Indophil Textile Mills, Inc. vs AdvientoGR no. 171212, August 4, 2014Labor LawPeralta,J.:

Facts: Petitioner is a domestic corporation engaged in business of manufacturing thread for weaving. Respondent, Engr. Adviento, was hired by petitioner to maintain its facilities. Respondent filed a complaint with the RTC alleging that he contracted with occupational disease by reason of the gross negligence of petitioner to provide him with safe, healthy, and workable environment. Petitioner assailed the jurisdiction of the RTC on the ground that it is within the jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter.

Issue: Whether or not the RTC has jurisdiction over the subject matter of respondent’s complaint praying for moral damages, exemplary damages, compensatory damages, anchored on petitioner’s alleged gross negligence in failing to provide a safe and healthy working environment for respondent.

Ruling: Yes, the maintenance of a safe and healthy workplace is ordinarily a subject of labor cases. More, the acts complained of appear to constitute matters involving employee-employer relations since respondent used to be the Civil Engineer of petitioner. However, it should be stressed that respondent’s claim for damages is specifically grounded on petitioner’s gross negligence to provide a safe, healthy and workable environment for its employees — a case of quasi-delict.

Lim vs HMR Phil., Inc.GR no. 201483, Aug. 4, 2014Labor LawMendoza, J.:

Facts: Lim filed a case for illegal dismissal and money claims against the respondents. Respondents were ordered to pay Lim’s full back wages reckoned from his dismissal on February 3,2001 up to the promulgation of this decision. Lim appealed after the decision has become final and executory, contending that the payment of back wages should be from his dismissal up to the time of his actual reinstatement.

Issue: Whether or not the recomputation of backwages up to the date of actual reinstatement would violate the principle of immutability of judgments.

Ruling. No, the nature of an illegal dismissal case requires that backwages continue to add on until full satisfaction. The computation required to reflect full satisfaction does not constitute an alteration or amendment of the final decision being implemented as the illegal dismissal ruling stands. Thus, in the present case, a computation of backwages until actual reinstatement is not a violation of the principle of immutability of final judgments.

Villarosa vs FestinGR no. 212953, Aug. 5, 2014Remedial LawVelasco, J.:

Facts: The petitioner and respondent were rival candidates for the mayoralty post. Respondent was proclaimed the victor. Petitioner filed a Petition for Protest Ad Cautelam before the RTC alleging irregularities in the conduct of elections. RTC declared void the proclamation of the respondent. Respondent elevated the case to the COMELEC which subsequently granted the request of the respondent for a preliminary injunction. Petitioner assailed the interlocutory order by way of Certiorari.

Issue: Whether or not petitioner’s recourse is proper.

Ruling: No, Certiorari will not generally lie against an order, ruling, or decision of a Commission on Elections (COMELEC) division for being premature, taking into account the availability of the plain, speedy and adequate remedy of a motion for reconsideration. With the availability of a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy at petitioner’s disposal, his hasty resort to certiorari to the Supreme Court (SC) cannot be justified.

Association of Flood Victims, vs. COMELECGR no. 203775, Aug. 5, 2014

Remedial LawCarpio, J,:

Facts: Petitioners and Hernandez filed a petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court against the COMELEC when it issued Minute Resolution No. 12-0859. Kindly include a brief description on what is the minute resolution all about prompting the petitioners to sue COMELEC.

Issue: Whether or not the petitioners have legal capacity to sue.

Ruling: No, Article 44 (2) lists the juridical persons with capacity to sue, thus:The following are juridical persons:(2) Other corporations, institutions and entities for public interest or purpose, created by law; their personality begins as soon as they have been constituted according to law.In their petition, it stated that Association of Flood victims is a non-profit and non-partisan organization in the process of formal incorporation. Clearly, the petitioner cannot be considered a juridical person which can be a party to a civil action.

Tan vs. DiamanteA.C No. 7766, Aug. 5, 2014Legal Ethics

Facts: Petitioner filed an administrative complaint for disbarment against the respondent charging him of violating the CPR and the lawyer’s oath for fabricating and using a spurious court order, and for failing to keep his client informed of the status of the case.

Issue: Whether or not respondent should be held administratively liable for violating the CPR.

Ruling: Yes, Respondent’s conduct of employing a crooked and deceitful scheme to keep complainant in the dark and conceal his case’s true status through the use of a falsified court order evidently constitutes Gross Misconduct. In cases where lawyers engaged in unlawful, dishonest, and deceitful conduct by falsifying documents, the Supreme Court (SC) found them guilty of Gross Misconduct and disbarred them. Basis?

Agot vs. RiveraA.C no. 8000, Aug. 5, 2014

Legal Ethics

Facts: Complainant filed an administrative complaint against respondent charging him of violating the CPR and the lawyer’s oath for misrepresentation, deceit, and failure to account for and return her money despite several demands.

Issue: Whether or not respondent should be held administratively liable for violating the CPR.

Ruling: Yes, a lawyer’s failure to return upon demand the funds held by him on behalf of his client, gives rise to the presumption that he has appropriated the same for his own use in violation of the trust reposed in him by his client. Basis?

Caram vs. SeguiGR no. 193652, Aug. 5, 2014Remedial law

Villarama Jr., J:

Facts: The RTC had dismissed petitioner’s petition for the issuance of a writ of amparo which petitioner filed in order for her to regain parental authority and custody of Julian Yusay Caram (Baby Julian), her biological child, from the respondent officers of the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD).

Issue: Whether or not a petition for a writ of amparo is the proper recourse for obtaining parental authority and custody of a minor child.

Ruling: No, the Amparo Rule was intended to address the intractable problem of “extralegal killings” and “enforced disappearances,” its coverage, in its present form, is confined to these two instances or to threats thereof. The privilege of the writ of amparo is a remedy available to victims of extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances or threats of a similar nature, regardless of whether the perpetrator of the unlawful act or omission is a public official or employee or a private individual. It is envisioned basically to protect and guarantee the right to life, liberty and security of persons, free from fears and threats that vitiate the quality of life.

Sameer Overseas Placement Agency, Inc. vs. CabilesGR no. 170139, Aug. 5, 2014Labor Law/Constitutional Law

Leonen Jr., J.:

Facts: This is a petition for review on Certiorari assailing the CA’s decision declaring respondent’s dismissal illegal, directing petitioner to pay respondent’s three-month salary equivalent to New Taiwan Dollar 46,080.00, and ordering it to reimburse the NT$3,000.00 withheld from respondent, and pay her NT$300.00 attorney’s fees.

Issue: Whether or not the CA erred when it affirmed the ruling of the NLRC finding the respondent illegally dismissed, awarding her 3 months worth of salary, the reimbursement of the cost of her repatriation, and attorney’s fees despite the alleged existence of just cause of termination.

Ruling: No, Management prerogative is recognized in law and in our jurisprudence. This prerogative, however, should not be abused. It is “tempered with the employee’s right to security of tenure.” The burden of proving that there is just cause for termination is on the employer. “The employer must affirmatively show rationally adequate evidence that the dismissal was for a justifiable cause.” Failure to show that there was valid or just cause for termination would necessarily mean that the dismissal was illegal. Due process requires that the probationary employee be informed of such standards at the time of his or her engagement so he or she can adjust his or her character or workmanship accordingly. The employer is required to give the charged employee at least two written notices before termination; Aside from the notice requirement, the employee must also be given “an opportunity to be heard.”

In Serrano v. Gallant Maritime Services, Inc. and Marlow Navigation Co., Inc., 582 SCRA 254 (2009), the Supreme Court (SC) ruled that the clause “or for three (3) months for every year of the unexpired term, whichever is less” is unconstitutional for violating the equal protection clause and substantive due process. Section 10 of the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995 provides that the foreign employer and the local employment agency are jointly and severally liable for money claims including claims arising out of an employer-employee relationship and/or damages.

People vs. GoGR no. 191015, Aug. 6, 2014Remedial LawDel Castillo Jr., J.:

Facts: PDIC filed a complaint for two counts of Estafa thru falsification of commercial documents against private respondents. After the presentation of all of prosecution’s evidence, the respondents filed a demurrer to evidence with leave of court. The presiding judge granted the demurrer to evidence. No motion for reconsideration was filed by the prosecutor, but only the PDIC which lacked the written approval of the public prosecutor. The prosecution, thru OSG, filed a petition for certiorari to the CA claiming that the order was issued with grave abuse of discretion. CA denied the petition because the order became final and executor since they failed to file a motion for reconsideration, and thus double jeopardy attached.

Issue: Whether or not the CA gravely abused its discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.

Ruling: Yes, A void judgment or order has no legal and binding effect, force or efficacy for any purpose. In contemplation of law, it is nonexistent. The granting of a demurrer to evidence should 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.

People vs. SteveGR no. 204911, Aug. 6, 2014Remedial LawPerez Jr., J.:

Facts: The RTC Decision found Mike Steve y Basman and Rashid Mangtoma y Noni guilty beyond reasonable doubt of drug pushing, particularly for violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (R.A. No. 9165), otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.

Issue: Whether or not the RTC and the CA erred in finding that the evidence of the prosecution was sufficient to convict both accused-appellants of the alleged sale of methylamphetamine hydrochloride or “shabu,” in violation of Section 5 of R.A. No. 9165. Kindly simplify. Inclusion of appellate courts is no longer necessary.

Ruling: No, In cases involving violations of Dangerous Drugs Act, credence should be given to the narration of the incident by the prosecution witnesses especially when they are police officers who are presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner, unless there is evidence to the contrary. The SC has time and again adopted the chain of custody rule, a method of authenticating evidence which requires that the admission of an exhibit be preceded by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what the proponent claims it to be. The defense of frame-up in drug cases requires strong and convincing evidence to overcome the presumption that the law enforcement agencies acted in the regular performance of their official duties. On the other hand, courts generally view the defense of denial with disfavor due to the facility with which an accused can concoct it to suit his or her defense.

