Complete 20 Remedial 20 Digests

8/12/2019 Complete 20 Remedial 20 Digests

1/70

R E M E D I A L L A WD I G E S T S

AT E N E O B A R O P E R A TI O N S 2 0 0 1

JURISDICTION

JUAN V. PEOPLE18 Jan.2000

Facts: A et al., were charged before the RTC with an election offense punishable bi!prison!ent not e"ceeding # ears. The argued that the RTC has no $urisdiction o%er theircases since the penalt for the offense charged does not e"ceed # ears.

Issue: &hether 'TC or RTC has $urisdiction

e!": RTC has $urisdiction. (ursuant to )ec.*2 +( 12, as a!ended b )ection 2 of RA -#1,the $urisdiction of firstle%el courts the 'eTC, 'TC, and 'CTC does not co%er those cri!inalcases which b specific pro%isions of law are cogni/able b the RTC, regardless of the penaltprescribed therefore.

PIL. VETERANS BAN# V. CA18 Jan. 2000

Facts: (s land was taen b AR pursuant to the Co!prehensi%e Agrarian Refor! 3aw. (contended that AR ad$udicators ha%e no $urisdiction to deter!ine the $ust co!pensation for thetaing of lands under CAR( because such $urisdiction is %ested in the RTC.

Issue: &hether the AR or RTC has $urisdiction

e!": AR has $urisdiction. There is nothing contradictor between the ARs pri!ar

$urisdiction o%er 4agrarian refor! !atters5 and e"clusi%e original $urisdiction o%er 4all !attersin%ol%ing the i!ple!entation of agrarian refor!,5 which includes the deter!ination of 6uestionsof $ust co!pensation, and the RTCs 4original and e"clusi%e $urisdiction5 o%er all petitions for thedeter!ination of $ust co!pensation to the landowner. 7n accordance with settled principles ofad!inistrati%e law, pri!ar $urisdiction is %ested in the AR as an ad!inistrati%e agenc todeter!ine in a preli!inar !anner the reasonable co!pensation to be paid for the lands taenunder CAR(, but such deter!ination is sub$ect to challenge in the courts.

DUCAT V. CA20 Jan. 2000

Facts: lost in a ci%il case. There was alread e"ecution of $udg!ent. The trial court denied his'otion to Annul the "ecution )ale, 'otion to Reconsider, and 'otion to 9old in Abeance the7!ple!entation of the &rit of (ossession. 7nstead of filing a petition for certiorari, presentedbefore the trial court a 'anifestation and 'otion to )et (ara!eters of Co!putation. The trialthen issued an Alias &rit of (ossession against which he 6uestioned.

Issue: &hether can %alidl 6uestion the courts authorit to issue the writ

e!": o. 7t is too late for to 6uestion the sub$ect order of the court. could ha%e taenrecourse to the CA but he did not. 7nstead, he !anifested ac6uiescence to the said order bseeing para!eters before the trial court. 7f the parties ac6uiesced in sub!itting an issue fordeter!ination b the trial court, the are estopped fro! 6uestioning the $urisdiction of the sa!e

court to pas upon the issue.

LLORENTE V. ANDIGANBA$AN1 Jan. 2000

1


2/70



Facts: A, a !aor, was charged before the )andiganbaan with %iolation of RA *01. (endingthe case, Congress enacted RA --;, li!iting the $urisdiction of the )andiganbaan. A thencontended that b %irtue of RA --;, the )andiganbaan lost $urisdiction o%er his case.

Issue: &hether the )andiganbaan was di%ested of $urisdiction

e!": o. To deter!ine whether the official is within the e"clusi%e $urisdiction of the)andiganbaan, reference should be !ade to RA #-;8 and the 7nde" of !e!bers @including the Chair!an Bwhether pertaining to their eligibilit or the !anner of their election B is cogni/able b the 'TCs,'CTCs and 'eTCs. +efore procla!ation, cases concerning eligibilit of )> officers and!e!bers are cogni/able b the lection


3/70



SANCE& V. SANDIGANBA$AN- )ept. 1

Facts: Court !artial proceedings were initiated against A and + for %iolation of RA *01. The

Issue: &hether the )andiganbaan has $urisdiction

e!": o. 7n %iew of the enact!ent of RA --;, appro%ed on *0 'arch 1;, the)andiganbaan 4lost5 its $urisdiction o%er the case pri!aril because the public officials chargedhere were officers of the (hil. Ar! below the ran of full colonel. The enact!ent of RA --;was precisel to declog the )andiganbaans docet of 4s!all fr5 cases.

ORGANO V. SANDIGANBA$AN )ept. 1

Facts: A et al. were charged with plunder before the )andiganbaan. The assailed the$urisdiction of the )andiganbaan.

Issue: &hether the )andiganbaan has $urisdiction

e!": o. one of the accused occupied positions corresponding to )alar =rade 42-5 orhigher. The )andiganbaan has no $urisdiction o%er the cri!e of plunder unless co!!itted bpublic officials and e!ploees occuping the positions with )alar =rade 42-5 or higher, inrelation to their office @pursuant to RA 82.

UNION MOTORS CORPORATION V. NLRC1# )(T. 1

Facts: was (s Assistant to the (resident and Ad!inistrati%e and (ersonnel 'anager. )hethereafter filed a co!plaint for constructi%eFillegal dis!issal with the 3RC.

