stayed away from work to cool off, but not
necessarily to abandon their employment.

G.R. No. 179648 August 7, 2013

PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, PETITIONER, vs. MARY SHEILA ARCOBILLAS,
RESPONDENT.

"The rule is well-settled that the filing of a [M]otion for [R]econsideration is an

indispensable condition to the filing of a special civil action for certiorari”
It bears to stress that the filing of a Motion for Reconsideration is not a mere technicality
of procedure. It is a jurisdictional and mandatory requirement which must be strictly
complied with.Thus, PNB’s "failure to file a [M]otion for [R]econsideration with the NLRC
before availing [itself] of the special civil action for certiorari is a fatal infirmity." In view
thereof, the CA erred in entertaining the Petition for Certiorari filed before it. It follows,
therefore, that the proceedings before it and its assailed Decision are considered null
and void.

G.R. No. 181359 August 5, 2013

SPOUSES CLEMENCIO C. SABITSANA, JR. and MA. ROSARIO M. SABITSANA,
Petitioners, vs. JUANITO F. MUERTEGUI, represented by his Attorney-in-Fact
DOMINGO A. MUERTEGUI, JR., Respondent.

A lawyer may not, for his own personal interest and benefit, gamble on his client's word,
believing it at one time and disbelieving it the next. He owes his client his undivided
loyalty.

G.R. No.179326 July 31, 2013

LUCIANO P. CANEDO,* Petitioner, vs. KAMPILAN SECURITY AND DETECTIVE
AGENCY, INC. and RAMONCITO L. ARQUIZA, Respondents.

In illegal dismissal cases, "while the employer bears the burden x x x to prove that the
termination was for a valid or authorized cause, the employee must first establish by
substantial evidence the fact of dismissal from service." The burden of proving the
allegations rests upon the party alleging and the proof must be clear, positive and
convincing. Thus, in this case, it is incumbent upon petitioner to prove his claim of
dismissal.
The fact of dismissal must be evidenced by positive and overt acts of an employer
indicating an intention to dismiss.
"Such a ‘floating status’ is lawful and not unusual for security guards employed in
security agencies as their assignments primarily depend on the contracts entered into
by the agency with third parties." A floating status can ripen into constructive dismissal
only when it goes beyond the six-month maximum period allowed by law.
G.R. No. 182280 July 29, 2013
TERESA C. AGUILAR, CESAR D. RAAGAS, VILLAMOR VILLEGAS, and THE
REGISTER OF DEEDS FOR THE CITY OF MAKATI,* Petitioners, vs. MICHAEL J.
O'PALLICK, Respondent.

"The principle that a person cannot be prejudiced by a ruling rendered in an action or

proceeding in which he was not made a party conforms to the constitutional guarantee
of due process of law."
Thus, we agree with the CA’s pronouncement that since respondent was not impleaded
in the HLURB case, he could not be bound by the decision rendered therein. Because
he was not impleaded in said case; he was not given the opportunity to present his case
therein. But, more than the fact that O’Pallick was not impleaded in the HLURB case, he
had the right to vindicate his claim in a separate action, as in this case. As a prior
purchaser of the very same condominium unit, he had the right to be heard on his claim.

G.R. No. 190524 February 17, 2014

MICHAELINA RAMOS BALASBAS, Petitioner, vs.PATRICIA B. MONAYAO,
Respondent.

Government workers, whatever their ranks, have as much right as any person in the
land to voiceout their protests against what they believe to be a violation of their rights
and interests.
The law and justice abhor all forms of abuse committed by public officers and
employees whose sworn duty is to discharge their duties with utmost responsibility,
integrity, competence, accountability, and loyalty, the Court must protect them against
unsubstantiated charges that tend to adversely affect, rather than encourage, the
effective performance of their duties and functions.

G.R. No. 171590 February 12, 2014

BIGNA Y EX-IM PHILIPPINES, INC., Petitioner, vs.UNION BANK OF THE
PIDLIPPINES, Respondent.
x-----------------------x
G.R. No.171598
UNION BANK OF THE PIDLIPPINES, Petitioner, vs.BIGNAY EX-IM PHILIPPINES,
INC., Respondent.

The gross negligence of the seller in defending its title to the property subject matter of
the sale - thereby contravening the express undertaking under the deed of sale to
protect its title against the claims of third persons resulting in the buyer's eviction from
the property -. amounts to bad faith, and the buyer is entitled to the remedies afforded
under Article 1555 of the Civil Code.
“Negligence may be occasionally so gross as to amount to malice [or bad faith].”
Indeed, in culpa contractual or breach of contract, gross negligence of a party
amounting to bad faith is a ground for the recovery of damages by the injured party.
G.R. No. 190621 February 10, 2014
PEOPLE OF THE PIDLIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. GLENN SALVADOR y
BALVERDE, Accused-Appellant.

Section 21(a) of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of R.A. No. 9165
provides that non-compliance with the procedure shall not render void and invalid the
seizure of and custody of the drugs only when: (1) such non-compliance was under
justifiable grounds; and (2) the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are
properly preserved by the apprehending team. There must be proof that these two (2)
requirements were met before any such non-compliance may be said to fall within the
scope of the proviso.

G.R. No. 195525 February 5, 2014

PEOPLE OF THE PIDLIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. WILFREDO GUNDA alias
FRED, Accused-Appellant.

Under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, the penalty for murder is reclusion
perpetua to death.
“There is treachery when the offender commits a crime 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 the offended
party might make.” It is not a circumstance which would aggravate or qualify the crime.
There being no other aggravating circumstance other than the qualifying circumstance
of treachery, the proper imposable penalty is reclusion perpetua, the lower of the two
indivisible penalties.
“It must be emphasized, however, that [appellant is] not eligible for parole pursuant to
Section 3 of Republic Act No. 9346 which states that ‘persons convicted of offenses
punished with reclusion perpetua, or whose sentence will be reduced to reclusion
perpetua by reason of this Act, shall not be eligible for parole under Act No. 4180,
otherwise known as the Indeterminate Sentence Law, as amended”

G.R. No. 185145 February 5, 2014

SPOUSES VICENTE AFULUGENCIA and LETICIA AFULUGENCIA, Petitioners, vs.
METROPOLITAN BANK & TRUST CO. and EMMANUEL L. ORTEGA, Clerk of
Court, Regional Trial Court and Ex-Officio Sheriff, Province of Bulacan,
Respondents.

Section 6,1 Rule 25 of the Rules of Court (Rules) provides that "a party not served with
written interrogatories may not be compelled by the adverse party to give testimony in
open court, or to give a deposition pending appeal." The provision seeks to prevent
fishing expeditions and needless delays. Its goal is to maintain order and facilitate the
conduct of trial.
G.R. No. 191215 February 3, 2014
THENAMARIS PHILIPPINES, INC. (Formerly INTERMARE MARITIME AGENCIES,
INC.)/ OCEANIC NAVIGATION LTD. and NICANOR B. ALTARES, Petitioners,
vs.
COURT OF APPEALS and AMANDA C. MENDIGORIN (In behalf of her deceased
husband GUILLERMO MENDIGORIN), Respondents.

a decision that has acquired finality becomes immutable and unalterable and may no
longer be modified in any respect, even if the modification is meant to correct erroneous
conclusions of fact or law and whether it will be made by the court that rendered it or by
the highest court of the land. All the issues between the parties are deemed resolved
and laid to rest once a judgment becomes final and executory; execution of the decision
proceeds as a matter of right as vested rights are acquired by the winning party. Just as
a losing party has the right to appeal within the prescribed period, the winning party has
the correlative right to enjoy the finality of the decision on the case. After all, a denial of
a petition for being time-barred is tantamount to a decision on the merits. Otherwise,
there will be no end to litigation, and this will set to naught the main role of courts of
justice to assist in the enforcement of the rule of law and the maintenance of peace and
order by settling justiciable controversies with finality.

G.R. No. 196435 January 29, 2014

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee vs. JOEL CRISOSTOMO y
MALLIAR,1 Accused-Appellant.

When the offended party is of tender age and immature, courts are inclined to give
credit to her account of what transpired, considering not only her relative vulnerability
but also the shame to which she would be exposed if the matter to which she testified is
not true.
The gravamen of the crime of rape by sexual assault x x x is the insertion of the penis
into another person’s mouth or anal orifice, or any instrument or object, into another
person’s genital or anal orifice."25 In any event, "inconsistencies in a rape victim’s
testimony do not impair her credibility, especially if the inconsistencies refer to trivial
matters that do not alter the essential fact of the commission of rape."
When the offended party is under 12 years of age, the crime committed is "termed
statutory rape as it departs from the usual modes of committing rape. What the law
punishes is carnal knowledge of a woman below 12 years of age. Thus, the only subject
of inquiry is the age of the woman and whether carnal knowledge took place.

G.R. No. 191189 January 29, 2014

MANLAR RICE MILL, INC., Petitioner, vs. LOURDES L. DEYTO, doing business
under the trade name "J.D. Grains Center" and JENNELITA DEYTO ANG, a.k.a.
"JANET ANG," Respondents.

As a general rule, a contract affects only the parties to it, and cannot be enforced by or
against a person who is not a party thereto.
In civil cases, the quantum of proof required is preponderance of evidence, which
connotes "that evidence that is of greater weight or is more convincing than that which
is in opposition to it. It does not mean absolute truth; rather, it means that the testimony
of one side is more believable than that of the other side, and that the probability of truth
is on one side than on the other."
It is a basic rule in evidence that he who alleges must prove his case or claim by the
degree of evidence required.

G.R. No. 178184 January 29, 2014

GRAND ASIAN SHIPPING LINES, INC., EDUARDO P. FRANCISCO and WILLIAM
HOW, Petitioners, vs. WILFREDO GALVEZ, JOEL SALES, CRISTITO GRUTA,
DANILO ARGUELLES, RENATO BATAYOLA, PATRICIO FRESMILLO,* JOVY
NOBLE, EMILIO DOMINICO, BENNY NILMAO, and JOSE AUSTRAL, Respondents.

The employer has broader discretion in dismissing managerial employees on the

ground of loss of trust and confidence than those occupying ordinary ranks. While plain
accusations are not sufficient to justify the dismissal of rank and file employees, the
mere existence of a basis for believing that managerial employees have breached the
trust reposed on them by their employer would suffice to justify their dismissal
ART. 223. Appeal. – Decisions, awards, or orders of the Labor Arbiter are final and
executory unless appealed to the Commission by any or both parties within ten (10)
calendar days from receipt of such decisions, awards, or orders.
Nonetheless, we have consistently held that rules should not be applied in a very rigid
and strict sense.This is especially true in labor cases wherein the substantial merits of
the case must accordingly be decided upon to serve the interest of justice. When there
has been substantial compliance, relaxation of the Rules is warranted.
The rule that the employer bears the burden of proof in illegal dismissal cases finds no
application when the employer denies having dismissed the employee. The employee
must first establish by substantial evidence the fact of dismissal59 before shifting to the
employer the burden of proving the validity of such dismissal.