Midway Maritime and Technological Foundation vs. CastroGR no. 189061, Aug. 6, 2014Civil LawReyes, J.:Kindly review this case. The facts do not support well your issue and ruling.

Facts: The petitioner Midway Maritime and Technological Foundation is the lessee of two parcels of land in Cabanatuan City. Its president, Dr. Manglicmot, is married to Adoracion Cloma, who is the registered owner of the property. Inside said property stands a residential building, which is now the subject matter of the dispute, owned by the respondents.

Issue: Whether or not there was a lease agreement between the petitioner and the respondents as regards the residential building.

Ruling: No. One can sell only what one owns or is authorized to sell, and the buyer can acquire no more right than what the seller can transfer legally.—“Nemo dat quod non habet.” A building by itself is a real or immovable property distinct from the land on which it is constructed and therefore can be a separate subject of contracts.

UPSI Property Holdings, Inc. vs. Diesel Construction Co., Inc.GR no. 200250, Aug. 6, 2014Remedial LawMendoza, J.:

Facts: The present controversy stemmed from a complaint filed by respondent Diesel Construction Co., Inc. (Diesel) against UPSI before the Construction Industry Arbitration Commission (CIAC) for collection of unpaid balance of the contract price and retention money under their construction agreement, damages for unjustified refusal to grant extension of time, interest, and attorney’s fees.

Issue: Whether or not the inclusion of the legal interest in the writ of execution despite the silence of the Court in the dispositive portion of its judgment is binding.

Ruling: No, Any attempt on the part of the entities charged with the execution of a final judgment to insert, change or add matters not clearly contemplated in the dispositive portion violates the rule on immutability of judgments. The rule is that in case of ambiguity or uncertainty in the dispositive portion of a decision, the body of the decision may be scanned for guidance in construing the judgment.

Padilla vs. Globe Asiatique Realty Holdings Corp.GR no. 207376, Aug. 6, 2014Remedial LawVillarama Jr., J.:

Facts: PNB entered into several Contracts of Sale with respondent Globe Asiatique. Respondent defaulted in payment of their balance to PNB. In the course of credit monitoring and verification, PNB claimed it discovered 231 out of 240 Contracts to Sell to have inexistent names and addresses of buyers. PNB filed a civil case against Globe Asiatique.

Issue: Whether or not a court can take cognizance of a compulsory counterclaim despite the fact that the corresponding complaint was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Ruling: Yes, under the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, it is now explicitly provided that the dismissal of the complaint due to failure of the plaintiff to prosecute his case is “without prejudice to the right of the defendant to prosecute his counterclaim in the same or in a separate action.” The effect of this amendment on previous rulings on whether the dismissal of a complaint carries with it the dismissal of the counterclaims as well, was discussed in the case of Pinga v. The Heirs of German Santiago, 494 SCRA 393 (2006).

People vs. PiccioGR no. 193681, Aug. 6, 2014Remedial LawPerlas-Bernabe, J.:

Facts: 16 members of PEPCI was accused of libel. The information was quashed in the RTC. People of the Philippines, through the private prosecutors, and with conformity of the public prosecutor filed a Notice of Appeal. The respondents filed a Motion to Dismiss on the ground that the brief for the private complainants did not carry the conforme of the OSG. CA denied the motion which prompted the OSG to file its comment. In its comment, the OSG asserted that the appeal, without its conformity, must fail because under the law it is only the OSG that should represent the People in criminal cases. CA dismissed the appeal, hence this petition.

Issue: whether or not petitioners, being mere private complainants, may appeal an order of the trial court dismissing a criminal case even without the OSG’s conformity.

Ruling: No, Jurisprudence holds that if there is a dismissal of a criminal case by the trial court or if there is an acquittal of the accused, it is only the OSG that may bring an appeal on the criminal aspect representing the People. The rationale therefor is rooted in the principle that the party affected by the dismissal of the criminal action is the People and not the petitioners who are mere complaining witnesses. For this reason, the People are therefore deemed as the real parties-in-interest in the criminal case and, therefore, only the OSG can represent them in criminal proceedings pending in the CA or in this Court. In view of the corollary principle that every action must be prosecuted or defended in the name of the real party-in-interest who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit, or by the party entitled to the avails of the suit, an appeal of the criminal case not filed by the People as represented by the OSG is perforce dismissible. The private complainant or the offended party may, however, file an appeal without the intervention of the OSG but only insofar as the civil liability of the accused is concerned. He may also file a special civil action for certiorari even without the intervention of the OSG, but only to the end of preserving his interest in the civil aspect of the case.

Rio vs. Colegio de Sta. Rosa-MakatiGR no. 189629, Aug. 6, 2014Labor LawPerez, J.:

Case can focus on gross inefficiency as reflected in your ruling. Kindy re- state them properly in your facts and issue.

Facts: Petitioner was hired by respondent Colegio De Sta. Rosa-Makati as a part-time school physician in June 1993. Respondent charged petitioner with a violation on the Manual of Regulations for Private Schools and also the Labor Code. Due to the charge, petitioner was preventively suspended for 30 days. Petitioner filed a complaint for constructive dismissal and illegal suspension. LA ruled in favor of the petitioner. On appeal, the NLRC reversed the decision of the LA. In a petition for Certiorari to the CA, the CA denied due to the failure of performing the tasks required of her.

Issue: Whether or not the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in reversing the ruling of the Labor Arbiter, this being the issue in the petition for certiorari under Rule 65 before the CA.

Ruling: No, Based on Article 282 of the Labor Code, in relation to Section 94 of the 1992 Manual of Regulations for Private Schools, petitioner was legally dismissed on the ground of gross inefficiency and incompetence, and negligence in the keeping of school or student records, or tampering with or falsification of records. Gross inefficiency is closely related to gross neglect because both involve specific acts of omission resulting in damage to another.

People vs. CerdonGR no. 201111, Aug. 6, 2014Criminal LawPerez, J.:

Facts: Accused was charged for violation of Sec. 5, Article II of RA 9165 following a “buy-bust” operation. He now contends that he should not be held liable since there was absence of media representatives during the operation.

Issue: Whether or not the absence of representatives from the media or the DOJ renders the arrest illegal.

Ruling: No, The failure of the prosecution to show that the police officers conducted the required physical inventory and photograph of the evidence confiscated in the presence of representatives from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ) pursuant to said guidelines does not automatically render appellant’s arrest illegal or the item seized from him inadmissible. The general rule is that “marking” of the seized items — to truly ensure that they are the same items that enter the chain and are eventually the ones offered in evidence — should be done, (1) in the presence of the apprehended violator, and (2) immediately upon confiscation. In People v. Gum-Oyen, 585 SCRA 668 (2009), a testimony that included the marking of the seized items at the police station and in the presence of the accused was sufficient in showing compliance with the rules on chain of custody. Marking upon immediate confiscation contemplates even marking at the nearest police station or office of the apprehending team.

Our Haus Realty Dev’t Corp. vs. ParianGR no. 204651, Aug. 6, 2014

Labor LawBrion, J.:

The facts is not related to your issue. You were discussing underpayment due to below minimum rates but your ruling and issue discusses about deduction of value facility,Facts: Respondents were all labourers for petitioner, a company engaged in construction business. When Our Haus experienced financial distress, it suspended some of its construction projects and asked affected workers, including the respondents, to take vacation leaves. When they were asked to report back but instead of doing so, they filed a complaint for underpayment of their daily wages because their wages was below the minimum rates prescribed by the wage order.

Issue: Whether or not the values of the board and lodging cannot be deducted from their wages for failure to comply with the requirements set by law.

Ruling: No, under the law, only the value of the facilities may be deducted from the employees’ wages but not the value of supplements. If it is primarily for the employee’s gain, then the benefit is a facility; if its provision is mainly for the employer’s advantage, then it is a supplement. A facility may only be deducted from the wage if the employer was authorized in writing by the concerned employee. The valuation of a facility must be supported by relevant documents such as receipts and company records for it to be considered as fair and reasonable.

Benson Industries Employees Union vs. Benson Industries Inc.GR no. 200746, Aug. 6, 2014Labor LawPerlas-Bernabe, J.:

Facts: Benson Industries sent its employees a notice informing them of their intended termination from employment on the ground of closure and/or cessation of business operations. Meanwhile, petitioners filed a notice of strike on the ground that the company’s supposed closure was merely a ploy to replace the union members with lower paid workers but it did not push through due to the parties’ amicable settlement whereby the petitioners accepted Benson’s payment of separation pay computed at 15 days for every year of service. This notwithstanding, petitioners claimed an additional 4 days per year of service based on their existing CBA that a Separation Pay it should be equivalent to not less than 19 days pay for every year of service.

Issue: Whether or not the CA correctly deleted the award to petitioners of additional separation benefits equivalent to four (4) days of work for every year of service.

Ruling: No, when the obligation to pay separation benefits, however, is not sourced from law (particularly, Article 297 of the Labor Code), but from contract, such as an existing collective bargaining agreement (CBA) between the employer and its employees, an examination of the latter’s provisions becomes necessary in order to determine the governing parameters for the said obligation. It is only in instances of retrenchment to prevent losses and in cases of closures or cessation of operations of establishment or undertaking not due to serious business losses or financial reverses that employees whose employment has been terminated as a result are entitled to separation pay.