Issue: &hether the 3RC has $urisdiction o%er s case

e!": o. The )C, not the 3RC, has $urisdiction. The records clearl show that s positionas Assistant to the (resident and (ersonnel and Ad!inistrati%e 'anager is a corporate office

under the blaws of (. 7t is clear that the charges filed b against ( arising fro! her ouster asa corporate officer, is an intracorporate contro%ers. Eor the )C to tae cogni/ance of a case,the contro%ers !ust pertain to an of the following relationships: @a between the corporation,partnership or association and the public (b) between the corporation, partnership orassociation and its stockholders, partners, members, or officers @c between the corporation,partnership or association and the state so far as its franchise, per!it, or license to operate isconcernedD and @d a!ong the stocholders, partners, or associates the!sel%es. The instantcase is a dispute between a corporation and one of its officers. As such, s co!plaint is sub$ectto the $urisdiction of the )C, and not the 3RC.

ANGAT V. REPUBLIC

1 )(T.1

Facts: ( was a natural born citi/en who lost his citi/enship b naturali/ation in the G).


4/70



e!": o. A petition for repatriation should be filed with the )pecial Co!!ittee onaturali/ation and not with the RTC which has no $urisdiction thereo%er. The courts order wasthereb null and %oid. The )pecial Co!!ittee on aturali/ation was reacti%ated on June 8,

1;, hence, when ( filed his petition on 'arch 11, 1#, the Co!!ittee constituted pursuantto 3


5/70



G.R. N. 1110/0 )2000*

Facts+ The RTC rendered a decision, holding H and ? solidaril liable for da!ages to (. ? filed

with the CA a petition for certiorari to annul the )upple!ental ecision. Issue+ &hether the referral of the case to the )upre!e Court is correct

e!"+ ?es. +efore a ci%il or cri!inal action against a $udge for a %iolation of Art. 20 and 20; canbe entertained, there !ust first be 4a final and authoritati%e $udicial declaration5 that the decisionor order in 6uestion is indeed 4un$ust.5 The pronounce!ent !a result fro! either: @a an actionof certiorari or prohibition in a higher court i!pugning the %alidit of the $udg!entD or @b anad!inistrati%e proceeding in the )upre!e Court against the $udge precisel for pro!ulgating anun$ust $udg!ent or order. 3iewise, the deter!ination of whether a $udge has !aliciousldelaed the disposition of the case is also an e"clusi%e $udicial function.

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

BAIL

LA$OLA V. JUDGE GABO2# Jan. 2000

Facts: (olice officers A I + were accused of !urder. Judge issued an order allowing the Chiefof (olice to tae A I + under his custod instead of placing the! in $ail.

Issue: &hether or not the $udges action is proper

e!": o. 'urder is a capital offense so the $udge should ha%e been !indful that bail couldntbe allowed as a !atter of right as pro%ided in Rule 11 section 2.

TOLENTINO V. CAMANO20 Jan. 2000

;


6/70



Facts: A was accused of %iolating the Child Abuse Act. The !a"i!u! penalt for the offense isreclusion perpetua. The )tate (rosecutor failed to appear at the bail hearings set b the court.The $udge then granted bail.

Issue: &hether the $udges order granting bail was proper

e!": o. &hen the charge against the accused is for a capital offense, there !ust be ahearing with the participation of the prosecution and the defense, in order to deter!ine if thee%idence of guilt is strong and whether bail should therefore be granted. 7n this case, the )tate(rosecutor was gi%en a nu!ber of opportunities to present e%idence but he was re!iss in theperfor!ance of his duties. )till, the $udge should not ha%e granted bail based si!pl on thefailure of the prosecution to pro%e that the e%idence of guilt is strong but should ha%eendea%ored to deter!ine the e"istence of such e%idence.

C! La3!t4

SAPIERA V. CA10 )(T. 1

Facts: The estafa cases filed against A were dis!issed due to insufficienc of e%idence.

Issue: &hether the dis!issal of the cri!inal cases erased As ci%il liabilit

e!": o. The dis!issal of the cri!inal cases against petitioner did not erase her ci%il liabilitsince the dis!issal was due to insufficienc of e%idence and not fro! a declaration fro! thecourt that the fact fro! which the ci%il action !ight arise did not e"ist.

COMPROMISEPROIBITED

CUA V. MACAPUGA$1* Aug. 1

Facts: ( filed a co!plaint against for illegal encroach!ent. ( liewise filed a cri!inalco!plaint against the Cit ngineer for %iolation of RA *01 and the R(C. 3ater, ( and entered into a co!pro!ise agree!ent, which was appro%ed, b the court. The case between (and was thereafter dis!issed.

Issue: &hether the co!pro!ise affected the cri!inal case against the cit engineer

e!": o. 7ndeed, the Ci%il Code not onl defines and authori/es co!pro!ises @Art. 2028, it infact encourages the! in ci%il actions. 9owe%er, the co!pro!ise agree!ent cannot affect thecharges against the cit engineer. The law abhors settle!ent of cri!inal liabilit. 9owe%er, inthis case, the

De5u66e6 T E"e7ce

GUTIB V. CA1* Aug. 1

Facts: A, +, C, and others were charged with 6ualified theft before the RTC. After thepresentation of the e%idence of the prosecution, A and + filed their separate de!urrers to thee%idence with prior lea%e of court. The $udge denied As de!urrer for lac of factual and legalbasis but granted +s de!urrer.

Issue: &hether As de!urrer should also be granted

#


7/70



e!": ?es. The court, in passing upon the sufficienc of e%idence raised in a de!urrer, is!erel re6uired to ascertain whether there is competent or sufficient e%idence to sustain theindict!ent or to support a %erdict of guilt. The )upre!e Court found that the prosecution

!iserabl failed to establish b sufficient e%idence the e"istence of the cri!e of 6ualified theft.Thus, As de!urrer to the e%idence should ha%e been granted.

De8st7

PEOPLE V. WEBB1- Aug. 1

Facts: A was accused of rape with ho!icide. uring the course of the proceedings in the trialcourt, A filed a 'otion to Tae Testi!on b


8/70



appropriate case before the )andiganbaan. 7t is not et nown whether the

INFORMATION

VAS%UE& V. CA1; )(T. 1

Facts: The 7nfor!ation charging A with libel did not set out the entire news article as published.