G.R. No. 194612 January 27, 2014

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. FLORO MANIGO y
MACALUA, Accused-Appellant.

Rape is generally unwitnessed and oftentimes, the victim is left to testify for herself
Thus, in resolving rape cases, the victim's credibility becomes the primordial
consideration. If a victim's testimony is straightforward, convincing and consistent with
human nature and the normal course of things, unflawed by any material or significant
inconsistency, it passes the test of credibility and the accused may be convicted solely
on the basis thereof.
In Vidar v. People,the Court laid down the following:
In ascertaining whether an out-of-court identification is positive or derivative, the Court
has adopted the totality of circumstances test wherein the following factors are taken
into consideration: (1) the witness’s opportunity to view the criminal at the time of the
crime; (2) the witness’s degree of attention at that time; (3) the accuracy of any prior
description given by the witness; (4) the level of certainty demonstrated by the witness
at the identification; (5) the length of time between the crime and the identification; and
(6) the suggestiveness of the identification procedure.
In People v. Rivera, it was ruled that "even assuming arguendo that the out-of-court
identification was defective, the defect was cured by the subsequent positive
identification in court for the ‘inadmissibility of a police line-up identification x x x should
not necessarily foreclose the admissibility of an independent in-court identification.’"

G.R. No. 180972 January 20, 2014

JONAS MICHAEL R. GARZA, Petitioner, vs.COCA-COLA BOTILERS PHILIPPINES,
INC. and CHRISTINE BANAL/CALIXTO MANAIG, Respondents.

Unsubstantiated accusations or baseless conclusions of the employer are insufficient

legal justifications to dismiss an employee. "The unflinching rule in illegal dismissal
cases is that the employer bears the burden of proof”

G.R. No. 192371 January 15, 2014

LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, vs. EMMANUEL OÑATE,
Respondent.

In every case, the depositor expects the bank to treat his account with the utmost
fidelity, whether such account consists only of a few hundred pesos or of millions. The
bank must record every single transaction accurately, down to the last centavo and as
promptly as possible. This has to be done if the account is to reflect at any given time
the amount of money the depositor can dispose of as he sees fit, confident that the
bank will deliver it as and to whomever he directs.

The point is that as a business affected with public interest and because of the nature of
its functions, the bank is under obligations to treat the accounts of its depositors with
meticulous care, always having in mind the fiduciary nature of their relationship.
Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas Circular No. 799, Series of2013, which took effect on July
1, 2013. Hence, the 12% annual interest mentioned above shall apply only up to June
30, 2013. Thereafter, or starting July 1, 2013, the applicable rate of interest for both the
debited amount and undocumented withdrawals shall be 6% per annum compounded
annually, until fully paid.

G.R. No. 183918 January 15, 2014

FRANCISCO LIM, Petitioner, vs. EQUITABLE PCI BANK, now known as the
BANCO DE ORO UNIBANK, INC.,* Respondent.

The basic rule is that he who alleges must prove his case.
"Art. 160. All property of the marriage is presumed to belong to the conjugal partnership,
unless it be proved that it pertains exclusively to the husband or to the wife."
The presumption applies to property acquired during the lifetime of the husband and
wife. In this case, it appears on the face of the title that the properties were acquired by
Donata Montemayor when she was already a widow. When the property is registered in
the name of a spouse only and there is no showing as to when the property was
acquired by said spouse, this is an indication that the property belongs exclusively to
said spouse. And this presumption under Article 160 of the Civil Code cannot prevail
when the title is in the name of only one spouse and the rights of innocent third parties
are involved.

G.R. No. 176043 January 15, 2014

SPOUSES BERNADETTE and RODULFO VILBAR, Petitioners, vs. ANGELITO L.
OPINION, Respondent.

It is worth stressing at this point that bad faith cannot be presumed. "It is a question of
fact that must be proven"by clear and convincing evidence. The burden of proving bad
faith rests on the one alleging it."
"Registration is the operative act which gives validity to the transfer or creates a lien
upon the land."
It is a fundamental principle in land registration that a certificate of title serves as
evidence of an indefeasible and incontrovertible title to the property in favor of the
person whose name appears therein.

G.R. No. 192034 January 13, 2014

ALPHA SHIP MANAGEMENT CORPORATION/JUNEL M CHAN and/or CHUO-
KAIUN COMPANY, LIMITED, Petitioners, vs. ELEOSIS V. CALO, Respondent.

An employee s disability becomes permanent and total when so declared by the

company-designated physician, or, in case of absence of such a declaration either of
fitness or permanent total disability, upon the lapse of the 120-or 240-day treatment
period, while the employee s disability continues and he is unable to engage in gainful
employment during such period, and the company-designated physician fails to arrive at
a definite assessment of the employee s fitness or disability.
It is settled that the above provisions of the Labor Code and the Amended Rules on
Employees Compensation on disabilities apply to seafarers;42 the POEA Standard
Employment Contract, which respondent holds, is not the sole basis for determining
their rights in the event of work-related injury, illness or death. It may likewise be true
that under respondent’s POEA Standard Employment Contract, only those injuries or
disabilities that are classified as Grade 1 are considered total and permanent. However,
the Court has made it clear, in Kestrel Shipping Co., Inc. v. Munar, that –
x x x if those injuries or disabilities with a disability grading from 2 to 14, hence, partial
and permanent, would incapacitate a seafarer from performing his usual sea duties for a
period of more than 120 or 240 days, depending on the need for further medical
treatment, then he is, under legal contemplation, totally or permanently disabled. In
other words, an impediment should be characterized as partial and permanent not only
under the Schedule of Disabilities found in Section 32 of the POEA-SEC but should be
so under the relevant provisions of the Labor Code and the Amended Rules on
Employee[s] Compensation (AREC) implementing Title II, Book IV of the Labor Code.
That while the seafarer is partially injured or disabled, he is not precluded from earning
doing [sic] the same work he had before his injury or disability or that he is accustomed
or trained to do. Otherwise, if his illness or injury prevents him from engaging in gainful
employment for more than 120 or 240 days, as the case may be, he shall be deemed
totally and permanently disabled.

G.R. No. 183204 January 13, 2014

THE METROPOLITAN BANK AND TRUST COMPANY, Petitioner, vs. ANA GRACE
ROSALES AND YO YUK TO, Respondents.

Bank deposits, which are in the nature of a simple loan or mutuum, must be paid upon
demand by the depositor.
it must be stressed that while we recognize that petitioner has the right to protect itself
from fraud or suspicions of fraud, the exercise of his right should be done within the
bounds of the law and in accordance with due process, and not in bad faith or in a
wanton disregard of its contractual obligation to respondents.
The "Hold Out" clause applies only if there is a valid and existing obligation arising from
any of the sources of obligation enumerated in Article 115779 of the Civil Code, to wit:
law, contracts, quasi-contracts, delict, and quasi-delict. In this case, petitioner failed to
show that respondents have an obligation to it under any law, contract, quasi-contract,
delict, or quasi-delict.
And although a criminal case was filed by petitioner against respondent Rosales, this is
not enough reason for petitioner to issue a "Hold Out" order as the case is still pending
and no final judgment of conviction has been rendered against respondent Rosales. In
fact, it is significant to note that at the time petitioner issued the "Hold Out" order, the
criminal complaint had not yet been filed. Thus, considering that respondent Rosales is
not liable under any of the five sources of obligation, there was no legal basis for
petitioner to issue the "Hold Out" order.

G.R. No. 189840 December 11, 2013

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. JAY MONTEVIRGEN y
OZARAGA, Accused-Appellant.

The failure of the prosecution to show that the police officers conducted the required
physical inventory and take photograph of the objects confiscated does not ipso facto
render inadmissible in evidence the items seized. There is a proviso in the implementing
rules stating that when it is shown that there exist justifiable grounds and proof that the
integrity and evidentiary value of the evidence have been preserved, the seized items
can still be used in determining the guilt or innocence of the accused.

G.R. NO. 192105 December 9, 2013

ANTONIO LOCSIN, II, Petitioner, vs. MEKENI FOOD CORPORATION, Respondent.

In the absence of specific terms and conditions governing a car plan agreement
between the employer and employee former may not retain the instalment payments
made by the latter on the car plan and treat them as rents for the use of the service
vehicle, in the event that the employee ceases his employment and is unable to
complete the instalment payments on the vehicle. The underlying reason is that the
service vehicle was precisely used in the former’s business; any personal benefit
obtained by the employee from its use is merely incidental.
There is unjust enrichment ''when a person unjustly retains a benefit to the loss of
another, or when a person retains money or property of another against the
fundamental principles of justice, equity and good conscience." The principle of unjust
enrichment requires two conditions: (1) that a person is benefited without a valid basis
or justification, and (2) that such benefit is derived at the expense of another. The main
objective of the principle against unjust enrichment is to prevent one from enriching
himself at the expense of another without just cause or consideration

G.R. No. 194169 December 4, 2013

ROMEO R. ARAULLO, Petitioner, vs. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, HON.
MERCEDITAS N. GUTIERREZ, HON. GERARDO C. NOGRALES, HON. ROMEO L.
GO, HON. PERLITA B. VELASCO, and ARDEN S. ANNI, Respondents.

A public officer who acts pursuant to the dictates of law and within the limits of allowable
discretion can hardly be considered guilty of misconduct.
"A void judgment or order has no legal and binding effect, force or efficacy for any
purpose. In contemplation of law, it is non-existent. It is not even necessary to take any
steps to vacate or avoid a void judgment or final order; it may simply be ignored."
"Misconduct is a transgression of some established and definite rule of action, more
particularly, unlawful behaviour or gross negligence by a public officer. x x x [And when]
the elements of corruption, clear intent to violate the law or flagrant disregard of
established rule [are] manifest,"

G.R. No. 175356 December 3, 2013

MANILA MEMORIAL PARK, INC. AND LA FUNERARIA PAZ-SUCAT, INC.,
Petitioners, vs. SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE AND
DEVELOPMENT and THE SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE,
Respondents.