People vs. Closa

GR no. 211049, Aug. 6, 2014Criminal LawReyes, J.:

Facts: Accused was charged of two (2) counts of rape and one (1) count of attempted rape of his minor daughter. Accused was found guilty by the RTC. On appeal, accused assigned a lone error, that the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt, claiming that AAA’s testimony was riddled with inconsistencies and that, more importantly, she had retracted her testimony.

Issue: Whether or not the testimony of the victim is sufficient for conviction.

Ruling: Yes, when a woman says she was raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that a rape was committed, and if her testimony meets the test of credibility, conviction may issue on the basis thereof. A rape victim’s testimony against her parent is entitled to great weight since Filipino children have a natural reverence and respect for their elders. Settled is the rule that the findings of fact of the trial court are accorded the highest degree of respect by this Court considering that the trial judge is able to personally observe the demeanor of the victim and other witnesses. Thus, the findings may be disturbed only when: (1) the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculations, surmises and conjectures; (2) the inferences made are manifestly mistaken; (3) there is grave abuse of discretion; and (4) the judgment is based on misapprehension of facts or premised on the absence of evidence on record.

Heirs of Francisco Narvasa, Sr. vs. Imbornal

GR no. 182908, Aug. 6, 2014Civil LawPerlas-Bernabe, J.:

kindly review this case. kindly focus only to one issue. Since your ruling explains about reconveyance and implied trust, might as well present the same in your facts for a better appreciation. Facts: This case is about a dispute between the heirs of Basilia Imbornal concerning a parcel of land. In deed this is a land case, but what happened to this case? how is this relate to your issues and ruling?

Issues: 1. Whether or not the descendants of Ciriaco are the exclusive owners of

the Motherland. Where is your discussion in the ruling re this?2. Whether or not the descendants of respondent Victoriano are the

exclusive owners of the First Accretion. Where is the ruling re this?3. Whether or not the descendants of Pablo are the exclusive owners of

the Second Accretion on the basis of the following grounds: (a) prescription of the reconveyance action, which was duly raised as an affirmative defense in the Amended Answer, and (b) the existence of an implied trust between the Imbornal sisters and Ciriaco.

Ruling: As to the procedural matters, an action for reconveyance based on an implied trust prescribes in ten (10) years, reckoned from the date of registration of the deed or the date of issuance of the certificate of title over the property,[39] if the plaintiff is not in possession. However, if the plaintiff is in possession of the property, the action is imprescriptible. As to the existence of implied trust, Article 1456 of the Civil Code provides that a person acquiring property through fraud becomes, by operation of law, a trustee of an implied trust for the benefit of the real owner of the property. An implied trust arises, not from any presumed intention of the parties, but by operation of law in order to satisfy the demands of justice and equity and to protect against unfair dealing or downright fraud.

Palm Avenue Holding Inc. vs. SandiganbayanGR no. 173082, Aug. 6, 2014Remedial LawPeralta, J.:

Facts: The PCGG sequestered all the assets of the Palm Companies. The Republic, represented by the PCGG, filed a civil case with the Sandiganbayan but did not implead the Palm Companies. The Palm Companies pray for the lifting of the Writ of Sequestriation against their assets since they were not impleaded as party-defendants within the period prescribed by the Constitution.

Issue: Whether or not Palm Companies were denied of their right to due process

Ruling: Yes, The Court’s ruling in Presidential Commission on Good Government v. Sandiganbayan, 290 SCRA 639 (1998), which remains good law, reiterates the necessity of the Republic to actually implead corporations as defendants in the complaint, out of recognition for their distinct and separate personalities, failure to do so would necessarily be denying such entities their right to due process. Here, the writ of sequestration issued against the assets of the Palm Companies is not valid because the suit in Civil Case No. 0035 against Benjamin Romualdez as shareholder in the Palm Companies is not a suit against the latter. The Court has held, contrary to the assailed Sandiganbayan Resolution in G.R. No. 173082, that failure to implead these corporations as defendants and merely annexing a list of such corporations to the complaints is a violation of their right to due process for it would be, in effect, disregarding their distinct and separate personality without a hearing. Here, the Palm Companies were merely mentioned as Item Nos. 47 and 48, Annex A of the Complaint, as among the corporations where defendant Romualdez owns shares of stocks.

Primanila Plans Inc. vs. SECGR no. 193791, Aug. 6, 2014Mercantile lawReyes, J.:

Facts: Securities and Exchange Commission issued a cease and desist order for violating RA 8799 otherwise known as the Securities Regulation Code. What was the violation all about? Incomplete facts!

Issue: Whether or not the issuance of cease and desist order is valid

Ruling: Yes, to equally protect individuals and corporations from baseless and improvident issuances, the authority of the SEC under this rule is nonetheless with defined limits. A cease and desist order may only be issued by the Commission after proper investigation or verification, and upon showing that the acts sought to be restrained could result in injury or fraud to the investing public. The law is clear on the point that a cease and desist order may be issued by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) motu proprio, it being unnecessary that it results from a verified complaint from an aggrieved party.

ECE Realty and Dev’t vs. HernandezGR no. 212689, Aug. 6, 2014Civil LawReyes, J.:Incomplete facts to support further your issue of legal interest.Facts: Respondent filed a complaint for specific performance against the petitioner because of its failure to turnover the condominium unit on the promised date.

Issue: Whether or not the imposition of legal interest is proper.

Ruling: Yes, Article 2209 of the New Civil Code provides that “If the obligation consists in the payment of a sum of money, and the debtor incurs in delay, the indemnity for damages, there being no stipulation to the contrary, shall be the payment of the interest agreed upon, and in the absence of stipulation, the legal interest, which is six percent per annum.”—Article 2209 of the New Civil Code provides that “If the obligation consists in the payment of a sum of money, and the debtor incurs in delay, the indemnity for damages, there being no stipulation to the contrary, shall be the payment of the interest agreed upon, and in the absence of stipulation, the legal interest, which is six percent per annum.” There is no doubt that ECE incurred in delay in delivering the subject condominium unit, for which reason the trial court was justified in awarding interest to the respondent from the filing of his complaint. There being no stipulation as to interest, under Article 2209 the imposable rate is six percent (6%) by way of damages, following the guidelines laid down in the landmark case of Eastern Shipping Lines v. Court of Appeals, 234 SCRA 78 (1994).

OSG Ship Management Manila vs PellazarGR no. 198367, Aug. 6, 2014Labor LawBrion, J.:

Facts: The respondent, an oiler in the vessel of MIT Delphina, filed a complaint for permanent total disability benefits and damages against the petitioners because his right hand was injured after it was struck by a solid iron pipe. Facts do not contain information re the 120 day period. What is this period all about?

Issue: Whether or not the respondent is already entitled to the permanent total disability benefits after the lapse of 120-day period.

Ruling: No, The mere lapse of the 120-day period itself does not automatically warrant the payment of permanent total disability benefits. Entitlement to disability benefits by seamen on overseas work is a matter governed, not only by medical findings but, by Philippine law and by the contract between the parties.

People vs. BattadGR no. 206368, Aug. 6, 2014Criminal LawReyes, J.:

Kindly review this properly.Facts: This is an appeal from the decision of the Court of Appeals which affirmed the conviction of Battad of the crime of Rape.?????? How is this related to your issue?

Issue: Whether or not the contention that the victim was already 5 to 6 months pregnant but the alleged incident occurred merely 3 months before the victim’s medical examination would exonerate the accused.

Ruling: No, pregnancy is not an essential element of the crime of rape. Whether the child which the rape victim bore was fathered by the accused, or by some unknown individual, is of no moment. What is important and decisive is that the accused had carnal knowledge of the victim against the latter’s will or without her consent, and such fact was testified to by the victim in a truthful manner.

Olongapo City vs. Subic Water and Sewerage Co., Inc.GR no. 171626, Aug. 6, 2014Remedial LawBrion, J.:

Facts: This is a petition for Certiorari assailing the decision of the Court of Appeals which directed the issuance of a writ of execution against Subic Water and Sewerage Co., Inc.

Issue: Whether or not the Court of Appeals gravely abused its discretion in allowing execution by mere motion even after the lapse of the five-year period, when the delay is caused by the actions of the judgment-debtor. Kindly support your issue by presenting more substance in your facts.

Ruling: Yes, Under Rule 39, Section 6, a judgment creditor has two modes in enforcing the court’s judgment. Execution may be either through motion or an independent action. These two modes of execution are available depending on the timing when the judgment creditor invoked its right to enforce the court’s judgment. Execution by motion is only available if the enforcement of the judgment was sought within five (5) years from the date of its entry. On the other hand, execution by independent action is mandatory if the five-year prescriptive period for execution by motion had already elapsed. However, for execution by independent action to prosper — the Rules impose another limitation — the action must be filed before it is barred by the statute of limitations which, under the Civil Code, is ten (10) years from the finality of the judgment.

Del Carmen vs. SabordoGR no. 181723, Aug. 11, 2014Civil LawPeralta, J.:

Facts: Suico spouses obtained a loan from DBP, to secure the said loan, they mortgaged several lots owned by them. Subsequently, they failed to pay their loan obligations forcing DBP to foreclose the mortgage. Suico sold their rights to Sabordo. After that, Suico were able to repurchase the foreclosed properties. Sabordo filed a declaratory relief raising the issue whether or not Suico has the right to recover from them the said lots.

Issue: Whether or not consignation was a judicial deposit based on a final judgment and such, does not require compliance with the requirements of Art. 1256 and 1257 of the NCC.