Issue: &hether the defect in the 7nfor!ation can be cured b e%idence

e!": ?es. &hile the general rule is that the 7nfor!ation !ust set out the particular defa!atorwords %erbati! and as published and that a state!ent of their substance is insufficient, a defectin this regard !a be cured b e%idence. 7n this case, the article was presented in e%idence, but

A failed to ob$ect to its introduction. 7nstead, he engaged in the trial of the entire article, not onlof the portions 6uoted in the 7nfor!ation, and sought to pro%e it to be true. 7n doing so, hewai%ed ob$ection based on the defect in the 7nfor!ation. Conse6uentl, he cannot raise thisissue at this last stage.

PEOPLE V. ROMAN1 )(T. 1

Facts: A raped H thrice on the sa!e afternoon. 9owe%er, the 7nfor!ation charged hi! of onlone act of rape.

Issue: &hether A can be con%icted of three acts of rape

e!": o. Although it is not disputed that A had carnal nowledge of H thrice on that sa!eafternoon, since the 7nfor!ation onl charged A of one act of rape, the lower court did not err inruling that A can onl be held liable for one act of rape.

Le;a! Pe6s7a!t4 O< P6ate C58!a7a7t T F!e A S8eca! C!Act7

PERE& V. AGONO$ RURAL BAN# 'arch 2000

Facts: A co!plaint for estafa was filed against A, + and C. The )ecretar of Justice directed thedis!issal of the co!plaint. (ri%ate co!plainant ( filed a petition for certiorari which was grantedb the CA. A, + and C 6uestioned the CA ruling.

Issue: &hether ( had legal personalit to assail the dis!issal of the cri!inal case

e!": ?es. 7ndeed, it is onl the )olicitor =eneral who !a bring or defend actions on behalf ofthe Republic of the (hilippines, or represent the (eople or )tate in cri!inal proceedingspending in the )upre!e Court or the Court of Appeals. 9owe%er, the pri%ate offended partretains the right to bring a special ci%il action for certiorari in his own na!e in cri!inalproceedings, before the courts of law, on the ground of gra%e abuse of discretion a!ounting to

lac or e"cess of $urisdiction.

MOTIONTO%UAS

DOMINGO V. SANDIGANBA$AN20 Jan. 2000

8


9/70



Facts: A was accused of %iolating RA *10 before the )andiganbaan. A filed a !otion to6uash on the ground that the facts charged do not constitute an offense. 9is !otion was denied.

Issue: &hether the infor!ation should be 6uashed

e!": o. A !otion to 6uash on the ground that the allegations do not constitute the offensecharged should be resol%ed on the basis of the allegations alone whose truth and %eracit arehpotheticall ad!itted. 7n this case, the facts alleged in the infor!ation constitute a %iolation ofRA *01 so the !otion to 6uash !ust fail.

PEOPLE V. LOPE&1 Aug. 1

Facts: A was con%icted of ouble 'urder with Erustrated 'urder. A appealed, saing that theinfor!ation filed against hi! was for!all defecti%e, as it charged !ore than one offense in%iolation of Rule 110 )ec. 1*.

7ssue: &hether the $udg!ent should be re%ersed in %iew of the defecti%e infor!ation

e!": o. 7ndeed, the infor!ation is for!all defecti%e for it charged !ore than one offense.9owe%er, because of his failure to file a !otion to 6uash, A is dee!ed to ha%e wai%ed ob$ectionbased on the ground of duplicit. The )upre!e Court !erel !odified the $udg!ent finding that

A should be held liable for three separate cri!es.

MARTINE& V. PEOPLE

20 Aug. 1

Facts: A was charged with !al%ersation of public funds before the )andiganbaan. A filed a!otion to 6uash the infor!ation against hi! alleging that the facts charged do not constitute anoffense. The )andiganbaan denied the !otion to 6uash 4for ob%ious lac of !erit.5 A then fileda petition for certiorari.

Issue: &hether A too the proper recourse

e!": o. The )andiganbaan correctl denied As !otion to 6uash. Ero! such denial, theappropriate re!ed is not appeal or re%iew on certiorari. The re!ed is for the petitioner to go totrial on the !erits, and if an ad%erse decision is rendered, to appeal therefro! in the !anner

authori/ed b law.

POWEROFSUPERVISIONANDCONTROLOFTESECRETAR$OFJUSTICE

JALANDONI V. DRILON2 'arch 2000

Facts: A filed a co!plaint for libel against . The prosecutor reco!!ended the indict!ent of so an infor!ation for libel was filed with the RTC. appealed to the )ecretar of Justice whodirected the withdrawal of the co!plaint. A sought to nullif the


10/70



PRELIMINAR$INVESTIGATION

PEOPLE V. ARLEE2; Jan. 2000

Facts: A was accused of raping H. A contended that he was depri%ed of the right to apreli!inar in%estigation since he was not able to recei%e the subpoenas sent to hi!.

Issue: &hether or not A was depri%ed of his right to preli!inar in%estigation

e!": o. The presence of the accused is not a condition sine 6ua non to the %alidit ofpreli!inar in%estigation. (ursuant to Rule 112 section * @d, a preli!inar in%estigation wasactuall conducted and the (rosecutor found a pri!a facie case. A also applied for bail and%oluntaril sub!itted hi!self for arraign!ent, thereb effecti%el wai%ing his right to apreli!inar in%estigation.

LIANG V. PEOPLE2/ Ja7. 2000

Facts: A was charged before the 'etropolitan Trial Court @'eTC with 2 counts of gra%e oraldefa!ation. A was arrested. 9e contended that he was denied the right to preli!inarin%estigation.