When a party challenges the constitutionality of a law, the burden of proof rests upon
him.
When the constitutionality of a law is put in issue, judicial review may be availed of only
if the following requisites concur: "(1) the existence of an actual and appropriate case;
(2) the existence of personal and substantial interest on the part of the party raising the
[question of constitutionality]; (3) recourse to judicial review is made at the earliest
opportunity; and (4) the [question of constitutionality] is the lis mota of the case."
Validity of the tax deduction scheme as a reimbursement mechanism for the twenty
percent (20%) discount that they extend to senior citizens. Based on the afore-stated
DOF Opinion, the tax deduction scheme does not fully reimburse petitioners for the
discount privilege accorded to senior citizens. This is because the discount is treated as
a deduction, a tax-deductible expense that is subtracted from the gross income and
results in a lower taxable income. Stated otherwise, it is an amount that is allowed by
law to reduce the income prior to the application of the tax rate to compute the amount
of tax which is due. Being a tax deduction, the discount does not reduce taxes owed on
a peso for peso basis but merely offers a fractional reduction in taxes owed.
Theoretically, the treatment of the discount as a deduction reduces the net income of
the private establishments concerned.

G.R. NO. 184496 December 2, 2013

HADJI HASHIM ABDUL, Petitioner, vs. HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN (FIFTH
DIVISION) and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.

Mattel, Inc. v. Francisco we have ruled that "[w]here the issue has become moot and
academic, there is no justiciable controversy, and an adjudication thereof would be of no
practical use or value as courts do not sit to adjudicate mere academic questions to
satisfy scholarly interest however intellectually challenging."
The acquittal of herein petitioner operates as a supervening event that mooted the
present Petition. Any resolution on the validity or invalidity of the issuance of the order of
suspension could no longer affect his rights as a ranking public officer, for legally
speaking he did not commit the offense charged.

A.C. No. 4549 December 2, 2013

NESTOR FELIPE, ALBERTO V. FELIPE, AURORA FELIPE-ORANTE, ASUNCION
FELIPE-DOMINGO, MILAGROS FELIPE CABIGTING, and RODOLFO V. FELIPE,
Complainants, vs. ATTY. CIRIACO A. MACAPAGAL, Respondent.

x x x it is imperative to first determine whether the matter falls within the disciplinary
authority of the Court or whether the matter is a proper subject of judicial action against
lawyers. If the matter involves violations of the lawyer's oath and code of conduct, then
it falls within the Court's disciplinary authority. However, if the matter arose from acts
which carry civil or criminal liability, and which do not directly require an inquiry into the
moral fitness of the lawyer, then the matter would be a proper subject of a judicial action
which is understandably outside the purview of the Court's disciplinary authority. x x x

G.R. No. 191756 November 25, 2013

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. JONAS GUILLEN y
ATIENZA, Accused-Appellant.

A person who is accused of a felony/offense which he did not commit should be as

BOLD and FEROCIOUS as a LION in protecting the trampled rights as an innocent
person.

Appellant claims that his silence should not be used against him as he was just
exercising his constitutional right to remain silent.
The failure of "AAA" to shout for help and seek assistance should not be construed as
consent, or as voluntarily engaging in an illicit relationship with the appellant, as implied
by the defense. It would be recalled that appellant poked a knife at "AAA’s" neck. Such
threat of immediate danger to her life cowed "AAA" to submit to the carnal desires of the
appellant.
Hymenal laceration, whether fresh or healed, is not an element of the crime of rape.
Even a medical examination is not necessary as it is merely corroborative. As we
mentioned before, the fact of rape in this case was satisfactorily established by the
testimony of "AAA" alone.

G.R. No. 180200 November 25, 2013

DIGITAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS PHILIPPINES, INC., Petitioner, vs. JESSIE E.
CANTOS, Respondent.

"It is of the utmost importance x x x that the modes adopted to enforce the taxes levied
should be interfered with as little as possible. Any delay in the proceedings of the
officers, upon whom the duty is devolved of collecting the taxes, may derange the
operations of government, and thereby cause serious detriment to the public."
"Contempt of court is defined as a disobedience to the court by acting in opposition to
its authority, justice, and dignity. It signifies not only a wilful disregard or disobedience of
the court’s order, but such conduct which tends to bring the authority of the court and
the administration of law into disrepute or, in some manner, to impede the due
administration of justice. It is a defiance of the authority, justice, or dignity of the court
which tends to bring the authority and administration of the law into disrespect or to
interfere with or prejudice party-litigants or their witnesses during litigation."
In PLDT v. City of Davao the Court held that ‘tax exemptions should be granted only by
clear and unequivocal provision of law on the basis of language too plain to be
mistaken. They cannot be extended by mere implication or inference.

G.R. No. 184565 November 20, 2013

MANOLITO DE LEON and LOURDES E. DE LEON, Petitioners, vs. BANK OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

"In the course of trial in a civil case, once plaintiff makes out a prima facie case in his
favor, the duty or the burden of evidence shifts to defendant to controvert plaintiffs prima
facie case, otherwise, a verdict must be returned in favor of plaintiff."
Testimonial evidence, to be believed, must come not only from the mouth of a credible
witness, but must also "be credible, reasonable, and in accord with human experience."
A credible witness must, therefore, be able to narrate a convincing and logical story.
The mere loss of the mortgaged vehicle does not automatically relieve petitioner-
spouses of their obligation.

A.C. No. 10043 November 20, 2013

AURORA H. CABAUATAN, Complainant, vs. ATTY. FREDDIE A. VENIDA,
Respondent.

When a lawyer takes a client's cause, he covenants that he will exercise due diligence
in protecting the latter's rights. Failure to exercise that degree of vigilance and attention
expected of a good father of a family makes the lawyer unworthy of the trust reposed on
him by his client and makes him answerable not just to his client but also to the legal
profession, the courts and society
As an officer of the court, [he] is expected to know that a resolution of this Court is not a
mere request but an order which should be complied with promptly and completely. This
is also true of the orders of the IBP as the investigating arm of the Court in
administrative cases against lawyers.
Respondent should strive harder to live up to his duties of observing and maintaining
the respect due to the courts, respect for law and for legal processes, and of upholding
the integrity and dignity of the legal profession in order to perform his responsibilities as
a lawyer effectively.

A.C. No. 5239 November 18, 2013

SPOUSES GEORGE A. WARRINER and AURORA R. WARRINER, Complainants,
vs. ATTY. RENI M. DUBLIN, Respondent.

If respondent truly believes that the exhibits to be presented in evidence by his clients
were fabricated, then he has the option to withdraw from the case. Canon 22 allows a
lawyer to withdraw his services for good cause such as "[w]hen the client pursues an
illegal or immoral course of conduct with the matter he is handling" or "[w]hen the client
insists that the lawyer pursue conduct violative of these canons and rules."
As a lawyer and an officer of the Court, he "owes candor, fairness and good faith to the
court." He "shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court; nor shall
he mislead, or allow the Court to be misled by any artifice."
"Suspension is not primarily intended as a punishment but a means to protect the public
and the legal profession."

A.C. No. 8954 November 13, 2013

HON. MARIBETH RODRIGUEZ-MANAHAN, Presiding Judge, Municipal Trial Court,
San Mateo, Rizal, Complainant, vs. ATTY. RODOLFO FLORES, Respondent.

A lawyer owes absolute fidelity to the cause of his client full devotion to his client's
genuine interest and warm zeal in the maintenance and defense of his client's rights, as
well as the exertion of his utmost learning and ability, he must do so only within the
bounds of law. A lawyer is entitled to voice his criticism within the context of the
constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech which must be exercised responsibly.
After all, every right carries with it the corresponding obligation. Freedom is not freedom
from responsibility, but freedom with responsibility. The lawyer's fidelity to his client must
not be pursued at the expense of truth and orderly administration of justice. It must be
done within the confines of reason and common sense.

G.R. No. 192183 November 11, 2013

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. ANDY ZULIETA a.k.a.
"Bogarts," Accused-Appellant.

"The essence of treachery is that the attack comes without a warning and in a swift,
deliberate, and unexpected manner, affording the hapless, unarmed, and unsuspecting
victim no chance to resist or escape."
G.R. No. 181473 November 11, 2013
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. DONEY GADUYON y
TAPISPISAN, Accused-Appellant.

Rape can now be committed either through sexual intercourse or through sexual
assault. In rape under sexual intercourse, carnal knowledge is the crucial element which
must be proven beyond reasonable doubt. This is also referred to as "organ rape" or
"penile rape". There must be evidence to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the
perpetrator’s penis touched the labia of the victim or slid into her female organ, and not
merely stroked the external surface thereof, to ensure his conviction of rape by sexual
intercourse.
On the other hand, rape under sexual assault. The perpetrator, under any of the
attendant circumstances, commits this kind of rape by inserting his penis into another
person’s mouth or anal orifice, or any instrument or object into the genital or anal orifice
of another person. It is also called "instrument or object rape", also "gender-free rape",
or the narrower "homosexual rape."
On the other hand, RA 7610, otherwise known as the "Special Protection of Children
Against Child Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act", defines and penalizes child
prostitution and other sexual abuse. "Sexual abuse includes the employment, use,
persuasion, inducement, enticement or coercion of a child to engage in, or assist
another person to engage in, sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct or the
molestation, prostitution, or incest with children. Lascivious conduct means the
intentional touching, either directly or through clothing, of the genitalia, anus, groin,
breast, inner thigh, or buttocks, or the introduction of any object into the genitalia, anus
or mouth, of any person, whether of the same or opposite sex, with an intent to abuse,
humiliate, harass, degrade, or arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person,
bestiality, masturbation, lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of a person."
it is noteworthy that even without said psychiatric test, the finding of the trial court would
still be affirmed considering that the sole testimony of the victim is sufficient basis for
conviction in rape.

A.C. No. 9385 November 11, 2013

MARIANO AGADAN, EDEN MOLLEJON, ARSENIO IGME, JOSE NUMBAR, CECILIA
LANGAWAN, PABLO PALMA, JOSELITO CLAVERIA, MIGUEL FLORES, and
ALBERT GAYDOWEN, Complainants, vs. ATTY. RICHARD BALTAZAR KILAAN,
Respondent.

In Gemina v. Atty. Madamba,we have also ruled that –

x x x The inaccuracies in his Notarial Register entitles and his failure to enter the
documents that he admittedly notarized constitute dereliction of duty as a notary public.
He cannot escape liability by putting the blame on his secretary. The lawyer himself, not
merely his secretary, should be held accountable for these misdeeds.
A notary public is empowered to perform a variety of notarial acts, most common of
which are the acknowledgement and affirmation of documents or instruments. In the
performance of these notarial acts, the notary public must be mindful of the significance
of the notarial seal affixed on documents. The notarial seal converts a document from a
private to a public instrument, after which it may be presented as evidence without need
for proof of its genuineness and due execution.1âwphi1 Thus, notarization should not
be treated as an empty, meaningless or routinary act. A notary public exercises duties
calling for caretl1lness and faithfulness. Notaries must inform themselves of the facts
they certify to; most importantly, they should not take pmt or allow themselves to be pmt
of illegal transactions.
Under the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, the respondent s failure to make the proper
entry or entries in his Notarial Register of his notarial acts, his failure to require the
presence of a principal at the time of the notarial acts, and his failure to identify a
principal on the basis of personal knowledge by competent evidence are grounds for the
revocation of a lawyer s commission as a notary public.