Ruling: No, consignation is the act of depositing the thing due with the court or judicial authorities whenever the creditor cannot accept or refuses to accept payment, and it generally requires a prior tender of payment. It should be distinguished from tender of payment which is the manifestation by the debtor to the creditor of his desire to comply with his obligation, with the offer of immediate performance. Tender is the antecedent of consignation, that is, an act preparatory to the consignation, which is the principal, and from which are derived the immediate consequences which the debtor desires or seeks to obtain. Tender of payment may be extrajudicial, while consignation is necessarily judicial, and the priority of the first is the attempt to make a private settlement before proceeding to the solemnities of consignation. Tender and consignation, where validly made, produces the effect of payment and extinguishes the obligation. Under Article 1256, the only instances where prior tender of payment is excused are: (1) when the creditor is absent or unknown, or does not appear at the place of payment; (2) when the creditor is incapacitated to receive the payment at the time it is due; (3) when, without just cause, the creditor refuses to give a receipt; (4) when two or more persons claim the same right to collect; and (5) when the title of the obligation.

People vs. HolgadoGR no. 207992, Aug. 11, 2014Criminal LawLeonen, J.:

Facts: The 2 accused were charged in an information in violation of RA 9165 otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. They were apprehended after the police have conducted a buy-bust operation.

Issue: Whether or not the prosecution was able to establish compliance with the requisites of Sec. 21 of RA 9165 why this kind of issue? What prompted the respondent in alleging that there was non- compliance of section 21?

Ruling: No, The elements that must be established to sustain convictions for illegal sale of dangerous drugs are settled. In People v. Morales, 616 SCRA 223 (2010), this court stated: In actions involving the illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the following elements must first be established: (1) proof that the transaction or sale took place and (2) the presentation in court of the corpus delicti or the illicit drug as evidence. By failing to establish identity of corpus delicti, noncompliance with Section 21 of Republic Act (RA) No. 9165 indicates a failure to establish an element of the offense of illegal sale of dangerous drugs. The physical inventory and photograph shall be conducted at the place where the search warrant is served; or at the nearest police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless seizures

Wallem Maritime Services, Inc. vs. Pedrajas

GR no. 192993, Aug. 11, 2014Labor LawPeralta, J.:

Facts: Hernani Pedrajas was hired as Engine boy by the petitioner. Hernani, while the vessel was in Italy, was found hanging on the upper deck of the vessel with a rope tied to his neck. Petitioners’ claim that they have no obligation to pay death benefits to the heirs of Hernani because the latter’s death was self inflicted and therefore exempted from the coverage of death benefits under the POEA-SEC.

Issue: Whether or not the suicide committed during his term of employment will exempt the petitioners from paying death benefits to his beneficiaries.

Ruling: Yes, the death of a seaman during the term of his employment makes the employer liable to the former’s heirs for death compensation benefits. This rule, however, is not absolute. The employer may be exempt from liability if it can successfully prove that the seaman’s death was caused by an injury directly attributable to his deliberate or willful act. Since the petitioners were able to prove that Hernani committed suicide, Hernani’s death is not compensable and his heirs are not entitled to any compensation or benefits.

Dept. of Agrarian Reform vs. Galle

GR no. 171836, Aug. 11, 2014Agrarian ReformDel Castillo, J.:

Facts: Respondent Galle owned two contagious parcels of land known as the Patalon Coconut Estate in Patalon, Zamboanga City. DARAB conducted summary administrative proceedings for the acquisition of the estate. Galle filed a case for the determination of just compensation. Did Galle filed directly with the SC? Kindly support well your issue.

Issue: Whether or not the Supreme Court may determine just compensation.

Ruling: No, the Supreme Court is not the proper forum for the determination of just compensation, as it is not a trier of facts, and it cannot receive evidence to fix the correct amount of just compensation. There is thus a need to remand the case in order to properly compute the just compensation that Galle and her heirs are entitled to, including interest and attorney’s fees, if any. This Court is not the proper forum for that, as it is not a trier of facts, and it cannot receive evidence to fix the correct amount of just compensation.

Vinuya vs Executive SecretaryGR no. 162230August 13, 2014

Political LawBersamin, J.:

Facts: Petitioners, members of MALAYA LOLAS, a duly registered organization with the SEC, formed for the purpose of providing aid to the victims of rape by Japanese military forces during World War II. Petitioners alleged that they were denied of help by the respondents in filing a claim against Japanese officials and military officers, however the respondents claim the contrary because their claims were already satisfied by Japan’s compliance with the Peace treaty with the Philippines.

Issue: Can the respondents be compelled to espouse their claims for official apology and other forms of reparations against Japan before the International Court of Justice and other international tribunals.

Ruling: No. the Constitution has entrusted to the Executive Department the conduct of foreign relations for the Philippines. Whether or not to espouse petitioners' claim against the Government of Japan is left to the exclusive determination and judgment of the Executive Department. The Court cannot interfere with or question the wisdom of the conduct of foreign relations by the Executive Department. Accordingly, we cannot direct the Executive Department, either by writ of certiorari or injunction, to conduct our foreign relations with Japan in a certain manner.

SM Land Inc. vs. Bases Conversion AuthorityGR no. 203655August 13, 2014

Civil Law (obligations and Contracts)Velasco, J.:

Facts: SM Land, Inc. (SMLI) offered to pay the Bases Conversion and Development Authority (BCDA)  for the development of BCDA's properties in Fort Bonifacio. BCDA claimed that SMLI's offer would be "prejudicial to government's interest for it will not yield the best value for the government, thus, BCDA terminated the competitive challenge for the selection of BCD A's joint venture partner for the development of a portion of Fort Bonifacio.

Issue: Whether or not there is a perfected contract which bound the government to complete the competitive challenge initiated by its acceptance of SMLI' s unsolicited proposal.

Ruling: No. Neither BCDA's acceptance of SMLI's unsolicited proposal, its , issuance of the certification of successful negotiation, nor the terms of reference did create a contract that could give rise to a right on the part of SMLI and an obligation on the part of BCDA to adhere to a specific selection process.

Article 1318 of the Civil Code provides the requisites of a contract:(1) Consent of the contracting parties;(2) Object certain which is the subject matter of the contract;(3) Cause of the obligation which is established.

Krystle Realty Development Corp. Vs AlbinGR no. 196117August 13, 2014Civil Law (Property)Perlas-Bernabe, J.:

Facts: Respondent (Domingo)owned an undivided one-half portion of and registered in his name and that Mariano, however on the strength of a contract to sell and a Deed of Sale the lot was allged to have been sold to Caridad and subsequently transferred to petitioner Krystle Realty Development Corporation (Krystle Realty). The sale, however, as between Domingo and Caridad was null and void because Domingo’s signature was one of forgery,and thus, the respondent’s heir being a substitute, upon death of Domingo, sought annulment of sale.

Issue: Whether or not Krystle Realty is a purchaser in good faith.

Ruling: No. Verily, one is considered a buyer in bad faith not only when he purchases real estate with knowledge of a defect or lack of title in his seller but also when he has knowledge of facts which should have alerted him to conduct further inquiry or investigation,as Krystle Realty in this case.

The Court finds Petitioner was aware of Domingo’s interest in the subject lot, and that Caridad had no title in her name at the time of the sale, thus, giving rise to the conclusion that it (Krystle Realty) had been reasonably apprised of the ownership controversy over the subject lot. Krystle Realty proceeded with the transaction without further examining the seller’s title and thus, could not claim to have purchased the subjectlot in good faith.

Tan vs Judge UsmanAM No. RTJ-14-2390August 13, 2014Remedial Law (Evidence)Peralta, J,:

Facts: An administrative complaint was filed by the petitioner against respondent for bribery and corruption because respondent was alleged to have been paid P250,000.00 by their opponent, as evidenced by a receipt in one of the pending case where petitioner is involved. Petitioner further accused respondent of knowingly issuing an unjust interlocutory order when he cited her in contempt and respondent guilty of gross ignorance of the law. Complainant now prays that respondent be meted the penalty of dismissal from service for bribery and corruption, however respondent countered that the allegations of bribery and corruption are baseless and unfounded.

Issue: Whether respondent can be held liable for bribery and corruption?

Ruling: No. In the absence of showing direct and convincing evidence to prove the alleged bribery, respondent judge cannot be held guilty ofsaid charge. In the instant case, no evidence was presented showing that respondent in fact accepted or received money or anything from in relation to the subject cases. Neither was there any evidence toshow that respondent judge unlawfully or wrongfully used his official function for his own benefit or personal gain.

City of Davao vs Court of AppealsGR no. 200538August 13, 2014Remedial Law (Civil Procedure)Mendoza, J.:

Facts: Davao City was the registered owner of a parcel of land claiming that this same parcel of land was earlier donated by the late Tagolploce and delo Cruz to be used as a public market but was not used as such, their heirs wrote De Guzman,who was then Davao City Mayor, seeking reconveyance of the said land, thereafter the land, through a deed of reconveyance, was transferred in favor of the said heirs.A few months later, under its new mayor, Mayor Rodrigo R. Duterte it was discovered that the subject property was sold, not donated, to Davao City,thus an annulment of deed of reconveyance was sought by the city mayor and De Guzman was impleaded as one of the parties to the case but the latter sought his name to be dropped from the case because he was not real party in interest and the latter likewise alleged that the treble fees/costs granted by the lower court was unmeritorius.

Issue: Should De Guzman be impleaded in the case as real party in interest for reconveying the parcel of land?

Ruling: Yes. The Court cannot see why the petition questioning the dropping of De Guzman as co-defendant was patently without merit. His submission that he was wrongfully impleaded as a party-defendant was not even passed upon by the CA, which merely ruled that his remedy was not certiorari, among others. Had there been merit in De Guzman's claim that he was wrongfully impleaded, the CA could have ordered that he be dropped as co-defendant, as it ordered the remand of the case to RTC for a full blown trial. The CA, however, did not make such an order.