Issue: &hether a preli!inar in%estigation should be gi%en

e!": o. (reli!inar in%estigation is not a !atter of right in cases cogni/able b the 'eTC.

+eing purel a statutor right, preli!inar in%estigation !a be in%oed onl when specificallgranted b law. +esides, the absence of preli!inar in%estigation does not affect the courts

$urisdiction nor does it i!pair the %alidit of the infor!ation.

WRITOFINJUNCTION=PROIBITION

DOMINGO V. SANDIGANBA$AN20 Jan. 2000

Facts: A was accused of %iolating RA *10 before the )andiganbaan. A wished to en$oin thecri!inal proceedings against hi!.

Issue: &hether granting a writ of in$unction or prohibition to sta a cri!inal proceeding wouldbe proper

e!": o. &rits of in$unction and prohibition will not lie to restrain a cri!inal prosecutionbecause public interest re6uires that cri!inal acts be i!!ediatel in%estigated and prosecutedfor the protection of societ. The writ !a issue onl in specified cases @e.g., to pre%ent the useof the strong ar! of the law in an oppressi%e !anner and to afford ade6uate protection toconstitutional rights. )uch e"ceptions do not obtain in this case.

VALIDIT$OFJUDGMENT

PEOPLE V. GARCIA

*0 Aug. 1

Facts: Judge con%icted A of illegal possession of prohibited drugs. The decision waspro!ulgated on 20 Eeb. 1#. Judge s retire!ent was appro%ed in April 1# but theeffecti%el of the retire!ent was !ade retroacti%e to 1# Eeb. 1#. + then assailed hiscon%iction because it was pro!ulgated das after Judge s retire!ent.

Issue: &hether the decision is %oid

10


11/70



e!": o. Gnder the Rules on Cri!inal (rocedure, a decision is %alid and binding onl if it ispenned and pro!ulgated b the $udge during his incu!benc. A $udg!ent has legal effect onl

when it is rendered: @a b a court legall constituted and in actual e"ercise of $udicial powersDand @b b a $udge legall appointed, dul 6ualified, and actuall acting either de $ure or de facto.Judge was a de facto $udge in the actual e"ercise of his duties at the ti!e the decision waspro!ulgated. )uch decision is therefore legal and has a %alid and binding effect.

AFFIDAVITOFDESISTANCE

PEOPLE VS. ARMANDO ALICANTEG.R. NO. 1202>:2 )2000*

Facts+A was charged with rape co!!itted against his !inor daughter, H. Hs !other, howe%er,e"ecuted an affida%it of desistance. The trial court con%icted A of rape.

Issue+&hether the affida%it of desistance is a ground for dis!issal of a cri!inal case.

e!"+o. A perusal of the affida%it of desistance re%eals that while H signed the said docu!ent,the intent to pardon A was onl on the part of Hs !other and not H herself. +esides, the Courtloos with disfa%or on affida%its of desistance.

ARRAIGNMENT

AR%UERO VS. MENDO&A'1, SCRA ,0' )1---*

Facts+As arraign!ent was originall set for August 1; but it was postponed ti!es before itwas finall held.


12/70



innocent. The i!pro%ident plea, followed b an abbre%iated proceeding, with practicall no roleat all plaed b the defense is $ust too !eager to accept as being the standard constitutionaldue process at wor enough to forfeit hu!an life.

ARREST

PEOPLE VS. DENNIS LEGASPIG.R. NO. 11/02 )2000*

Facts+A was illegall arrested. uring arraign!ent, he entered a plea of not guilt.

Issue+ &hether A %alidl wai%ed their right to raise the infir!it of their arrest.

e!"+ ?es. Gpon entering a plea of not guilt, A %alidl wai%ed his right to raise this infir!it andassail the legalit of the arrest. An ob$ection in%ol%ing a warrant of arrest or the procedure in

the ac6uisition b the court of the $urisdiction o%er the person of an accused !ust be !adebefore he enters his plea, otherwise the ob$ection is dee!ed wai%ed.

AUTOMATICREVIEW

GARCIA VS. PEOPLE'1/ SCRA ('( )1---*

Facts+ The RTC found A guilt of !urder and sentenced hi! to reclusion perpetua. A did notinterpose a ti!el appeal. Thus, the decision beca!e final. ( filed a special ci%il action for!anda!us to co!pel the RTC to forward the records of the case to the )upre!e Court forauto!atic re%iew.

Issue+ &hether the )upre!e Court !ust auto!aticall re%iew a trial courts decision con%ictingan accused of a capital offense and sentencing hi! to reclusion perpetua.

e!"+ o. 7t is onl in cases where the penalt actuall i!posed is death that the trial court !ustforward the records of the case to the )upre!e Court for auto!atic re%iew of the con%iction.

CUSTODIALINVESTIGATION

PEOPLE VS. EDUARDO PAVILLAREG.R. NO. 12--0 )2000*

Facts+A, without the assistance of counsel, was identified b the co!plainant in a policeline upas one of the idnappers. 9e was subse6uentl found guilt with idnapping for ranso!.

Issue+ &hether the identification !ade b the co!plainant in the police lineup is inad!issiblebecause A stood up at the lineup without the assistance of counsel.

e!"+o. The Constitution prohibits custodial in%estigation conducted without the assistance ofcounsel. An e%idence obtained in %iolation of the constitutional !andate is inad!issible ine%idence. The prohibition howe%er, does not e"tend to a person in a police lineup because thatstage of an in%estigation is not et a part of custodial in%estigation. Custodial in%estigationco!!ences when a person is taen into custod and is singled out as a suspect in the

co!!ission of the cri!e under in%estigation and the police officers begin to as 6uestions onthe suspects participation therein and which tend to elicit an ad!ission. The stage of thein%estigation wherein a person is ased to stand in a police lineup is outside the !antle ofprotection of the right to counsel because it in%ol%es a general in6uir into an unsol%ed cri!eand is purel in%estigator in nature.