G.R. No. 191362 October 9, 2013

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs.MARCIANO CIAL y LORENA,
Accused-Appellant.

Testimonies of child-victims are normally given full weight and credit, since when a girl,
particularly if she is a minor, says that she has been raped, she says in effect all that is
necessary to show that rape has in fact been committed. When the offended party is of
tender age and immature, courts are inclined to give credit to her account of what
transpired, considering not only her relative vulnerability but also the shame to which
she would be exposed if the matter to which she testified is not true. Youth and
immaturity are generally badges of truth and sincerity. Considering her tender age, AAA
could not have invented a horrible story.
In any case, a medical examination is not even indispensable in prosecuting a rape
charge. In fact, an accused’s conviction for rape may be anchored solely on the
testimony of the victim. At best, the medical examination would only serve as
corroborative evidence.
The terms "common-law husband" and "step-father" have different legal connotations.
For appellant to be a step-father to "AAA," he must be legally married to "AAA's"
mother.
Suffice it to state that qualifying circumstances must be proved beyond reasonable
doubt just like the crime itself. In this case, the prosecution utterly tailed to prove beyond
reasonable doubt the qualifying circumstances of minority and relationship. As such,
appellant should only be convicted of the crime of simple rape.

G.R. No. 196970 April 2, 2014

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. RENE SANTIAGO, Accused-
Appellant.

"The elements of [statutory rape] are: (1) that the accused had carnal knowledge of a
woman; and (2) that the woman is below 12 years of age x x x."In this case, although
the Informations alleged that "AAA" was 11 years of age when the rape incidents
transpired, she was actually 13 years of age when the rape incidents transpired on
December 25, 2004 and January 21, 2005, as her Certificate of Birth19 showed that she
was born on March 10, 1991. Thus, appellant is guilty only of simple, not statutory rape
for which he was properly imposed the sentence of reclusion perpetua pursuant to
Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code.

G.R. No. 180496 April 2, 2014

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. ROY SAN GASPAR,
Accused-Appellant.

"Parricide is committed when: (1) a person is killed; (2) the deceased is killed by the
accused; (3) the deceased is the father, mother, or child, whether legitimate or
illegitimate, or a legitimate other ascendant or other descendant, or the legitimate
spouse of the accused."
In the case of People v. Villanueva, that:
x x x when actual damages proven by receipts during the trial amount to less than
₱25,000.00, as in this case, the award of temperate damages for ₱25,000.00 is justified
in lieu of actual damages of a lesser amount. Conversely, if the amount of actual
damages proven exceeds ₱25,000.00, then the temperate damages may no longer be
awarded; actual damages based on the receipts presented during trial should instead
be granted.
The victim's heirs should, thus, be awarded temperate damages in the amount of
₱25,000.00."
Since the receipt presented during trial covering the funeral services only amounted to
₱15,0000.00, the CA's award of ₱25,000.00 as temperate damages in lieu of actual
damages is in order.

G.R. No. 191727 March 31, 2014

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. MANUEL APLAT y
SUBLINO and JACKSON DANGLAY y BOTIL, Accused ,MANUEL APLAT y
SUBLINO, Accused-Appellant.

As held in People v. Castro,"inconsistencies on minor details and collateral matters do

not affect the substance of their declaration, their veracity or the weight of their
testimonies". "It is perfectly natural for different witnesses testifying on the occurrence of
a crime to give varying details as there may be some details which one witness may
notice while the other may not observe or remember."
"The commission of the offense of illegal sale of dangerous drugs requires merely the
consummation of the selling transaction, which happens the moment the buyer receives
the drug from the seller. Settled is the rule that as long as the police officer went through
the operation as a buyer and his offer was accepted by appellant and the dangerous
drugs delivered to the former, the crime is considered consummated by the delivery of
the goods.
Be that as it may, the fact that the inventory and marking of the subject item were not
made onsite is of no moment and will not lead to appellant’s exoneration. From a
cursory reading of Section 21(a)25 of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA
9165, it can be gleaned that in cases of warrantless seizures, as in this case, inventory
and marking of the seized item can be conducted at the nearest police station or office
of the apprehending authorities, whichever is practicable, and not necessarily at the
place of seizure.
As held in People v. Resurreccion, "marking upon immediate confiscation" does not
exclude the possibility that marking can be done at the police station or office of the
apprehending team.

G.R. No. 196142

VENUS B. CASTILLO, LEAH J. EVANGELISTA, DITAS M. DOLENDO, DAWN
KAREN S. SY and PRUDENTIAL PLANS, INC. EMPLOYEES UNION - FEDERATION
OF FREE WORKERS (PPEU-FFW), Petitioners, vs. PRUDENTIALIFE PLANS, INC.,
and/or JOSE ALBERTO T. ALBA, ATTY. CEFERINO A. PATINO, JR., and
ROSEMARIE DE LEMOS,, Respondent.

In a labor case, the written statements of co-employees admitting their participation in a

scheme to defraud the employer are admissible in evidence. The argument by an
employee that the said statements constitute hearsay because the authors thereof were
not presented for their cross-examination does not persuade, because the rules of
evidene are not strictly observed in proceedings before the National Labor Relations
Co)Illnission (NLRC), which are summary in nature and decisions may be made on the
basis ofposition papers.

G.R. No. 199740 March 24, 2014

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. JERRY OBOGNE, Accused-
Appellant.

For the Anti-Rape Law of 1997, now embodied in Article 266-B of the Revised Penal
Code (RPC) expressly provides that the death penalty shall also be imposed if the crime
of rape is committed with the qualifying circumstance of ‘(10) when the offender knew of
the mental disability, emotional disorder and/or physical handicap of the offended party
at the time of the commission of the crime.’ Said knowledge x x x qualifies rape as a
heinous offense. Absent said circumstance, which must be proved by the prosecution
beyond reasonable doubt, the conviction of appellant for qualified rape under Art. 266-B
(10), RPC, could not be sustained, although the offender may be held liable for simple
rape and sentenced to reclusion perpetua.
We stress that, contrary to accused-appellant’s assertions, mental retardation per se
does not affect a witness’ credibility. A mental retardate may be a credible witness.
While it is true that, on cross-examination, "AAA" faltered in the sequence of events x x
x this is understandable because even one with normal mental condition would not be
able to recall, with a hundred percent accuracy, events that transpired in the past. But
"AAA" was certain that ‘it was a long time x x x after the incident’ when it was reported
to the police. Likewise, she was very certain that the accused inserted his penis into her
vagina x x x.
G.R. No. 193516 March 24, 2014
VILMA MACEDONIO, Petitioner, vs. CATALINA RAMO, YOLANDA S. MARQUEZ,
SPOUSES ROEL and OPHELIA PEDRO, SPOUSES JOEFFRY and ELIZA
BALANAG, and BPI FAMILY SAVINGS BANK, INC., Respondents.

In resolving whether to dismiss a case for violation of the rules covering certifications
against forum-shopping, the courts should be mindful of the facts and merits of the
case, the extant evidence, the principles of justice, and the rules of fair play. They
should not give in to rigidity, indifference, indolence, or lack of depth.
In Goldloop Properties, Inc. v. Court ofAppeals, the Court held that dismissing the action
without allowing the parties to present evidence and after ordering them to compromise
is tantamount to deprivation of due process, and the "dismissal of an action for failure to
submit a compromise agreement, which is not even required by any rule, is definitely a
harsh action."
The circumstances require that substance must prevail over form, keeping in mind, as
the Court has held countless times, that procedural rules are mere tools designed to
facilitate the attainment of justice; their application should be relaxed when they hinder
instead of promote substantial justice. Public policy dictates that court cases should as
much as possible be resolved on the merits and not on technicalities. Besides, "the
Rules of Civil Procedure on forum shopping are not always applied with inflexibility."

G.R. No. 176055 March 17, 2014

SPOUSES EDMUNDO DELA CRUZ and AMELIA CONCIO-DELA CRUZ, Petitioners,
vs. SPOUSES RUFINO R. CAPCO AND MARTY1 C. CAPCO, Respondents.

This is because, in forcible entry cases, the prescriptive period is counted from the date
of defendants’ actual entry into the property; whereas, in unlawful detainer cases, it is
counted from date of the last demand to vacate. Hence, to determine whether the case
was filed on time, there is a necessity to ascertain whether the complaint is one for
forcible entry or for unlawful detainer; and since the main distinction between the two
actions is when and how defendant entered the property, the determinative facts should
be alleged in the complaint.
"It has repeatedly been emphasized that when the property is registered under the
Torrens system, the registered owner's title to the property is presumed legal and
cannot be collaterally attacked, especially in a mere action for unlawful detainer. It has
even been held that it does not even matter if the party's title to the property is
questionable."

G.R. No. 183034 March 12, 2014

SPOUSES FERNANDO and MA. ELENA SANTOS, Petitioners, vs. LOLITA
ALCAZAR, represented by her Attorney-in-Fact DELFIN CHUA, Respondent.

While it is a basic rule of evidence that the original copy prevails over a mere
photocopy, there is no harm if in a case, both the original and a photocopy thereof are
authenticated, identified and formally offered in evidence by the party proponent.
"By the admission of the genuineness and due execution [of such document] is meant
that the party whose signature it bears admits that he signed it or that it was signed by
another for him with his authority; that at the time it was signed it was in words and
figures exactly as set out in the pleading of the party relying upon it; that the document
was delivered; and that any formal requisites required by law, such as a seal, an
acknowledgment, or revenue stamp, which it lacks, are waived by him. Hence, such
defenses as that the signature is a forgery x x x; or that it was unauthorized x x x; or that
the party charged signed the instrument in some other capacity than that alleged in the
pleading setting it out x x x; or that it was never delivered x x x, are cut off by the
admission of its genuineness and due execution."

G.R. No. 181806 March 12, 2014

WESLEYAN UNIVERSITY-PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, vs. WESLEYAN UNIVERSITY-
PHILIPPINES FACULTY and STAFF ASSOCIATION, Respondent.

A Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) is a contract entered into by an employer and

a legitimate labor organization concerning the terms and conditions of employment. Like
any other contract, it has the force of law between the parties and, thus, should be
complied with in good faith. Unilateral changes or suspensions in the implementation of
the provisions of the CBA, therefore, cannot be allowed without the consent of both
parties.

G.R. No. 191360 March 10, 2014

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. SHERWIN BIS y
AVELLANEDA, Accused-Appellant.

In prosecutions involving narcotics, the narcotic substance itself constitutes the corpus
delicti of the offense and the fact of its existence is vital to sustain a judgment of
conviction beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution is duty-bound to establish with
unwavering exactitude that the dangerous drug presented in court as evidence against
the accused is the same prohibited substance seized from him.
The foregoing inconsistencies, however, relate only to minor matters and do not touch
on the essence of the crime. Jurisprudence is replete with pronouncement by the
Supreme Court that a few discrepancies and inconsistencies in the testimonies of
witnesses referring to minor details which do not touch the essence of the crime do not
impair their credibility.
"inconsistencies in the testimonies of witnesses, which refer only to minor details and
collateral matters, do not affect the veracity and weight of their testimonies where there
is consistency in relating the principal occurrence and the positive identification of the
accused."
non-compliance with the abovequoted provision of RA 9165 and its Implementing Rules
and Regulations is not fatal and will not render an accused’s arrest illegal or the items
seized/confiscated from him inadmissible. "What is of utmost importance is the
preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items as the same
would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused.
G.R. No. 193684 March 5, 2014
ONE NETWORK RURAL BANK, INC.,* Petitioner, vs. DANILO G. BARIC,
Respondent.

A third party who did not commit a violation or invasion of the plaintiff or aggrieved
party's rights may not be held liable for nominal damages.
Network Bank did not violate any of Baric's rights; it was merely a purchaser or
transferee of the property.1âwphi1 Surely, it is not prohibited from acquiring the property
even while the forcible entry case was pending, because as the registered owner of the
subject property, Palado may transfer his title at any time and the lease merely follows
the property as a lien or encumbrance. Any invasion or violation of Baric's rights as
lessee was committed solely by Palado, and Network Bank may not be implicated or
found guilty unless it actually took part in the commission of illegal acts, which does not
appear to be so from the evidence on record. On the contrary, it appears that Barie was
ousted through Palado's acts even before Network Bank acquired the subject property
or came into the picture. Thus, it was error to hold the bank liable for nominal damages.

G.R. No. 193047 March 3, 2014

FIL-PRIDE SIDPPING COMPANY, INC., CAPTAIN NICOLAS T. DOLLOLASA and
OCEAN EAGLE SIDPMANAGEMENT COMPANY, PTE.LTD., Petitioners, vs. EDGAR
A. BALASTA, Respondent.

The company-designated physician must arrive at a definite assessment of the

seafarer's fitness to work or permanent disability within the period of 120 or 240 days,1
pursuant to Article 192 (c)(l) of the Labor Code and Rule X, Section 2 of the Amended
Rules on Employees Compensation (AREC). If he fails to do so and the seafarer's
medical condition remains unresolved, the latter shall be deemed totally and
permanently disabled. On the other hand, an employee's disability becomes permanent
and total even before the lapse of the statutory 240-day treatment period, when it
becomes evident that the employee's disability continues and he is unable to engage in
gainful employment during such period because, for instance, he underwent surgery
and it evidently appears that he could not recover therefrom within the statutory period.
"it is not the injury which is compensated, but rather it is the incapacity to work resulting
in the impairment of one’s earning capacity."Moreover, "the list of illnesses/diseases in
Section 32-A31 does not preclude other illnesses/diseases not so listed from being
compensable.

G.R. No. 180962 February 26, 2014

PIDLTRANCO SERVICE ENTERPRISES, INC., represented by its Vice-President
for Administration, M/GEN. NEMESIO M. SIGAYA, Petitioner, vs. PHILTRANCO
WORKERS UNION-ASSOCIATION OF GENUINE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS (PWU-
AGLO), represented by JOSE JESSIE OLIVAR, Respondent.

While a government office may prohibit altogether the filing of a motion for
reconsideration with respect to its decisions or orders, the fact remains that certiorari
inherently requires the filing of a motion for reconsideration, which is the tangible
representation of the opportunity given to the office to correct itself. Unless it is filed,
there could be no occasion to rectify. Worse, the remedy of certiorari would be
unavailing. Simply put, regardless of the proscription against the filing of a motion for
reconsideration, the same may be filed on the assumption that rectification of the
decision or order must be obtained, and before a petition for certiorari may be instituted.
It has long been settled that the remedy of an aggrieved party in a decision or resolution
of the Secretary of Labor is to timely file a motion for reconsideration as a precondition
for any further or subsequent remedy, and then seasonably file a special civil action for
certiorari under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules on Civil Procedure. There is no distinction:
when the Secretary of Labor assumes jurisdiction over a labor case in an industry
indispensable to national interest, "he exercises great breadth of discretion" in finding a
solution to the parties’ dispute. "[T]he authority of the Secretary of Labor to assume
jurisdiction over a labor dispute causing or likely to cause a strike or lockout in an
industry indispensable to national interest includes and extends to all questions and
controversies arising therefrom. The power is plenary and discretionary in nature to
enable him to effectively and efficiently dispose of the primary dispute." This wide
latitude of discretion given to the Secretary of Labor may not be the subject of appeal.

G.R. No. 179625 February 24, 2014

NICANORA G. BUCTON (deceased), substituted by REQUILDA B. YRAY,
Petitioner, vs. RURAL BANK OF EL SALVADOR, INC., MISAMIS ORIENTAL, and
REYNALDO CUYONG, Respondents, vs. ERLINDA CONCEPCION AND HER
HUSBAND AND AGNES BUCTON LUGOD, Third Party Defendants.

A mortgage executed by an authorized agent who signed in his own name without
indicating that he acted for and on behalf of his principal binds only the agent and not
the principal.
In other words, the mere fact that the agent was authorized to mortgage the property is
not sufficient to bind the principal, unless the deed was executed and signed by the
agent for and on behalf of his principal. This ruling was adhered to and reiterated with
consistency in the cases of Rural Bank of Bombon (Camarines Sur), Inc. v. Court of
Appeals, Gozun v. Mercado, and Far East Bank and Trust Company (Now Bank of the
Philippine Island) v. Cayetano.
In Philippine Sugar Estates Development Co., the wife authorized her husband to obtain
a loan and to secure it with mortgage on her property. Unfortunately, although the real
estate mortgage stated that it was executed by the husband in his capacity as attorney-
in-fact of his wife, the husband signed the contract in his own name without indicating
that he also signed it as the attorney-in-fact of his wife.
In Rural Bank of Bombon, the agent contracted a loan from the bank and executed a
real estate mortgage. However, he did not indicate that he was acting on behalf of his
principal.
In Gozun, the agent obtained a cash advance but signed the receipt in her name alone,
without any indication that she was acting for and on behalf of her principal.
In Far East Bank and Trust Company, the mother executed an SPA authorizing her
daughter to contract a loan from the bank and to mortgage her properties. The
mortgage, however, was signed by the daughter and her husband as mortgagors in
their individual capacities, without stating that the daughter was executing the mortgage
for and on behalf of her mother.

G.R. No. 179031 November 14, 2012

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. BENJAMIN SORIA y
GOMEZ, Accused-Appellant.

This case involves a father’s detestable act of abusing his daughter through rape by
sexual assault.
it was clearly established that appellant committed an act of sexual assault on "AAA" by
inserting an instrument or object into her genital. We find it inconsequential that "AAA"
could not specifically identify the particular instrument or object that was inserted into
her genital. What is important and relevant is that indeed something was inserted into
her vagina. To require "AAA" to identify the instrument or object that was inserted into
her vagina would be contrary to the fundamental tenets of due process.
Hymenal rupture, vaginal laceration or genital injury is not indispensable because the
same is not an element of the crime of rape. "An intact hymen does not negate a finding
that the victim was raped."Here, the finding of reddish discoloration of the hymen of
"AAA" during her medical examination and the intense pain she felt in her vagina during
and after the sexual assault sufficiently corroborated her testimony that she was raped.

G.R. No. 173523 February 19, 2014

LUCENA D. DEMAALA, Petitioner, vs. SANDIGANBAYAN (Third Division) and
OMBUDSMAN, Respondents.

Where a party was afforded the opportunity to participate in the proceedings, yet he
failed to do so, he cannot be allowed later on to claim that he was deprived of his day in
court.
Where a party was afforded an opportunity to participate in the proceedings but failed to
do so, he cannot complain of deprivation of due process. Notice and hearing is the
bulwark of administrative due process, the right to which is among the primary rights
that must be respected even in administrative proceedings. The essence of due process
is simply an opportunity to be heard, or as applied to administrative proceedings, an
opportunity to explain one's side or an opportunity to seek reconsideration of the action
or ruling complained of. So long as the party is given the opportunity to advocate her
cause or defend her interest in due course, it cannot be said that there was denial of
due process
A formal trial-type hearing is not, at all times and in all instances, essential to due
process – it is enough that the parties are given a fair and reasonable opportunity to
explain their respective sides of the controversy and to present supporting evidence on
which a fair decision can be based. "To be heard" does not only mean presentation of
testimonial evidence in court - one may also be heard through pleadings and where the
opportunity to be heard through pleadings is accorded, there is no denial of due
process.
G.R. No. 191015 August 6, 2014
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES Petitioner,
vs.
JOSE C. GO, AIDA C. DELA ROSA, and FELECITAS D. NECOMEDES,**
Respondents.