In the case at bench, the imposition of treble costs was not explained at all. The CA imposed the amount ofP5,000.00 but it did not give any reason for such imposition. As the CA never justified it, the imposition should be stricken off.

Siverio, Sr. Vs Silverio, Jr.GR no. 208828-9August 13, 2014Remedial Law (Special Proceedings)Villarama Jr., J.:

Facts: The late Beatriz S. Silverio died without leaving a will on October 7, 1987. She was survived by her legal heirs,husband and legitimate children. Subsequently, an intestate proceeding for the settlement of her estate was filed by SILVERIO, SR. (husband of the deceased), in which a letter of admnistration was granted allowing him to dispose of some of the estate of the diseased. In the course of the proceedings, the parties filed different petitions and appeal challenging several orders ofthe intestate court that went all the way up to the Supreme Court.

Issue: Whether the letter of administration granted to respondent was valid making the sale of property likewise valid?

Ruling: Yes. Respondents should not be prejudiced by the flip-flopping appointment of Administrator by the intestate court, having relied in good faith that the sale was authorized and with prior approval of the intestate court under its Omnibus Order which remained valid and subsisting insofar as it allowed the aforesaid sale.

Anchor Savings Bank vs Pinzman Realty and Development Corp.GR no. 192304August 13, 2014Civil Law (Real Estate Mortgage)Villarama Jr., J.:

Facts: Private respondents obtained a loan from the petitioner secured by a real estate mortgage(parcels of land) however the former defaulted payment of his obligation leading to extrajudicial foreclosure of the mortgaged land. Foreclosure sale was held where the petitioner emerged as the highest bidder of the disputed properties, and a Certificate of Sale was issued in favor of the petitioner. The private respondents prayed for the nullification of the foreclosure sale alleging that the amount demanded in the Notice of Extrajudicial Sale was exorbitant and excessive.

Issue: Whether the foreclosure of the usurious mortgage was valid.

Ruling: No. It is jurisprudential axiom that a foreclosure sale arising from a usurious mortgage cannot be given legal effect. Since the Spouses Landrito, the debtors in this case, were not given an opportunity to settle their debt, at the correct amount and without the iniquitous interest imposed, no foreclosure proceedings may be instituted. A judgment ordering a foreclosure sale is conditioned upon a finding on the correct amount of the unpaid obligation and the failure of the debtor to pay the said amount. In this case, it has not yet been shown that the Spouses Landrito had already failed to pay the correct amount of the debt and, therefore, a foreclosure sale cannot be conducted in order to answer for the unpaid debt.

Yap vs Rover Maritime Services Corp.GR no. 198342August 13, 2014Labor LawPeralta, J.:

Facts: The deceased, Dovee M. Yap, was a seafarer who had been employed by respondents from which on the last day of its employment contract he met an accident.On July 17, 2007, Dovee Yap filed against respondents a complaint for permanent disability benefits, sickwages, reimbursement of hospital, medical, and doctor’s expenses, actual, moral and exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees; during the pendency of the case, Dovee Yap died. His widow, Remedios O. Yap, substituted him as party-complainant and the claim for disability benefits was then converted into a claim for death benefits.

Issue: Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation for the death of her husband, Dovee Yap.

Ruling: No. The terms and conditions of a seafarer’s employment, including claims for death and disability benefits, is a matter governed, not only by medical findings, but by the contract he entered into with his employer and the law which is deemed integrated therein. For as long as the stipulations in the contract are not contrary to law,morals, public order, or public policy, they have the force of law between the parties, to wit:

XXXX in order for the beneficiaries of a seafarer to be entitled to death compensation from the employer, it must be proven that the death of the seafarer (1) is work-related; and (2) occurred during the term of his contract.XXXX

A perusal of the records would revealthat petitioner failed to prove by substantial evidence that the death ofher husband occurred during the term of his employment contract and that the cause of death was work-related.

Sevilla vs PeopleGR no. 194390August 13, 2014Remedial Law (Criminal Procedure)Reyes, J.:

Facts: Sevilla, a former councilor of Malabon City, was charged in an information for the felony of falsification of public document, penalized under Article 171(4) of the RPC, however he pleaded not guilty during the arraignment. The Sandiganbayan found him GUILTY of Falsification of Public Documents Through Reckless Imprudence under Article 365 of the RPC. In the instant petition, Sevilla asserts that the Sandiganbayan erred in finding him guilty of the felony of falsification of public documents through reckless imprudence because Information that was filed against him specifically charged him with the commission of an intentional felony of falsification of public documents under Article 171(4) of the RPC and hence, he could not be convicted of falsification of public document through reckless imprudence under Article 365 of the RPC, which is a culpable felony.

Issue: Whether Sevilla can be convicted of the felony of falsification of public document through reckless imprudence notwithstanding that the charge against him in the Information was for the intentional felony of falsification of public document under Article 171(4) of the RPC.

Ruling: Yes. This is a case covered by the rule when there is a variance between the allegation and proof, and is similar to some of the cases decided by this Tribunal. To stress, reckless imprudence resulting to falsification of public documents is an offense that is necessarily included in the willful act of falsification of public documents, the latter being the greater offense. As such, he can be convicted of reckless imprudence resulting to falsification of public documents notwithstanding that the Information only charged the willful act of falsification of public documents.

People vs SanicoGR no. 208469August 13, 2014Remedial Law (Evidence)Reyes, J.:

Facts: Two separate Information were filed against the accused-appellant before the RTC (1) Acts of Lasciviousness and (2) for Rape, however during the arraignment accused-appellant pleaded not guilty and so trial for the case ensued. AAA, a 12 year old minor was alleged to have been molested and raped for series of times by the accused until on the day the accused was caught by the parents of the victim. Testimonies were based on victim’s statement, her mother’s and coupled with evidence of medical examination.

Issue: Whether the accused appellant can be convicted for the offense charged even if the quantum of proof presented is not one of proof beyond reasonable doubt.

Ruling: Yes. The victim’s testimony was positive, clear and categorical and it is a fundamental rule that the trial court’s factual findings, especially its assessment of the credibility of witnesses, are accorded great weight and respect and binding upon this Court, particularly when affirmed by the Court of Appeals. This Court has repeatedly recognized that the trial court is in the bestposition to assess the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies because of its unique position of having observed that elusive and incommunicable evidence of the witnesses’ deportment on the stand while testifying, which opportunity is denied to the appellate courts. Only the trial judge can observe the furtive glance, blush of conscious shame, hesitation, flippant or sneering tone, calmness, sigh, or the scant or full realization of an oath. These are significant factors in evaluating the sincerity of witnesses, in the process of unearthing the truth and appellate courts will generally not disturb such findings unless it plainly overlooked certain facts of substance and value that, if considered, might affect the result of the case.

Fernandez vs Botica ClaudioGR no. 205870August 13, 2014Labor LawPerlas-Bernabe, J.:

Facts: Fernandez was an employee of Botica Claudio until the termination of her services on January 15, 2006 which prompted her to file a complaint for illegal dismissal with prayer for the payment of her statutory benefits before the NLRC Regional Arbitration Branch (RAB). LA ruled that although the termination was based on just cause, the procedural due process on termination of employment was not properly observed, subsequently an appeal to NLRC was made by the petitioner for being unsatisfied with the LA’s award, and the NLRC granted such appeal and found petitioner to have been illegally dismissed, however respondent filed its first MR followed by its second MR; despite pending MR respondent filed petition for Certiorari before the CA which was granted by the CA.

Issue: Whether or not the CA erred in holding that the NLRC gravely abused its discretion in giving due course to Fernandez’s appeal. Kindly focus on MR as your issue.

Ruling: Yes. It is settled that the filing of a motion for reconsideration from the order, resolution or decision of the NLRC is an indispensable condition before an aggrieved party can avail of a petition for certiorari.This is to afford the NLRC an opportunity to rectify its perceived errors or mistakes, if any. Hence, the more prudent recourse for respondent should have been to move for the immediate resolution of its motion for reconsideration before the NLRC instead of filing a petition for certioraribefore the CA, having failed to do so, her petition for certiorariwas prematurely filed, and the CA should have dismissed the same.

People vs Balaquiot y BalderamaGR no. 206366August 13, 2014Criminal LawPerez, J.:

Facts: Appellant was arrested during a buy bust operation and was charged with the offense of illegal sale of shabu under an Information filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Tarlac. When appellant was arraigned he entered a plea of not guilty, he alleged that he was only framed up by the police officers, on appeal he was questioning the testimony and credibility of the officers who conducted the buy bust operation and the findings and reports of the Chief intelligence officers that the marked sachet was the shabu from the accused because it was not marked as such during the incident and not at the place where it was conducted, hence this appeal was brought before this Court.

Issue: Whether or not corpus delicti was established even if the chain of custody was broken.

Ruling: Yes. We are satisfied that the corpus delicti of the offense in this case was proven beyond reasonable doubt. Evidently, the prosecution was able to account for each and every link in the chain of custody over the shabu, from the moment it was retrieved during the buy-bust operation up to the time it was presented before the court as proof of the corpus delicti.

Contrary to appellant’s assertion, the failure by PO3 Espiritu and SPO1 Daraman to mark the seized shabuimmediately at the place where the buy-bust was conducted will notautomatically impair the integrity of the chain of custody so established. Strictly speaking, marking the seized contraband at the nearest police station,rather than at the place where the buy-bust operation was conducted, is not even a violation of the procedure set forth in Section 21 of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.

People vs BalaGR no. 203048August 13, 2014Criminal LawPerez, J.:

Facts: A confidential informant reported that a transaction with two Muslims for the sale of shabu would take place in his house, acting on this information Police Inspector Virgilio Olalia forthwith formed a buy-bust team. The transaction happened in the house of the informant which resulted to arrest and confiscation of the suspected shabu from the accused-appellant. On appeal the appelant questions the evidentiary value of the seized items for failure to marked the seized items in the place where it was taken and in the presence of the appelant, failure to make proper inventory and further alleged a clear viloation of failure to observe the proper procedure.