PEOPLE VS. DENNIS LEGASPI

12


13/70



G.R. NO. 11/02 )2000*

Facts+ The police in%ited A for 6uestioning. A was ased a single 6uestion at the police station

regarding his whereabouts on the da of the cri!e.

Issue+ &hether custodial in%estigation occurred.

e!"+o. A was not et singled out as the perpetrator of the cri!e. 9e was !erel in%ited for6uestioning. The 6uer on A was !erel part of the 4general e"plorator stage5.

PEOPLE VS. JIMM$ OBREROG.R. NO. 1221(2 )2000*

Facts+ A is a suspect in a cri!e. 9e was taen for custodial in%estigation wherein, with the

assistance of Attorne +., who was also the station co!!ander of the police precinct, hee"ecuted an e"tra$udicial confession.

Issue+ &hether As right to counsel during a custodial in%estigation was %iolated.

e!"+ ?es. The Constitution re6uires that counsel assisting suspects in custodial in%estigationsbe co!petent and independent. 9ere, A was assisted b Attorne +., who, though presu!ablco!petent, cannot be considered an 4independent counsel5 as conte!plated b the law for thereason that he was station co!!ander of the police precinct at the ti!e he assisted A. Theindependent counsel re6uired b the Constitution cannot be a special counsel, public or pri%ateprosecutor, !unicipal attorne, or counsel of the police whose interest is ad!ittedl ad%erse tothe accused.

DECISION

PEOPLE VS. DOMINADOR ASPIRASG.R. NO. 12120' )2000*

FACTS+ A was charged with !urder. Trial ensued. Judge +, who presided at the trial, wasreplaced b Judge C. Judge C rendered a decision finding A guilt of !urder.

ISSUE+ &hether the efficac of the decision is i!paired b the fact that its writer onl too o%erfro! a colleague who had earlier presided at the trial.

ELD+ o. Judge C, who too o%er the case fro! Judge + had the full record before hi!,including the transcript of stenographic notes, which he studied. The testi!onies of thewitnesses for the prosecution are found in the transcript of stenographic notes taen in the case.

ELIGIO MADRID VS. CAG.R. NO. 1'0>/' )2000*

Facts+ The RTC rendered a decision con%icting A of the cri!e of ho!icide. The onl discussionin the decision of the e%idence is in the following sentences: 4Their testi!on con%inced theCourt.


14/70



e!"+ o. The RTCs decision, for all its length B 2* pages B contains no analsis of thee%idence of the parties nor reference to an legal basis in reaching its conclusion. 7t containsnothing !ore than a su!!ar of the testi!onies of the witnesses of both parties. 7t does not

indicate what the trial court found in the testi!onies of the prosecution witnesses to consider thesa!e 4straightforward5.

DEMURRERTOEVIDENCE

RESOSO VS. SANDIGANBA$AN'1- SCRA 2'/ )1---*

Facts+ )e%en infor!ations for falsifications of public docu!ent were filed with the)andiganbaan against (. Trial proceeded. &ith lea%e of court, ( filed a e!urrer to %idencealleging that b e%idence presented b the prosecution itself the guilt of the accused has notbeen established beond reasonable doubt, and he is entitled to an ac6uittal. The e!urrer to

%idence was denied. ( filed a petition for certitorari with the )C, challenging the denial of thede!urrer.

Issue+ &hether the petition should be granted

e!"+ o. ( would ha%e this Court re%iew the assess!ent !ade b the )andiganbaan on thesufficienc of the e%idence against hi! at this ti!e of the trial. )uch a re%iew cannot be securedin a petition for certiorari, prohibition, and !anda!us which is not a%ailable to correct !istaesin the $udges findings and conclusions or to cure erroneous conclusions of law and fact.

Although there !a be an error of $udg!ent in dening the de!urrer to e%idence, this cannot beconsidered as gra%e abuse of discretion correctible b certiorari, as certiorari does not includethe correction or e%aluation of e%idence.

DOUBLEJEOPARD$

PEOPLE VS. ANTONIO MAGATG.R. NO. 1'002> )2000*

Facts+


15/70



because this relationship was not what was alleged in the infor!ation. &hat was alleged wasthat he is the stepfather of the co!plainants.

PEOPLE VS. BENJAMIN RA&ONABLEG.R. NO. 12/0/, )2000*

Facts+ A was charged with the cri!e of rape. The 7nfor!ation alleged that the offense wasco!!itted 4so!eti!e in the ear 18-5. A was con%icted of rape. )2000*

1;


16/70



Facts+A was charged with rape. The co!plaint specificall accused A of rape co!!itted 4b!eans of force.5 The infor!ation alleged that the carnal intercourse was 4against the will5 or4without the consent5 of the %icti!.

Issue+ &hether the co!plaint pre%ails in case of %ariance between the %icti!s co!plaint andthe infor!ation in cri!es against chastit.

e!"+ ?es. 7n case of %ariance between the %icti!s co!plaint and the infor!ation in cri!esagainst chastit, the co!plaint control. Thus, the failure of the infor!ation to state that A raped H4through force or inti!idation5 is not a fatal o!ission in this case because the co!plaint allegedthe ulti!ate fact that A raped H 4b !eans of force5. )o, at the outset, A could ha%e readilascertained that he was being accused rape co!!itted through force, a charge that sufficientlco!plies with Article **;.

PEOPLE VS. PETRONILLO CASTILLOG.R. NO. 1'020, )2000*

Facts+A was charged with rape. The infor!ation alleged that the cri!e occurred 4so!eti!e in'a 115.