Demurrer to Evidence; Double Jeopardy; Grave abuse of discretion; Falsification of

commercial document; Estafa

Demurrer to Evidence, Double Jeopardy

Demurrer to the evidence is "an objection by one of the parties in an action, to the effect
that the evidence which his adversary produced is insufficient in point of law, whether
true or not, to make out a case or sustain the issue. The party demurring challenges the
sufficiency of the whole evidence to sustain a verdict. The court, in passing upon the
sufficiency of the evidence raised in a demurrer, is merely required to ascertain whether
there is competent or sufficient evidence to sustain the indictment or to support a verdict
of guilt. x x x Sufficient evidence for purposes of frustrating a demurrer thereto is such
evidence in character, weight or amount as will legally justify the judicial or official action
demanded according to the circumstances. To be considered sufficient therefore, the
evidence must prove: (a) the commission of the crime, and (b) the precise degree of
participation therein by the accused." Thus, when the accused files a demurrer, the
court must evaluate whether the prosecution evidence is sufficient enough to warrant
the conviction of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
"The grant or denial of a demurrer to evidence is left to the sound discretion of the trial
court, and its ruling on the matter shall not be disturbed in the absence of a grave abuse
of such discretion." As to effect, "the grant of a demurrer to evidence amounts to an
acquittal and cannot be appealed because it would place the accused in double
jeopardy. The order is reviewable only by certiorari if it was issued with grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction." When grave abuse of discretion
is present, an order granting a demurrer becomes null and void.
As a general rule, an order granting the accused’s demurrer to evidence amounts to an
acquittal. There are certain exceptions, however, as when the grant thereof would not
violate the constitutional proscription on double jeopardy. For instance, this Court ruled
that when there is a finding that there was grave abuse of discretion on the part of the
trial court in dismissing a criminal case by granting the accused’s demurrer to evidence,
its judgment is considered void, as this Court ruled in People v. Laguio, Jr.:
By this time, it is settled that the appellate court may review dismissal orders of trial
courts granting an accused’s demurrer to evidence. This may be done via the special
civil action of certiorari under Rule 65 based on the ground of grave abuse of discretion,
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Such dismissal order, being considered void
judgment, does not result in jeopardy. Thus, when the order of dismissal is annulled or
set aside by an appellate court in an original special civil action via certiorari, the right of
the accused against double jeopardy is not violated.
Grave abuse of discretion
In the instant case, having affirmed the CA finding grave abuse of discretion on the part
of the trial court when it granted the accused’s demurrer to evidence, we deem its
consequent order of acquittal void.
Grave abuse of discretion is defined as "that capricious or whimsical exercise of
judgment which is tantamount to lack of jurisdiction. ‘The abuse of discretion must be
patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to
perform a duty enjoined by law, or to act at all in contemplation of law, as where the
power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of passion and
hostility.’ The party questioning the acquittal of an accused should be able to clearly
establish that the trial court blatantly abused its discretion such that it was deprived of
its authority to dispense justice."

Falsification of commercial document

The falsification of a public, official, or commercial document may be a means of
committing Estafa, because before the falsified document is actually utilized to defraud
another, the crime of Falsification has already been consummated, damage or intent to
cause damage not being an element of the crime of falsification of public, official or
commercial document. In other words, the crime of falsification has already existed.
Actually utilizing that falsified public, official or commercial document to defraud another
is estafa. But the damage is caused by the commission of Estafa, not by the falsification
of the document. Therefore, the falsification of the public, official or commercial
document is only a necessary means to commit the estafa.

Finally, it must be borne in mind that "[t]he granting of a demurrer to evidence should x x
x be exercised with caution, taking into consideration not only the rights of the accused,
but also the right of the private offended party to be vindicated of the wrongdoing done
against him, for if it is granted, the accused is acquitted and the private complainant is
generally left with no more remedy. In such instances, although the decision of the court
may be wrong, the accused can invoke his right against double jeopardy. Thus, judges
are reminded to be more diligent and circumspect in the performance of their duties as
members of the Bench xx x."

G.R. No. 196219 July 30, 2014

SPOUSES MAURICIO M. TABINO and LEONILA DELA CRUZ-TABINO, Petitioners,
vs.
LAZARO M. TABINO, Respondent.
Ejectment Case; doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies

Ejectment

In ejectment cases, the word "possession" means nothing more than physical
possession, not legal possession, in the sense contemplated in civil law.
"Under the Public Land Act, the Director of Lands primarily and the DENR Secretary
ultimately have the authority to dispose of and manage public lands. And while the
DENR’s jurisdiction over public lands does not negate the authority of courts of justice
to resolve questions of possession, the DENR’s decision would prevail with regard to
the respective rights of public land claimants. Regular courts would have no jurisdiction
to inquire in to the validity of the award of the public land."

Doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies

The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies is a cornerstone of our judicial
system. The thrust of the rule is that courts must allow administrative agencies to carry
out their functions and discharge their responsibilities within the specialized areas of
their respective competence. The rationale for this doctrine is obvious. It entails lesser
expenses and provides for the speedier resolution of controversies. Comity and
convenience also impel courts of justice to shy away from a dispute until the system of
administrative redress has been completed.
Another important reason for the doctrine of exhaustion is the separation of powers,
which enjoins the Judiciary a becoming policy of non-interference with matters coming
primarily (albeit not exclusively) withinthe competence of the other departments. The
theory is that the administrative authorities are in a better position to resolve questions
addressed to their particular expertise and that errors committed by subordinates in
their resolution may be rectified by their superiors if given a chance to do so. Strict
enforcement of the rule could also relieve the courts of a considerable number of
avoidable cases which otherwise would burden their heavily loaded dockets.
Thus, the party with an administrative remedy must not only commence with the
prescribed administrative procedure to obtain relief but also pursue it to its appropriate
conclusion before seeking judicial intervention to give the administrative agency an
opportunity to decide the matter itself correctly and prevent unnecessary and premature
resort to the court. The non-observance of the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative
remedies results in lack of cause of action, which is one of the grounds in the Rules of
Court justifying the dismissal of the complaint.

As a general rule, an ejectment suit cannot be abated or suspended by the mere filing
before the regional trial court (R TC) of another action raising ownership of the property
as an issue. As an exception, however, unlawful detainer actions may be suspended
even on appeal, on considerations of equity, such as when the demolition of petitioners'
house would result from the enforcement of the municipal circuit trial court (MCTC)
judgement.

G.R. No. 195190 July 28, 2014

ROYALE HOMES MARKETING CORPORATION, Petitioner,
vs.
FIDEL P. ALCANTARA [deceased], substituted by his heirs, Respondent.

Employer-employee relationship
The primary evidence of the nature of the parties’ relationship in this case is the written
contract that they signed and executed in pursuance of their mutual agreement. While
the existence of employer-employee relationship is a matter of law, the characterization
made by the parties in their contract as to the nature of their juridical relationship cannot
be simply ignored, particularly in this case where the parties’ written contract
unequivocally states their intention at the time they entered into it.
In determining the existence of an employer-employee relationship, this Court has
generally relied on the four-fold test, to wit: (1) the selection and engagement of the
employee; (2) the payment of wages; (3) the power of dismissal; and (4) the employer’s
power to control the employee with respect to the means and methods by which the
work is to be accomplished. Among the four, the most determinative factor in
ascertaining the existence of employer-employee relationship is the "right of control
test". "It is deemed to be such an important factor that the other requisites may even be
disregarded." This holds true where the issues to be resolved is whether a person who
performs work for another is the latter’s employee or is an independent contractor, as in
this case. For where the person for whom the services are performed reserves the right
to control not only the end to be achieved, but also the means by which such end is
reached, employer-employee relationship is deemed to exist.
Not every form of control is indicative of employer-employee relationship.1âwphi1 A
person who performs work for another and is subjected to its rules, regulations, and
code of ethics does not necessarily become an employee. As long as the level of control
does not interfere with the means and methods of accomplishing the assigned tasks,
the rules imposed by the hiring party on the hired party do not amount to the labor law
concept of control that is indicative of employer-employee relationship. In Insular Life
Assurance Co., Ltd. v. National Labor Relations Commission it was pronounced that:
Logically, the line should be drawn between rules that merely serve as guidelines
towards the achievement of the mutually desired result without dictating the means or
methods to be employed in attaining it, and those that control or fix the methodology
and bind or restrict the party hired to the use of such means. The first, which aim only to
promote the result, create no employer-employee relationship unlike the second, which
address both the result and the means used to achieve it. x x x

G.R. No. 178115 July 28, 2014

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
JOJO SUMILHIG, RICARDO SUMILHIG alias CARDING SUMILHIG, PASOT SALOLI,
ERIC ENOC, WARLITO MONTEBON,* and CIO LIMAMA, Accused,
JOJO SUMILHIG, RICARDO SUMILHIG alias CARDING SUMILHIG, and PASOT
SALOLI, Accused-Appellants.
Murder; Frustrated Murder; Conspiracy; Treachery
Conspiracy
"[C]onspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the
commission of a felony and decide to commit it." It is not necessary to adduce evidence
of a previous agreement to commit a crime. "Conspiracy may be shown through
circumstantial evidence, deduced from the mode and manner in which the offense was
perpetrated, or inferred from the acts of the accused themselves when such lead to a
joint purpose and design, concerted action, and community of interest."
Treachery
"There 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 the execution, without risk to himself arising from [any] defense which
the offended party might make."
Treachery is evident in this case as the suddenness and unexpectedness of the assault
deprived the victims of an opportunity to resist it or offer any defense of their persons.
This is considering that the victims were unaware that they would be attacked by
appellants with a hail of bullets from their firearms fired at close range. Indeed, "[t]he
suddenness of the attack, without the slightest forewarning thereof, placed the [victims]
x x x in such a position that they could not have defended themselves from the
aggression x x x."

G.R. No. 196786 July 23, 2014

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
STANLEY BUNAGAN y JUAN, Accused-Appellant.
Rape; "Sweetheart theory"

Rape
Rape may be committed by a man having carnal knowledge of a woman through threat
or intimidation.
“That on or about and during the period from 1998 to August 2001, in the City of
Parafiaque, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-
named accused, being then the uncle of "AAA", minor, 16 years of age, by means of
force and intimidation, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal
knowledge of the complainant against her will and consent.”

"Sweetheart theory"
The sexual congress between "AAA" and appellant is undisputed. In fact, appellant
admits the same. However, he claims that it is consensual because "AAA" was his
girlfriend. Both the trial court and the CA correctly disregarded the "sweetheart theory"
proffered by the appellant for being self-serving and uncorroborated. No evidence such
as love letters, pictures, gifts, etc. was offered to show the existence of such
relationship.

G.R. No. 197046 July 21, 2014

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
GEORGE ZAPATA y VIANA,** Accused-Appellant.
Parricide

Parricide
“That on or about the 11th day of May 2002, in the Municipality of Rodriguez, Province
of Rizal, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-
named accused, while armed with a .45 caliber pistol, being the husband of victim
QUEENY ZAPATA Y ERESPE, with intent to kill, treachery and evident premeditation,
during nighttime, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault
and [shoot] said victim QUEENY ZAPATA Y ERESPE on [her left chest] thereby causing
mortal wounds which caused her death soon thereafter.”
“Appellant’s claim that he accidentally pulled the trigger while attempting to catch the
same when it fell from the cabinet is incredible. First, as correctly noted by the CA,
appellant was a former Corporal in the Philippine Marines and is thus "assumed to know
and undertake all safety precautions in storing his firearm." In this case, appellant
apparently threw caution to the wind when he placed the gun on top of a cabinet and
not inside a locked drawer or cabinet. Second, the gun was loaded. Third, the gun is
equipped with several safety measures. Interestingly, all these safety measures were
not in place at the time of the shooting making appellant’s claim of accident highly
unbelievable.”
In the crime of parricide, only the following elements need to be satisfactorily
established: "(1) the death of the deceased; (2) that he or she was killed by the
accused; and (3) that the deceased was a legitimate ascendant or descendant, or the
legitimate spouse of the accused." All these elements have been proven beyond doubt.