Issue: Whether appellant is guilty of violation of RA 6425 even if there are lapses in the chain of custody.

Ruling: YES. A review of the evidence on record will show that the prosecution was able to establish an unbroken chain of custody over the shabu which it claims as having been sold and possessed by the accused-appellant.

In every prosecution for illegal sale of shabu, the following elements must be sufficiently proved: (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 therefor and all these elements were duly established. Appellant was caught in flagrante delictoselling shabuthrough a buybust operation conducted by members of the Malabon Drug Enforcement Unit. The poseur-buyer, PO1 Fernandez, positively testified that the sale took place and appellant was one of the authors of the illegal sale of drugs, hence in fine, it has been established by proof beyond reasonable doubt that appellant sold shabu.

Arriola vs Pilipino Star ngayon, Inc.GR no. 175689August 13, 2014Labor LawLeonen, J.:

Facts: Pilipino Star Ngayon, Inc. employed Arriola, section editor and writer of its newspaper, he wrote "Tinig ng Pamilyang OFWs" until his column was removed from publication on November 15, 1999. Since then, Arriola never returned for work and on November 15, 2002 Arriola filed a complaint for illegal dismissal arguing that he was a regular employee, having rights to security of tenure, and due process were violated when Pilipino Star Ngayon, Inc. illegally dismissed him, however Pilipino Star Ngayon, Inc. denied Arriola’s allegations and countered that around the third week of November 1999, Arriola suddenly absented himself from work and never returned despite Belmonte’s phone callsand beeper messages. After a few months, they learned that Arriola transferred to a rival newspaper publisher, Imbestigador, to write "Boses ng Pamilyang OFWs."

Issue: Whether petitioner was illegaly dismissed.

Ruling: No.We agree that Pilipino Star Ngayon, Inc. did not illegally dismiss Arriola, "the removal of Arriola’s column from private respondent is not tantamount to a termination of his employment as his job is not dependent on the existence of the column ‘TinigngPamilyang OFWs.’" When Pilipino Star Ngayon, Inc. removed "TinigngPamilyang OFWs" from publication, Arriola remained as section editor.

Moreover, a newspaper publisher has the management prerogative to determine what columns to print in its newspaper, Arriola abandoned his employment with Pilipino Star Ngayon, Inc.

People’s Trans-east Asia Insurance Corp. vs Doctors of New Millenium Holding Inc.GR no. 172404August 13, 2014Civil Law (Credit Transaction)Leonen, J.:

Facts: Doctors of New Millennium Holdings, Inc entered into a construction and development agreement with Million State Development Corporation for the construction of a 200-bed capacity hospital in Cainta, Rizal. Million State Development submitted a surety bond to Doctors of New Millennium issued by People’s Trans-East Asia Insurance Corporation, now known as People’s General Insurance Corporation. Million State Development, however, failed to comply with its obligation and so Doctors of New Millennium filed a complaint for breach of contract with damages with prayerfor the issuance of preliminary attachment against Million State Development and People’s General Insurance with the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City.

Issue: Whether a surety bond which guarantees initial payment is impliedly novated by an insertion of a clause in the principal contract waiving the conditions for the initial payment’s release.

Ruling: No. The obligations of the surety to the principal under the surety bond are different from the obligations of the contractor to the client under the principal contract. The surety guarantees the performanceof the contractor’s obligations upon the contractor’s default,its client may demand against the surety bond even ifthere was no privity of contract between them and this is the essence of a surety agreement.

A contract of suretyship is an agreement whereby a party, called the surety, guarantees the performance by another party, called the principal or obligor, of an obligation or undertaking in favor of another party, called the obligee. By its verynature, under the laws regulating suretyship, the liability of the surety is joint and several but is limited to the amount of the bond, and its terms are determined strictly by the terms of the contract of suretyship in relation to the principal contract between the obligor and the obligee.

People vs MarceloGR no.181541August 18, 2014Criminal LawDel Castillo, J.:

Facts: Imrie Tarog informed P/Insp. Rabulan that appellant would arrive at his rented unit in Visitor’s Inn, Brgy.Punta Waling-Waling, Donsol, Sorsogon to deliver and sell an unspecified quantity of shabu, subsequently a buy-bust team was formed and requested Tarog to participate in the operation. Tarog was instructed to act as poseur-buyer and Rabulan then prepared a pre-operation report dated August 1, 2003 and coordinated the buy-bust operation with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA); appellant was successfully arrested in the buy bust operation, a sachet of shabu was taken from appellant and thereafter confirmed as such by Chem. Lab. of the PNP.

Issue: Whether the appellant can be validly convicted for illegal sale of shabu under RA 9165.

Ruling: Yes. In a prosecution for illegal sale of shabu, the following elements must concur: "(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 therefor. x x x What is material in a prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs is the proof that the transaction or saleactually took place, coupledwith the presentation in court of the corpus delicti" or the illicit drug in evidence.

In this case, the prosecution successfully proved the existence of all the essential elements of the illegal sale of shabu. Appellant was positively identified by the police officers who conducted the buy-bust operation as the person who sold the shabu presented in court.

Magsino vs De Ocampo and GuicoGR no. 166944August 18, 2014Remedial Law (Civil Procedure)Bersamin, J.:

Facts: The petitioner was the owner in fee simple of a parcel of agricultural land and had been in physical possession of the land for more than 30 years,subsequently the respondents thereby illegally deprived him of the possession of the land. The petitioner filed a complaint for forcible entry and motion for preliminary mandatory injunction while the respondent countered that she had held a registered title in the land and that the petitioner was a squatter on the land with no possessory rights, and likewise her co-respondent Ramon Guico, Jr., then a Municipal Mayor in the Province of Pangasinan, had allegedly owned the titled land being occupied and possessed by De Ocampo. RTC ruled in favor of respondents and on appeal to CA, the latter dismissed the petition for review becausethe petitioner did not attach to his petition the complaint, the answer, and the motion to dismiss.

Issue: Whether the Court of Appeals committed error in not granting the petition for review filed by the petitioner.

Ruling: No. We begin by reminding the petitioner that the right to appeal is not a natural right and is not part of due process, but merely a statutory privilege to be exercised only in accordance with the law. Being the party who sought to appeal, he must comply with the requirements of the relevant rules; otherwise, he would lose the statutory right to appeal. It cannot be overemphasized, indeed, that the proceduresregulating appeals as laid down in the Rules of Court must be followed because strict compliance with them was indispensable for the orderly and speedy disposition of justice.

Office of the Court Administrator vs Melchor, Jr.August 19, 2014Political Law (Administrative Case)

Facts: A financial audit was conducted by the complainant on the books of account of respondent, during the course of the fiscal audit examination,

members of the financial audit team discovered evidence of irregularities in the handling of the financial transactions of the court as well as shortage in its financial accountabilities. Respondent readily admitted the findings of the audit team and apologized for his negligence and further explained that the collected bail bonds from various cases were used to defray the cost of the hospitalization expenses of his child. He pleaded for compassionate justice and humanitarian consideration citing "humanely error in discretion."

Issue: Whether respondent can be held administratively liable for dishonesty, gross neglect of duty and gross misconduct and be dismissed.

Ruling: Yes. By his own admission, Melchor knowingly used the court funds in his custody to defray the hospitalization expenses of his child, regrettably though, personal problems or even medical emergencies in the family cannot justify acts of using the judiciary funds held by an accountable officer of the court. As Clerk of Court, Melchor was entrusted with delicate functions in the collection of legal fees and receive all monies paid as legal fees, deposits, fines and dues, and controls the disbursement of the same, and  designated as custodian of the court's funds and revenues, records, properties and premises, and should be liable for any loss or shortage thereof.

By failing to properly remit the cash collections constituting public funds, Melchor violated the trust reposed in him as the disbursement officer of the Judiciary. Melchor's failure to manage and properly document the cash collections allocated for the JDF is likewise a c !ear violation of Administrative Circular No. 5-93.

Salmonte vs Comission on AuditGR no. 207348August 19, 2014Civil Law (Poperty)Velasco Jr., J.:

Facts: The City of Mandaue and F.F. Cruz entered into a Contract of Reclamation Project from which F.F. Cruz undertake the reclamation of foreshore and submerged lands from the Cabahug Causeway in that city, the improvements introduced by F.F. Cruz would be owned by the City upon completion of the project which under the Contract of reclamation, however the project was not completed in 1995 because when Metro Cebu Development Project II (MCDP II) required the widening of the Plaridel Extension Mandaue Causeway in which the reclamation area is covered, the structures and facilities built by F.F. Cruz subject of the MOA stood in the direct path of the road widening project. Thus, the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) and Samuel B. Darza, MCDP II project director, entered into an Agreement to Demolish, Remove and Reconstruct Improvement dated July 23, 1997 with F.F. Cruz whereby the latter would demolish the improvements outside of the boundary of the road widening project and, in return, receive the total amount of PhP 1,084,836.42 in compensation

Issue: Whether the City of Mandaue owned the poperties during the period the properties were demolished.

Ruling: No. A careful reading of the pertinent section of the Contract of Reclamation between F.F. Cruz and Mandaue City, however, would confirm respondents Rances-Solante’s and Sungahid’s view that herein respondent Cruz was still the owner of the subject properties at the time these were demolished. Indeed, the Contract specifies that the six (6)-year period was no more than an estimate of the project completion, it was not a fixed period agreed upon. Being so, the mere lapse of six (6) years from the execution of the Contract, did not by itself deem the reclamation project completed, much less bring about the fulfillment of the condition stipulated in the MOA (on the shift of ownership over the demolished properties). Herein respondent Cruz, and/or his company, at least on this particular regard, can be said to be still the owner of the structures along Plaridel Extension x xx, when these were demolished to give way to road widening; it was nothing but equitable that they get compensated for the damages caused by the demolition.