Issue+ &hether the infor!ation is too general in ter!s.

e!"+ o. The infor!ation charges onl one offense B that co!!itted in 'a 11.7t cannot besaid that A was depri%ed of the opportunit to prepare for his defense. 7t is sufficient if the ti!ea%erred is near the actual date as the infor!ation of the prosecuting officer will per!it, and sincethat was done in this case, it was not shown that the ti!e pro%ed did not surprise or

substantiall pre$udice the defense. +esides, in a rape case, the date or ti!e is not an essentialcri!e and therefore need not be accuratel stated.

MOTIONTO%UAS

WILLIAM GARA$GA$ VS. PEOPLEG.R. NO. 1',,0' )2000*

Facts+ The "ecuti%e Judge of the RTC of 'anila issued a search warrant authori/ing thesearch of As house in 3apu3apu Cit. + %irtue of the warrant, As house was searched. A filedin the RTC of 3apu3apu Cit a !otion to 6uash the search warrant and to e"clude illegallsei/ed e%idence.

Issue+ &hether the !otion to 6uash should ha%e been filed with the RTC of 'anila whichissued the warrant.

e!"+ o. &hen a search warrant is issued b one court, if the cri!inal case b %irtue of thewarrant is raffled off to a branch other than the one which issued the warrant, all incidentsrelating to the %alidit of the warrant should be consolidated with the branch tring the cri!inalcase.

PLEABARGAINING

PEOPLE VS. ANTONIO MAGAT

G.R. NO. 1'002> )2000*

Facts+A was charged with the cri!e of rape. Gpon arraign!ent, A pleaded guilt but bargainedfor a lesser offense, to which co!plainants !other and the prosecutor agreed.

Issue+ &hether the plea bargaining is %alid.

1#


17/70



e!"+ o. The onl instance where a plea bargaining is allowed under the Rules is when anaccused pleads guilt to a lesser offense. 9ere, A did not plead to a lesser offense but pleadedguilt to the rape charges and onl bargained for a lesser penalt. 7n short, he did not plea

bargain but !ade conditions on the penalt to be i!posed.

PLEAOFGUILT$

PEOPLE VS. EFREN JABIENG.R. NO. 1''0>/:>- )2000*

Facts+A was charged with the cri!e of rape. 9e pleaded guilt to the sa!e and did not presente%idence for the defense. The RTC rendered $udg!ent and found A guilt beond reasonabledoubt. 9e was !eted the death penalt

Issue+ &hether the plea of guilt to a capital offense is %alid.

e!"+ ?es. The Rules of Court pro%ide the procedure that the trial court should follow when anaccused pleads guilt to a capital offense. The court shall conduct a searching in6uir into the%oluntariness and full co!prehension of the conse6uences of his plea and re6uire theprosecution to pro%e his guilt and precise degree of culpabilit. 9ere, A was neither coerced norinti!idated in entering his plea of guilt. Eurther!ore, his guilt was pro%ed b the e%idencepresented b the prosecution.

PROCEDURALERRORS

PEOPLE VS. ANTONIO MAGATG.R. NO. 1'002> )2000*

Facts+


18/70



&ith respect to the lac of a certification of nonforu! shopping, the Rules of Court asa!ended re6uires such certification onl fro! initiator pleadings, o!itting an !ention of4applications.5

SUSPENSIONOFCRIMINALPROCEEDINGS

FIRST PRODUCERS OLDINGS VS. COG.R. NO. 1'->,, )2000*

Facts+ H filed a cri!inal co!plaint for estafa and per$ur against A. 7t appears that A refused toreturn certificates of shares owned b H and e%en e"ecuted false affida%its of loss despite thefact that said certificates are e"isting and re!ains in his possession. uring the pendenc of thecase, A filed an action for da!ages against H and clai!ed ownership o%er the 6uestionedcertificates. A filed a !otion for suspension of the cri!inal case on the ground of a pre$udicial6uestion but was denied b the trial court.

Issue+ &hether the !otion for suspension of the cri!inal case should be granted.

e!"+ o. The peculiar circu!stances of this case clearl show that it was !erel a plo todela the resolution of the cri!inal case. The cri!inal action for estafa has been lodged with the(rosecutor on 'arch 1*. ?et, A filed the ci%il case onl 8 !onths later. The dilator character ofthe strateg of respondent is apparent fro! the fact that he could ha%e raised the issue ofownership in the estafa case. )ignificantl, the ci%il action for reco%er of ci%il liabilit is i!pliedlinstituted with the filing of the cri!inal action. 9ence, A !a in%oe all defenses pertaining to hisci%il liabilit in the cri!inal action. 7n fact, there is no law or rule prohibiting hi! fro! airinge"hausti%el the 6uestion of ownership.

$OUTFULOFFENDER

PEOPLE VS. LUDIGARIO CANDELARIOG.R. NO. 12,,,0 )2000*

Facts+ (, a outhful offender, who was 18 ears and 11 !onths at the ti!e the cri!e wasco!!itted, was con%icted and placed under the custod of the )& Rehabilitation Center. 7na Einal Report, the Eield


19/70



Issue: &hether the $udge was in error when she granted the !otion for reconsideration

e!": o. As a rule, a !otion for reconsideration is a prohibited pleading under )ec. 1 of theRe%ised Rules on )u!!ar (rocedure. This rule, howe%er, applies onl where the $udg!entsought to be reconsidered is one rendered on the !erits. 9ere, the order of dis!issal is not a

$udg!ent on the !erits of the case. 9ence, a !otion for the reconsideration of such order is notthe prohibited pleading conte!plated under )ec. 1 of the rule on )u!!ar (rocedure.