G.R. No. 196249 July 21, 2014

ROSE HANA ANGELES, doing business under the name and style [of] LAS
MARIAS GRILL AND RESTAURANT[,] and ZENAIDA ANGELES[,] doing business,
under the name and style [of] CAFE TERIA BAR AND RESTAURANT, Petitioners,
vs.
FERDINAND M. BUCAD, CHARLESTON A. REYNANTE, BERNADINE B. ROAQUIN,
MARLON A. OMPOY, RUBEN N. LAROZA, EVAGELINE B. BUMACOD, WILMA
CAINGLES, BRIAN OGARIO, EVELYN A.BASTAN, ANACLITO A. BASTAN, MA.
GINA BENITEZ, HERMINIO AGSAOAY, NORBERTO BALLASTEROS, DEMETRIO L.
BERDIN, JR., JOEL DUCUSIN, JOVY R. BALATA, and MARIBEL ROAQUIN,
Respondents.
Illegal Dismissal and Money Claims

“The employees hurled, inter alia, a litany of charges against petitioners, namely: 1)
payment of salaries below the minimum wage and which were oftentimes paid after
much delay; 2) non-coverage under the Social Security System (SSS); 3) termination
from employment without giving just benefits despite long service; 4) signing of blank
payroll without indicating the amount; and, 5) non-payment of night differential, holiday
pay, COLA, commutation pay for sick leave and annual leave, 13th month pay and
service charges.”
The petitioners would have this Court resolve issues which require a reevaluation of the
evidence; issues of fact relating to the dismissal of their employees – respondent
Ducusin particularly – and the computation of monetary claims, which have been
passed upon by the Labor Arbiter, the NLRC, and the CA.
What must be realized, however, is that this Court is not a trier of facts. "[T]he
jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in cases brought before it from the CA via Rule 45 of
the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure is generally limited to reviewing errors of law. This
Court is not a trier of facts. In the exercise of its power of review, the findings of fact of
the CA are conclusive and binding and consequently, it is not our function to analyze or
weigh evidence all over again." This principle applies with greater force in labor cases,
where this Court has consistently held that findings of fact of the NLRC are accorded
great respect and even finality, especially if they coincide with those of the Labor Arbiter
and are supported by substantial evidence. "Judicial review by this Court does not
extend to a reevaluation of the sufficiency of the evidence upon which the proper labor
tribunal has based its determination." Factual issues are beyond the scope of this
Court’s authority to review on certiorari.
Moreover, "[f]actual findings of administrative bodies charged with their specific field of
expertise, are afforded great weight by the courts, and in the absence of substantial
showing that such findings were made from an erroneous estimation of the evidence
presented, they are conclusive, and in the interest of stability of the governmental
structure, should not be disturbed."

G.R. No. 186589 July 18, 2014

RICARDO C. SILVERIO, SR. and LORNA CILLAN-SILVERIO, Petitioners,
vs.
RICARDO S. SILVERIO, JR., Respondent.
Indirect Contempt; Principle of Respect for Hierarchy of Courts

A hearing is required in order to resolve a charge of indirect contempt; the respondent to

the charge may not be convicted on the basis of written pleadings alone.
The pendency of a special civil action for certiorari instituted in relation to a pending
case does not stay the proceedings therein in the absence of a writ of preliminary
injunction or temporary restraining order. Rule 65, Section 7 of the 1997 Rules makes
this clear:
The court in which the petition is filed may issue orders expediting the proceedings, and
it may also grant a temporary restraining order or a writ of preliminary injunction for the
preservation of the rights of the parties pending such proceedings. The petition shall not
interrupt the course of the principal case unless a temporary restraining order or a writ
of preliminary injunction has been issued against the public respondent from further
proceeding in the case.
Sections 3 and 4, Rule 71 of the Rules of Court, specifically [outline] the procedural
requisites before the accused may be punished for indirect contempt. First, there must
be an order requiring the respondent to show cause why he should not be cited for
contempt. Second, the respondent must be given the opportunity to comment on the
charge against him. Third, there must be a hearing and the court must investigate the
charge and consider respondent's answer. Finally, only if found guilty will respondent be
punished accordingly. The law requires that there be a charge in writing, duly filed in
court, and an opportunity given to the person charged to be heard by himself or
counsel. What is most essential is that the alleged contemner be granted an opportunity
to meet the charges against him and to be heard in his defenses. This is due process,
which must be observed at all times.
In contempt proceedings, the prescribed procedure must be followed. To be sure, since
an indirect contempt charge partakes the nature of a criminal charge, conviction cannot
be had merely on the basis of written pleadings. A respondent in a contempt charge
must be served with a copy of the motion/petition. Unlike in civil actions, the Court does
not issue summons on the respondent. While the respondent is not required to file a
formal answer similar to that in ordinary civil actions, the court must set the contempt
charge for hearing on a fixed date and time on which the respondent must make his
appearance to answer the charge. x x x (Emphasis supplied)

G.R. No.177484 July 18, 2014

SPOUSES ALEJANDRO MANZANILLA AND REMEDIOS VELASCO, Petitioners,
vs.
WATERFIELDS INDUSTRIES CORPORATION, represented by its President, ALIZA
MA, Respondent.
Complaint for Unlawful Detainer; Unjust enrichment

Complaint for Unlawful Detainer

The spouses Manzanilla, on account of Waterfields’ alleged violation of the contract of
lease by non-payment of rentals, considered the contract terminated and demanded for
the latter to pay its obligation and vacate the property. As demand proved futile, the said
spouses filed the Complaint for ejectment [unlawful detainer].
For the purpose of bringing an unlawful detainer suit, two requisites must concur: (1)
there must be failure to pay rent or comply with the conditions of the lease, and (2) there
must be demand both to pay or to comply and vacate. The first requisite refers to the
existence of the cause of action for unlawful detainer, while the second refers to the
jurisdictional requirement of demand in order that said cause of action may be pursued.
Implied in the first requisite, which is needed to establish the cause of action of the
plaintiff in an unlawful detainer suit, is the presentation of the contract of lease entered
into by the plaintiff and the defendant, the same being needed to establish the lease
conditions alleged to have been violated. Thus, in Bachrach Corporation v. Court of
Appeals, the Court held that the evidence needed to establish the cause of action in an
unlawful detainer case is (1) a lease contract and (2) the violation of that lease by the
defendant.
Failure to pay the rent must precede termination of the contract due to nonpayment of
rent. It therefore follows that the cause of action for unlawful detainer in this case must
necessarily arise before the termination of the contract.
Unjust enrichment
Waterfields’ claim of unjust enrichment is unworthy of credence.
"The principle of unjust enrichment requires two conditions: (1) that a person is
benefited without a valid basis or justification, and (2) that such benefit is derived at the
expense of another." It does not, however, apply in this case since any benefit that the
spouses Manzanilla may obtain from the subject premises cannot be said to be without
any valid basis or justification. It is well to remind Waterfields that they violated the
contract of lease and that they failed to vacate the premises upon demand. Hence, the
spouses Manzanilla are justified in recovering the physical possession thereof and
consequently, in making use of the property. Besides, in violating the lease by failing to
pay the rent, Waterfields took the risk of losing the improvements it introduced thereon
in favor of the spouses Manzanilla. This is because despite the fact that the lease
contract provides that in case of termination of the lease agreement all permanent
improvements and structures found in the subject premises shall belong to the lessors,
it still violated the lease.

G.R. No. 180281

People of the Philippines vs. Joemarie Jalbonian alias ‘Budo”

The testimony of a lone persecution witness, as long as it is credible and positive, can
prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

Although the number of witnesses may be considered a factor in the appreciation of

evidence, preponderance is not necessarily with the greatest number and conviction
can still be had on the basis of credible and positive testimony of a single witness.
Corroborative evidence is deemed reasons to warrant the suspicion that the witness
falsified his observation had been inaccurate.

G.R. No. 179638

Heirs of Numeriano Miranda Sr. vs. Pablo R. Miranda.

An action for revival of judgment.

A party aggrieved by a decision of a court in an action for revival of judgment may
appeal the decision, but only insofar as the merits of the action for revival is concerned.
The original judgment, which is already final and executor, may no longer be reversed,
altered or modified.

G.R. No. 173587

Zuellig Pharma Corp. vs. Alice M. Sibal et.al.

Quitclaims.
Quitclaims executed by employees are often frowned upon as contrary to public policy.
But that is not to say that all waivers and quitclaims are invalid against public policy.

Quitclaim will be upheld as valid if the following requisites are present:

a.) The employee executes the quitclaim voluntarily.
b.) There is no fraud or deceit on the part of any of the parties.
c.) The consideration of the quitclaim is credible and reasonable, and
d.) The contract is not contrary to law, public order, public policy, morals or good
customs, or prejudicial to a third person with a right recognized by a law.

G.R. No. 176111

Carolina B. Jose vs. Purita Suarez.

When a trial court is confronted to rule on “a motion to dismiss a case or to withdraw

Information” it is its “bounden duty to assess independently the merits of the motion,
and this assessment must be embodied in a written order disposing of the motion.

G.R. No. 172346

Spouses Nameal and Lourdes Bonrostro vs. Spouses Juan and Constancia Luna.

Rescission of Contract.
The court believes that, delay in the payment of two installments is not so substantial to
warrant rescission of contract. The question of whether a breach of contract is
substantial depends upon the attendant circumstances.

G.R. No. 190340

People of the Philippines vs. Rogelio Rames and Marissa Ramos

In convincing the court to overturn conviction for murder, appellants in case invoke self-
defense, denial and alibi must:
1.) Successfully invoke the justifying circumstances of self -defense a.) unlawful
aggression b.) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or
repel it and c.) lack of sufficient provocation or the part of the person
defending himself.
2.) Defense of alibi, the accused must prove a.) that she was present at another
place at the time of the perpetration of the crime anal b.) that it was physically
impossible for her to be at the scene of the crime during the its commission.

G.R. No. 175666 July 24, 2013

Manila Bankers Life Insurance Corp., vs. Cresencia P. Aban

Incontestability Clause.
The incontestability clause is a provision in law that after a policy of life insurance made
payable on the death of the insured shall have been in force during the lifetime of the
insured for a period of two years from the date of its issue or of its last reinstatement,
the insurer cannot prove that the policy is void al initio or is rescindable by reason of
fraudulent concealment or misrepresentation of the insured or his agent.