People vs YauGR no. 208170August 20, 2014Remedial Law (Evidence)Mendoza, J.:

Facts: On January 20, 2004, private complainant Alastair Onglingswam went out of Makati Shangrila Hotel, where he was billeted, and hailed a white Toyota taxi cab with plate number PVD-115 to take him from the said hotel to Virra Mall Shopping Center in San Juan, Metro Manila. He noted that while he was on the phone appellant Petrus Yau whom he noted that from time to time would turn to him and talk as if he was also being spoken to, thereafter, he felt groggy and fell asleep and when he woke up he was lying down, his head was already covered with a plastic bag and he was handcuffed and chained. Private complainant was told by this Petrus Yau that he was been kinapped for ransom and further instructed to call his family and asked money for his released, for 22 days of captivity he likewise suffered maltreatment but it does not last long until Police Anti-Crimeand Emergency Response Task Force (PACER) was able to tracked down the vehicle and Petrus Yau and the latter admitted the crime revealed the place where the victim was held.

Issue: Whether accused-appellant can be held liable for the crime of serious illegal detention and kidnapped for ransom based on evidence which is below the required quantum of evidence which is proof beyond reasonable doubt as required in criminal cases.

Ruling: Yes. The settled rule is that a judgment of conviction based on circumstantial evidence can be upheld only if the following requisites concur: (1) there is more than one circumstance; (2) the facts from which the inferencesare derived are proven; and (3) the combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce conviction beyond reasonable doubt; the corollary rule is that the circumstances proven must constitute an unbroken chain which leads to one fair and reasonable conclusion pointing to the accused, to the exclusion of all others, as the guilty person.

People vs Reyes y MarasiganGR no. 210619August 20, 2014Criminal LawReyes, J.:

Facts: In May 2002, AAA, an eleven (11) year old, while alone inside the room of the house, accused-appellant, Common-law husband of BBB(mother of the victim), molested her and tried to insert her genitalia to the child but was unsuccessful; On August 5, 2002, AAA while alone in the room was again molested by the accused-appellant while on top of the child he made a push and pull motion and the latter felt burning pain on the area, she was not able to tell to her mother the incident because the latter was not in their house but when the night comes AAA was able to tell what happened, and there AAA together with her mother, BBB, reported the incident to the law enforcement officer and medical examination was further conducted to support the claim. Accused-appellant was apprehended and charged for rape.

Issue: Whether accused-appellant was guilty for the crime of statutory rape as charged.

Ruling: Yes. Records show that the elements of statutory rape are present in the case under review. Statutory rape is committed by sexual intercourse with a woman below 12 years of age regardless of her consent, or the lack of it, to the sexual act. Proof of force, intimidation or consent is unnecessary as they are not elements of statutory rape, considering that the absence of free consent is conclusively presumed whenthe victim is below the age of 12. At that age, the law presumes that the victim does not possess discernment and is incapable of giving intelligent consent to the sexual act. Thus, to convict an accused of the crime of statutory rape, the prosecution carries the burden of proving: (a) the age of the complainant; (b) the identity of the accused; and (c) the sexual intercourse between the accused and the complainant.

Fernandez vs VillegasGR no. 200191August 20, 2014

Remedial Law (Civil Procedure)Perlas-Bernabe, J.:

Facts: Petitioner filed a complaint for ejectment against respondent to recover possession over the parcel of land, the former averred that they are the absolute owner of the land and that the respondents are merely tolerated to stay over the land, subsequently they are demanded to vacate but repondents refused to vacate and surrender the possession thereof. Respondents in defense, alleged that the land has already been donated to respondent’s late husband, thus petitioner has no cause of action against the respondent and further asserted that there was no compliance with the required conciliation and mediation under the Katarungang Pambarangay Law as no Certificate to File Action was attached to the complaint, thereby rendering the complaint dismissible. On appeal to CA the court dismissed plaintiff’s complaint on the ground that verification and certification against forum shopping attached to the CA petition was defective since it was signed only by Lourdes, one of the plaintiffs in the case, in violation of Section 5, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court which requires all the plaintiffs to sign the same.

Issue: Whether the CA erred in dismissing outright the petition due to a defective verification and certification against forum shopping attached to the CA petition.

Ruling: Yes. The Court in its decision laid down guidelines with respect to noncompliance with the requirements on or submission of a defective verification and certification against forum shopping , viz.: (3) Verification is deemed substantially compliedwith when one who has ample knowledge to swear tothe truth of the allegations in the complaint or petition signs the verification, and when matters alleged in the petition have been made in goodfaith or are true and correct. (4)The certification against forum shopping must be signed by all the plaintiffs or petitioners in a case; otherwise, those who did not sign will be dropped as parties to the case. Under reasonable or justifiable circumstances, however, as when all the plaintiffs or petitioners share a common interestand invoke a common cause of action or defense, the signature of only one of them in the certification against forum shopping substantially complies with the Rule.

Grace Christian High School vs LavanderaGR no. 177845August 20, 2014

Labor LawPerlas-Bernabe, J.:

Facts: Filipinas was employed by petitioner Grace Christian High School (GCHS) as high school teacher since June1977 and on August 30, 2001 Filipinas filed a complaint for illegal (constructive) dismissal, non-payment of service incentive leave (SIL) pay, separation pay, service allowance, damages, and attorney’s fees against GCHS however, the latter denied that they illegally dismissed Filipinas. They asserted that the latter was considered retired on May 31, 1997 after having rendered 20 years of service pursuant to GCHS’ retirement plan. The LA, NLRC and CA ruled that there was no illegal dismissal instead petitioner was retired pursuant to GCHS Plan.

Issue: Whether the CA committed reversible error in using the multiplier "22.5 days" in computing the retirement pay differentials of Filipinas

Ruling: No. The Labor Code states that "an employee’s retirement benefits under any collective bargaining [agreement (CBA)] and other agreements shall not be less than those provided" under the same – that is, at least one half (1/2) month salary for every year of service, a fraction of at least six (6) months being considered as one whole year – and that "unless the parties provide for broader inclusions, the term one-half (1/2) month salary shall mean fifteen (15) days plus one-twelfth (1/12) of the 13th month pay and the cash equivalent of not more than five (5) days of service incentive leaves."

In the present case, GCHS has a retirement plan for its faculty and non-faculty members, which gives it the option to retire a teacher who has rendered at least 20 years of service, regardless of age, with a retirement pay of one-half (1/2) month for every year ofservice.

The Court, in the case of Elegir v. Philippine Airlines,Inc., has recently affirmed that "one-half (1/2) month salary means 22.5 days: 15 days plus 2.5 days representing one-twelfth (1/12) of the 13th month pay and the remaining 5 days for [SIL]."

Lopez vs Irvine Construction Corp.GR no. 207253

August 20, 2014Labor LawPerlas-Bernabe, J.:

Facts: Respondent is a construction firm which hired Lopez as laborer in November 1994 and, thereafter, designated him as a guard at its warehouse in Dasmarifias, Cavite in the year 2000.On December 18, 2005, Lopez was purportedly terminated from his employment, whereupon he was told "kaw ay lay-off muna."Thus, on January 10, 2006, he filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with prayer for the payment of separation benefits against Irvine before the NLRC

Issue: Whether the petitioner is a project employee and his dismissal was valid.

Ruling: No. In this case, the NLRC found that no substantial evidence had been presented by Irvine to show that Lopez had been assigned to carry out a "specific project or undertaking," with its duration and scope specified at the time of engagement thus,in view of the weight accorded by the courts to factual findings of labor tribunals such as the NLRC, the Court, absent any cogent reason to hold otherwise, concurs with its ruling that Lopez was not a project but a regular employee. This conclusion is bolstered by the undisputed fact that Lopez had been employed by Irvine since November 1994, or more than 10 years from the time he was laid off on December 27, 2005 and Article 280 of the Labor Code provides that any employee who has rendered at least one year of service, whether such service is continuous or broken, shall be considered a regular employee.

People vs Bayan y NeriGR no.200987

August 20, 2014Criminal LawPerez, J.:

Facts: PO2 Mendoza was assigned as the poseur-buyer while PO3 de Guzman acted as one of his backup team proceeded to the target place together with the informant, during the entrapment they were able to arrest appellant and his live-in partner and recover from them possession of dried marijuana leaves wrapped in a newspaper.Appellant and Irene were brought to the police station where PO2 Mendoza put his markings "EM" on the plastic sachet he received from appellant. Thereafter, they brought the plastic sachet to the crime laboratory which was therearfet found positive for shabu.

Issue: Whether the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of appellant due to the glaring inconsistencies in the testimonies of the prosecution’s witnesses and failure to present the buy-bust money as proof of the illegal sale of shabu

Ruling: No. Jurisprudence dictates that minor inconsistencies do not affect the credibility of the witness. "discrepancies and inconsistencies in the testimonies of witnesses referring to minor details, and not in actuality touching upon the central fact of the crime, do not impair their credibility. Neither law nor jurisprudence requires the presentation of any money used in the buy-bust operation, failure to present the buy-bust money is not fatal to the prosecution’s cause because it is not indispensable in drugcases since it is merely corroborative evidence, and the absence thereof does not create a hiatus in the evidence for the prosecution provided the sale of dangerous drugs is adequately proven and the drug subject of the transaction is presented before the court.