DON TINO REALT$ V. FLORENTINO10 )ept. 1

Facts: 7n a forcible entr case, was not able to file his answer on ti!e. The 'TC disregardedhis answer and ruled against hi!. appealed the unfa%orable $udg!ent.

Issue: &hether 'TC should ha%e ad!itted s answer

e!": o. Eorcible entr and unlawful detainer cases are su!!ar proceedings designed topro%ide for an e"peditious !eans of protecting actual possession or the right to possession ofthe propert in%ol%ed. 7t does not ad!it of a dela in the deter!ination thereof. The 'TCsdecision was in accordance with the rule on )u!!ar (rocedure.

IN RE+ ADMINISTRATIVE MATTER NO. MTJ:--:11/111 Aug. 1

Facts: 7n an e$ect!ent case, s counsel filed a !otion for inter%ention in behalf of s children.( opposed the !otion because inter%entions are prohibited under )ec. 1 of the Rule on)u!!ar (rocedure. The $udge too !onths to decide the patentl i!proper !otion forinter%ention so ( filed a letterco!plaint against the $udge.

Issue: &hether the $udges actions were e"cusable

e!": o. Considering that the !otion for inter%ention is prohibited in cases co%ered b theRe%ised Rule on )u!!ar (rocedure, the resolution of the !otion should not ha%e taen suchan unreasonabl long period. ela in the resol%ing !otions is ine"cusable and cannot becondoned.

VELA$O V. COMELEC 'arch 2000

Facts: ( filed a nu!ber of preprocla!ation cases against . These were dis!issed and wasproclai!ed winner. ( !o%ed for reconsideration without furnishing a cop of the !otion. was also not furnished a cop of the


20/70



CIVIL PROCEDURE

ATTACMENT

GARCIA V. JOMOUAD2# Jan. 2000

Facts: Creditors of attached a (ropert


21/70



Facts: R( filed a co!plaint for e!inent do!ain against for the purpose of e"propriating sland. ( filed a 'otion to is!iss and trial court granted the !otion. R( filed a petition forcertiorari under Rule #; instead of filing an appeal.

Issue: &hether certiorari is the correct re!ed

e!": ?es. 7ndeed, certiorari !a not be resorted to when appeal is a%ailable as a re!ed.9owe%er, the Court allows the issuance of a writ of certiorari when appeal does not pro%ide aspeed and ade6uate re!ed in the ordinar course of law. The deter!ination as to whate"actl constitutes a plain, speed, and ade6uate re!ed rests on $udicial discretion anddepends on the particular circu!stances of each case. 7n this case, the public interest in%ol%edand the urgenc to pro%ide !edical facilities were enough $ustifications for R(s resort tocertiorari.

TANG V. CA11 Fe3. 2000Facts: (, the ad!inistrator of an estate, sought to fence 2 lots. et al. opposed the issuance ofthe fencing per!it clai!ing that the sub$ect lots are street lots. %entuall, the fencing per!itwas issued. et al., the neighboring lot owners filed a petition for certiorari with a praer forpreli!inar in$unction.

Issue: &hether et al. !a %alidl a%ail of certiorari

e!": o. Although )ec. 1 of Rule #; pro%ides that the special ci%il action of certiorari !a bea%ailed of b a 4person aggrie%ed5 b the orders or decisions of a tribunal, the ter! 4personaggrie%ed5 is not to be construed to !ean that an person who feels in$ured b the lower courts

order or decision can 6uestion the said courts disposition %ia certiorari. The 4person aggrie%ed5referred to under )ec. 1 of Rule #; pertains to one who was a part in the proceedings beforethe lower court. et al. cannot be considered as 4persons aggrie%edD5 the re!ed of certiorari isnot a%ailable to the!.

CONTEMPT

$ASA$ V. RECTO- )ept. 1

Facts: )C declared et al. guilt of conte!pt for disobeing a TR< that )C issued. The CAset aside the order of the )C, finding et al. not guilt of conte!pt. )C appealed the CAs

re%ersal.

Issue: &hether the )C can %alidl appeal the CAs decision

e!": o. &hether ci%il or cri!inal, conte!pt is still a cri!inal proceeding and an appeal wouldnot lie fro! the order of dis!issal of, or an e"oneration fro!, a charge of conte!pt. 'oreo%er,the )C was rather hast in asserting its power to punish for conte!pt. There was no willfuldisobedience of the )Cs order since it was shown that the CA pre%iousl nullified the TR


22/70



e!": o. Rule 1# !andatoril re6uires that the resolution of a !otion to dis!iss should clearland distinctl state the reasons therefor. The rule proscribes the co!!on practice ofperfunctoril dening !otions to dis!iss 4for lac of !erit.5 The challenged order of the trial

court falls short of the re6uire!ents stated in Rule 1#.

DESISTANCE

ENOJAS V. JUDGE GACOTT1 Jan. 2000

Facts: ( filed an ad!inistrati%e case against Judge . 3ater on, howe%er, ( withdrew hisco!plaint.

Issue: &hether the case should be dis!issed in %iew of plaintiffs desistance

e!": o. &ithdrawal of a co!plaint or subse6uent desistance b the co!plainant in anad!inistrati%e case does not necessaril warrant its dis!issal. esistance cannot di%est thecourt of its $urisdiction to in%estigate and decide the co!plaint against for public interest is atstae.

FORUMSOPPING

CONDO SUITE V. NLRC28 Jan. 2000

Facts: 3abor Arbiter dis!issed (s co!plaint for illegal dis!issal. 3RC re%ersed and orderedreinstate!ent. !ploer filed a petition for certiorari. The e"ternal legal counsel of e"ecuted the certification against foru! shopping in the petition.