The purpose of the law is to give protection to the insured or his beneficiary by limiting
the rescinding of the contract of insurance on the ground of fraudulent concealment or
misrepresentation to a period of only two years from the issuance of the policy or its last
reinstatement.

G.R. No. 182280

Teresa Aguilar vs. Michael J. O’Pallick

The principle that a person cannot be prejudiced by a ruling rendered in an action or

proceeding in which he was not made a party conforms to the constitutional guarantee
of due process of law.

G.R. No. 177050

Carlos Lim et al vs. Development Bank of the Philippines

While the law recognizes the right of a bank to foreclose a mortgage upon the
mortgagor’s failure to pay his obligation, it is imperative that such right be exercised
according to its clear mandate. Each and every requirement of the law must be
complied with, lest, the valid exercise of the right would end.

G.R. No. 180476

Raymond Coderias vs. Estate of Juan Cideco

Rules of procedure should promote, not defeat, substantial justice.

Rules of procedure ought not to be applied in a very rigid, technical sense, for they
adopted to help secure, not override substantial justice, and thereby defeat their very
ends. Indeed, rules of procedure are mere tools designed to expedite the resolution of
cases and other matters pending in court. A strict and rigid application of the rules that
would result in technicalities that tend to frustrate rather than promote justice must be
avoided.

G.R. No. 179736

Spouses Bill and Victoria Hing vs. Alexander Choachay Sr. and Allan Choachay

Right to privacy under Article 26 (1) of the Civil Code covers business offices where the
public are excluded there from and only certain individuals are allowed to enter.

Thus, an individual’s right to privacy under the Civil Code should not be confined to his
house or residence as it may extend places where he has the right to exclude the public
or deny them access. The phrase “prying into the privacy of another’s residence
therefore covers places, locations, or even situation which an individual considers as
private.

G.R. No. 179448

Carlos L. Tanenggee vs. People of the Philippines

Essential elements of falsification of commercial documents:

1. That the offender is a private individual or a public officer or employee who did
not take advantage of his official position;
2. That he committed the act of falsification under Art. 171 of the Revised Penal
Code; and
3. That the falsification was committed in a public, official or commercial
document.

G.R. No. 185719

People of the Philippines vs. Marcelino Collado y Conanan at al

Regularity in the performance of duty.

Mere allegations and self serving statements will not over come the presumption of
regularity in the performance of official duties accorded to police officers. There must be
a showing of clear and convincing evidence to successfully rebut this presumption.

G.R. No. 175773

Mitsubishi Motors Philippines Salaried Employees Union (MMPSEM) vs.

Mitsubishi Motors Philippines Corp.

A CBA constitutes a contract between the parties and as such, it should be strictly
construed for the purpose of limiting the amount of the employees liability. The terms of
the subject provision are clear and provide no room for any other interpretation. As there
is no ambiguity, the term must be taken in their plain, ordinary and popular sense.

G.R. No. 174908

Darma Maslag vs. Elizabeth Monzon, William Geston and ROD Benguit

Mode of appeal.
It is incumbent upon appellants to utilize the correct mode of appeal of the decisions of
trial courts to appellate courts. In the mistaken choice of their of remedy, they can blame
no one but themselves.
G.R. No. 181195

Frederick James C. Arais vs. Dr. Amelia C. Almirante

Where the respondent is absolved of the charge, or in case of conviction, where the
penalty imposed is public censure or reprimand, suspension of not more than one
month, or a fine equivalent to one month salary, the ombudsman's decision is final and
executory and inappealable. Indeed, in one case, the court went so far as to declare
that in such cases, the CA had no appellate jurisdiction to review, rectify or reverse the
order or decision of the ombudsman.

G.R. No. 189297

People of the Philippines vs. Guillermo Lomaque

It is well settled to require extensive documentation that where the issue in the extent of
credence to be properly given to the declaration made by witnesses, the finding of the
trial court are accorded great weight and respect. Such findings can only be discarded
or disturbed when it appears in the records that the trial court overlooked, ignored or
disregarded some facts or circumstances of weight or significance which if considered
would have altered the result.

G. R. NO. 192011
Libcab Marketing Corp., Johanna J. Celiz and Ma. Lucia G. Mondragon vs. Lanny
Jean B. Baquial.

Award of Nominal damages.

The Law and jurisprudence, allow the award of nominal damages in favor of an
employee in a case where a valid cause for dismissal exist but the employer fails to
observe due process in dismissing the employee.
Nominal damages are awarded for the purpose of vindicating or recognizing a right and
not for indemnifying a loss.

G.R. No. 177425

Alonzo Gipa, Imelda Maro et.al vs. Southern Luzon Institute

Lawful Fee is mandatory and jurisdictional. Those who seek exemption from the
application of the mule have the burden of proving the existence of exceptionally
meritorious reason warranting such departure.
G.R. No. 178055
Amecos Innovations, Inc and Antonio F. Mateo vs. Eliza R. Lopez.

Jurisdiction of Labor Arbiter.

The Labor Arbiter has the original and exclusive jurisdiction over claims for damages
arising from employer-employee relationship.
The labor arbiter has jurisdiction to award not only reliefs provided by labor laws, but
also damages governed by the Civil Code.

G.R. No. 177374

Mariano Jose, Felicisimo Jose vs. Ernesto M. Novita et.al.,

DARB jurisdiction vs. DAR Sec. jurisdiction. The DARAB derives it jurisdiction from RA
6657 popularly known as Comprehensive Agrerian Reform Law of 1988. The DARAB
has exclusive jurisdiction over cases involving the issuance, correction and cancellation
of CLOA’s and EPS which are registered with Land Registration.

Under Rules of Procedure for Agrarian Law Implementation (ALI) Cases, the Agrarian
Reform Sec., has exclusive jurisdiction over the issuance, recall or cancellation of
CLOA’s/Eps that are not yet registered with the Register of Deeds.

G.R. NO. 179914

Spouses Reynaldo and Hilly G. Sombilon vs. Atty. Rey Ferdinand Garay and
Philippine National Bank.

The issuance of a writ of possession is ministerial upon the court. A debtor has one year
from the date the Certificate of Sale is registered with the Register of Deeds within
which to redeem his property. During the one-year redemption period, the purchaser
may possess the property by filling a petition for the issuance of a writ of possession
before the court, upon posting of a bond. But after the one-year period, the purchaser
has a right to consolidate the title and possess the property, without need a bond. And
once title is consolidated, the issuance of the writ of possession becomes ministerial on
the part of the court; thus, no discretion is left to the court.

G.R. NO. 194818

Charles Bumagat, Julian Bacudio, Zosima Padre and Felipe Domincil vs.
Regalado Arribay.

The act of registration shall be the operative act to convey or affect the land insofar as
third persons are concerned.
Between the parties to a donation of an immovable property, all that is required is for
said donation to be contained in a public document. Registration is not necessary for it
to be considered valid and effective. However, in order the bind third persons, the
donation must be registered in the Registry of Property. The necessity of registration
comes into play when the rights of the third persons are affected.

G.R. No. 179535

Jose Espineli a.k.a Danilo Espinili vs. People of the Philippines.

Circumstantial Evidence.
The Rules of evidence allow trial court to rely on circumstantial evidence to support its
conclusion of guilt. Circumstantial evidence “which indirectly proves a fact in issue
through an inference which the factfinder draws from the evidence established.
Circumstantial evidence can be up held provided that the circumstances proved
constitute an unbroken chain which leads to one fair and reasonable conclusion that
points to the accused to the exclusion of all others as the guilty person.

G. R. No. 177592
Avelino S. Alilin et.a. vs. Petron Corporation

Labor-only Contractor.
A finding that a contractor is a “Labor only” contractor is equivalent to declaring that
there is an employer-employee relationship between the principal and the employee of
the supposed contractor.

G. R. No. 179669
SR Metals Inc, San R. Mining and Construction Corp. and Galeo Equipment and
Mining Company, Inc. vs. Angelo T. Reyes (DENR Sec).

Small scale mining.

Two different laws governing small-scale mining co-exist: PD 1899 and RA 7076
PD 1899, small scale mining referes to any single unit mining operation having an
annual production of not more than 50,000 metric tons.
RA 7076, small scale mining refers to a mining activity which rely heavily on manual
labor using simple implements and methods and do not use explosives or heavy mining
equipment. Two laws tackle the definition of small scale mining, both have different
object which the laws shall be applied to: PD 1899 applies to individuals, partnerships
and Corporation while RA 7076 applies to cooperatives.

G. R. No. 199871
People of the Philippines vs. Wilfredo Solano Jr. y Gecita

Circumstantial evidence, sufficient for conviction.

Circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction if:
a.) There is more than one circumstances;
b.) The facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and
 c.) The combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction
beyond reasonable doubt.

G. R. No. 191906
Joselito Ma. P. Jacinto vs. Edgardo Gumaru.

After a judgement has been fully satisfied, the case is deemed terminated. And when
judgement has been satisfied, it passes beyond review and there are no more
proceedings to speak f in as much as these were terminated by the satisfaction of the
judgement.

G. R. No. 169247
Maria Consolacion M. Nahas vs. Juanita L. Olarte.

The statutorily granted privilege of a corporate veil may be used only for legitimate
purposes. The corporate vehicle cannot be used as a shield to protect fraud or justify
wrong.

G. R. No. 181949
Heirs of Francisco Binag vs. Heirs of Susana B. Monoza.

Doctrine of finality of Judgment.

The doctrine of finality of judgement dictates that, at the risk of occasional errors,
judgements or orders must become final at some point in time.
Once it becomes final and executory, the decision or order may no longer be amended
or modified, not even by the appellate court.

G. R. No. 196753
People of the Philippines vs. Erwin Lalog et.al.

Self-defense as a justifying circumstance.

To avail self-defense as a justifying circumstance so as not to incur any criminal liability,
it must be proved with certainty by satisfactory and convincing evidence which excludes
any vestige of criminal aggression on the part of the person invoking it.

G. R. No. 199442
People of the Philippines vs. Francisco Abaigar.

Assessment of the credibility of witnesses is within the province and expertise of the trial
court.
G. R. No. 198059
People of the Philippines vs. Antonio Lujero y Macanoquit alias ‘Tonyo”.

Alibi, as a defense is inherently weak and crumbles in light of positive identification by

truthful witnesses. It should be noted that for alibi to prosper, it is not enough for the
accused to prove that he was in another place when the crime was committed. He must
likewise be proved that it was physically impossible for him to be present at the crime
scene or its immediate vicinity at the time of its commission.