In every prosecution for illegal sale of shabu, the following elements must be sufficiently proved: (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 therefor. Indeed, all these elements were duly established.

Land Bank of the Phil. Vs LajomGR no. 184982

August 20, 2014Civil Law (Agrarian Law)Perlas-Bernabe, J.:

Facts: Respondents were the registered owners of several parcels of land in which portion of the subject land was placed under the government's Operation Land Transfer Program pursuant to PD 27 "Tenants Emancipation Decree," and accordingly, the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR), through the Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP), offered to pay petioners the amounts as just compensation for the constitutive areas of the subject portion, however, records show, that despite non-payment of the offered just compensation, DAR granted twelve (12) Emancipation Patents in favor of the farmer-beneficiaries.

Lajom rejected the DAR valuation and, instead, filed an amended Petition for determination of just compensation and cancellation of land transfers against the DAR, the LBP, and the said farmer-beneficiaries, respondents alleged, inter alia, that in computing the amount of just compensation, the DAR erroneously applied the provisions of PD 27 and Executive Order No. (EO) 228, Series of 1997, that have been repealed by Section 17 of Republic Act No. (RA) 6657.

Issue:1. Whether the provisions of RA6657 should be applied in that in computing the

amount of just compensation instead of PD 27 and EO 228

2. Whether the reckoning period to determine just compensation is on the date of actual payment instead of the date of taking

Ruling:1. Yes. Case law instructs that when the agrarian reform process under PD 27

remains incomplete and is overtaken by RA 6657, such as when the just compensation due the landowner has yet to be settled, as in this case, such just compensation should be determined and the process concluded under RA 6657, with PD 27 and EO 228 applying only suppletorily. Hence, where RA 6657 is sufficient, PD27 and EO 228 are superseded.

2. As to the proper reckoning point, it is fundamental that just compensation should be determined atthe time of the property’s taking and taking may be deemed to occur, for instance, at the time emancipation patents are issued by the government

Noveras vs Noveras

GR no. 188289August 20, 2014Civil Law (Persons and Family Rrelations)Perez, J.:

Facts: David and Leticia are US citizens who own properties in the USA and in the Philippines, Leticia obtained a decree of divorce from the Superior Court of California in June 2005 wherein the court awarded all the properties in the USA to Leticia, while with respect to their properties in the Philippines, Leticia filed a petition for judicial separation of conjugal properties.

Issue: Whether Philippine Court has jurisdiction over the properties in California, U.S.A. and the same can be included in the judicial separation prayed for.

Ruling: No. We agree with the appellate court that the Philippine courts did not acquire jurisdiction over the California properties of David and Leticia. Indeed, Article 16 of the Civil Code clearly states that real property as well as personal property is subject to the law of the country where it is situated. Thus, liquidation shall only be limited to the Philippine properties.

Okabe vs SaturninoGR no. 196040August 26, 2014

Civil Law (Real Estate Mortgage)Peralta, J.:

Facts: Respondent and his wife obtained a loan with the Philippine National Bank (PNB) secured by the real estate mortgage , however they defaulted so PNB extrajudicially foreclosed the mortgage, and during the allowable period of redemption respondents failed to redeem the property, subsequently, without taking possession, the latter sold the subject property to petitioner. Petitioner filed with the Regional Trial Court an Ex-Parte Petition for Issuance of Writ of Possession over the subject property, to which respondent submitted an Opposition with Motion to Dismiss. RTC ruled, among other things, that the right of the petitioner to be placed in absolute possession of the subject property was a consequence of her right of ownership and that petitioner cannot be deprived of said possession being now the registered owner of the property.

Issue: Whether an ex-parte petition for the issuance of a writ of possession was the proper remedy of the petitioner in obtaining possession of the subject property.

Ruling: Yes. The remedy of a writ of possession, a remedy that is available to the mortgagee-purchaser to acquire possession of the foreclosed property from the mortgagor, is made available to a subsequent purchaser, but only after hearing and after determining that the subject property is still in the possession of the mortgagor, unlike if the purchaser is the mortgagee or a third party during the redemption period, a writ of possession may issue ex-parte or without hearing. In other words, if the purchaser is a third party who acquired the property after the redemption period, a hearing must be conducted to determine whether possession over the subject property is still with the mortgagor or is already in the possession of a third party holding the same adversely to the defaulting debtor or mortgagor ad if the property is in the possession of the mortgagor, a writ of possession could thus be issued, otherwise, the remedy of a writ of possession is no longer available to such purchaser, but he can wrest possession over the property through an ordinary action of ejectment.

Commisioner of Internal Revenue vs Phil. Airlines Inc.

GR no. 212536-37August 27, 2014Tax lawVelasco Jr., J.:

Facts: PAL was granted, under Presidential Decree No. 1590 (PD 1590), a franchise to operate air transport services domestically and internationally and under section 13 of the decree, PAL shall pay the government either basic corporate income tax or franchise tax based on revenues and/or the rate defined in the provision, whichever is lower and the taxes thus paid under either scheme shall be in lieu of all other taxes, duties and other fees. PAL was assessed excise taxes on its February and March 2007 importation of cigarettes and alcoholic drinks for its commissary supplies used in its international flights. PAL filed separate administrative claims for refund before the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) for the alleged excise taxes it erroneously paid as there was no appropriate action on the part of the then Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR) and obviously to forestall the running of the two-year prescriptive period for claiming tax refunds.

Issue: Whether the "in lieu of all taxes" clause in PAL’s franchise exempts it from excise tax on importations of alcohol and tobacco products for its commissary and has not yet been withdrawn by Congress when it enacted RA9334

Ruling: Yes. In view of PAL’s payment of either the basic corporate income tax or franchise tax, whichever is lower, PAL is exempt from paying: (a) taxes directly due from or imposable upon it as the purchaser of the subject petroleum products; and (b) the cost of the taxes billed or passed on to it by the seller, producer, manufacturer, or importer of the said products either as part of the purchase price or by mutual agreement or other arrangement.

It is a basic principle of statutory construction that a later law, general in terms and not expressly repealing or amending a prior special law, will not ordinarily affect the special provisions of such earlier statute, as things stand, PD 1590 has not been revoked by the NIRC of 1997, as amended or to be more precise, the tax privilege of PAL provided in Sec. 13 of PD 1590 has not been revoked by Sec. 131 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended by Sec. 6 of RA 9334.

Heirs of Manguardia and Manalo vs Heirs of valles

GR no. 177616August 27, 2014Civil CodeDel Castillo, J.:

Facts: Respondents, Marta and Simplicio, were sibling and registered owners of the disputed parcel of land; when Marta died in 1943, she was survived by her illegitimate daughters while on the other hand when SimpliciodiedonApril 20, 1957 he was survived by his wife and his children. It appears, however, that on October 28, 1968, a notarized Deed of Absolute Sale over the disputed parcel of land was executed by Simplicio and Marta in favor of their brothers and subsequently sold to the petitioner-buyer andon October 29, 1968, the alleged buyers and new registered owners subdivided the disputed parcel of land. On December 13, 1999, the heirs ofSimplicio and Martacommenced an action for the Declaration of Nullity of Certificates of Title and Deeds of Sale, they averred that the purported Deed of Absolute Sale dated October 28, 1968 is a forgery because Marta and Simplicio were long dead when the said document was executed thus, are all null and void however the heirs of the buyer who were petitioners averred that their predecessors-in-interest were innocent purchasers in good faithand for value

Issue: Whether the buyer, predecessor in interest, of the petitioner are buyers in good faith making the deed of absolute sale valid.

Ruling: No. It must be emphasized that "the burden of proving the status of a purchaser in good faith and for value liesupon him who asserts that standing, in discharging the burden, it is not enough to invoke the ordinary presumption of good faith that everyone is presumed to act in good faith. The good faith that is here essential is integral with the very status that must beproved. x xx Petitioners have failed to discharge that burden."

Petitioners failed to discharge the burden of proving that their predecessors-in-interest were buyers in good faith.

Ando vs Department of Foreign Affairs

GR no. 195432August 27, 2014Remedial LawSereno, J.:

Facts: On 16 September 2001, petitioner married Yuichiro Kobayashi, a Japanese National, at Candaba, Pampanga however on Yuichiro Kobayashi sought in Japana divorce in respect of his marriage with petitioner; believing in good faith that said divorce capacitated petitioner to remarry the latter married Masatomi Y. Ando on 13 September 2005 in Sta. Ana, Pampanga. Recently, petitioner applied for the renewal of her Philippine passport to indicate her surname withher husband Masatomi Y. Ando but she was told at the Department of Foreign Affairs that the same cannot be issued to her until she can prove bycompetent court decision that her marriage with her said husband Masatomi Y. Ando is valid until otherwise declared.

On 29 October 2010, petitioner filed with the RTC a Petition for Declaratory Relief, impleading the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) as respondent and prayed for reliefs before the lower court directing the Department ofForeign Affairs to honor petitioner’s marriage to her husband Masatomi Y. Ando and to issue a Philippine Passport to petitioner under the name "Edelina Ando y Tungol".

Issue: Whether petitioner can compel DFA to issue a Philippine Passport under the name "Edelina Ando y Tungol and a Petition for Declaratory Relief to honor petitioner’s marriage to her husband Masatomi Y. Ando.

Ruling: No. First, with respect to her prayer to compel the DFA to issue her passport, petitioner incorrectly filed a petition for declaratory relief before the RTC. She should have first appealed before the Secretary of Foreign Affairs, since her ultimate entreaty was toquestion the DFA’s refusal to issue a passport to her under her second husband’s name.

Second, with respect to her prayer for the recognition of her second marriage as valid, petitioner should have filed, instead, a petition for the judicial recognition of her foreign divorce from her first husband.