Issue: &hether there was proper co!pliance with the rule on certification against foru!shopping

e!": o. + did not co!pl with the rule since the certification was i!properl e"ecuted b thee"ternal legal counsel. A certification of nonforu! shopping !ust be e"ecuted b the petitioneror an of the principal parties and not b counsel unless clothed with a special power of attorneto do so.

INTERLOCUTOR$ORDERANDE?ECUTIONPENDINGAPPEAL

DIESEL CONSTRUCTION V. JOLLIBEE FOODS28 Jan. 2000

Facts: The trial court ruled that ( was entitled to a certain a!ount to be paid b . +oth partiesappealed. The CA directed the RTC to issue a writ of e"ecution upon (s posting of a (10!illion bond and to sta e"ecution s filing of a supersedeas bond of (1; !illion.

Issue: &hether a petition for re%iew under Rule ; is the proper re!ed to 6uestion the CAsresolution

e!": o. Rule ; is the proper re!ed to 6uestion final $udg!ents and not interlocutor

orders of the CA. The assailed resolution is an interlocutor order. 7nterlocutor orders are thosethat deter!ine incidental !atters which do not touch on the !erits of the case or put an end tothe proceedings. A petition for certiorari under Rule #; is the proper re!ed to 6uestion thei!pro%ident order granting e"ecution Kending appeal or a sta of such e"ecution.

BERNARDO CONSTRUCTION V. CA*1 Jan. 2000

22


23/70



Facts: ( filed a co!plaint for breach of contract, specific perfor!ance, and collection of a su!of !one against . The trial court issued the writ of preli!inar attach!ent. filed a petition

for certiorari so CA re%ersed. ( now assails the CAs decision.

Issue: &hether CA was correct in allowing due course to s petition for certiorari

e!": o. As a general rule, an interlocutor order is not appealable until after the rendition ofthe $udg!ent on the !erits. 9owe%er, certiorari is an appropriate re!ed to assail aninterlocutor order @1 when the tribunal issued such order without or in e"cess of $urisdiction orwith gra%e abuse of discretionD and @2 when the assailed interlocutor order is patentlerroneous and the re!ed of appeal would not afford ade6uate and e"peditious relief. Thepresent case does not fall under the e"ceptions because still had recourse to a plain, speedand ade6uate re!ed, which is the filing of a !otion to fi" the counterbond.

MACEDA V. DBP2# Aug. 1

Facts: ( won a case against . appealed and the trial court granted e"ecution pendingappeal. 9owe%er, the CA re%ersed and denied e"ecution pending the appeal of the case.

Issue: &hether there are good reasons to $ustif e"ecution pending appeal

e!": o. )ec. 2, Rule * applies and his rule is strictl applied against the !o%ant. "ecutionpending appeal is usuall not fa%ored because it affects the rights of the parties which are et tobe ascertained on appeal. The * re6uisites are: @1 there !ust be a !otion b the pre%ailing

part with notice to the ad%erse partD @2 there !ust be a good reason for e"ecution pendingappealD and @* the good reason !ust be stated in a special order. 7n this case, there are nospecial, i!portant, or pressing reasons that would $ustif e"ecution pending appeal.

INTERVENTION

FIRESTONE CERAMICS V. CA2 )ept. 1

Facts: The go%ern!ent filed a case to annul the certificate of title of co%ering forestland. Hwanted to inter%ene belie%ing that if s title would be annulled and after declassification of theforestland to alienable land, then his title o%er a portion of the propert would beco!e %alid. ?

also wanted to inter%ene because the cancellation of s title would allegedl pa%e the wa forhis free patent application.

Issue: &hether H and ? should be allowed to inter%ene.

e!": o. 7nter%ention is not a !atter of right but !a be per!itted b the courts when theapplicant shows that he is 6ualified to inter%ene as pro%ided under )ec. 1 of Rule 1. The legalinterest of the inter%enor !ust be of direct and i!!ediate character and not !erel contingentor e"pectant so that he will either gain or lose b the direct operation of the $udg!ent. H and ?!erel ha%e a collateral interest in the sub$ect !atter of the litigation, thus, allowing inter%entionwould not be $ustified.

JUDGMENT

BALU$OT VS. GUIAO)epte!ber 28, 1

Facts+ ( filed a case to declare null and %oid a donation of a piece of land against . ( clai!edownership of the sa!e. After trial, the court declared the donation %oid and ( the owner of theland and issued a writ of possession in fa%or of (. now appeals the $udg!ent.


24/70



errors assigned was that the court co!!itted gra%e abuse of discretion in issuing the writ ofpossession.

Issue+ &hether the writ of possession was issued in e"cess of $urisdiction.

e!"+ ?es.Judg!ent is not confined to what appears on the face of the decision, but also those necessarilincluded therein or necessar theretoD and, where the ownership of a parcel of land wasdecreed in the $udg!ent, the deli%er of the possession of the land should be consideredincluded in the decision, it appearing that the defeated parts clai! to the possession thereof isbased on his clai! of ownership. Also, ad$udication of ownership would include the deli%er ofpossession if the defeated part has not shown an right to possess the land independentl ofhis clai! or ownership which was re$ected. 7n such case, writ of e"ecution would be re6uired ifthe defeated part does not surrender the possession of the propert. 9ere, there is noallegation, !uch less proof, that petitioners ha%e an right to possess the land independent of

their clai! of ownership.

LIBERALCONSTRUCTIONOFRULESOFPROCEDURE

BALAGTAS MULTI:PURPOSE COOPERATIVE INC. V. CA1# )(T. 1

Facts: The CA denied the !otion for reconsideration filed b ( because 4onl the 'otion forReconsideration before the 3RC and Einancial )tate!ent of ( were attached but still withoutthe other !aterial docu!ents !entioned in the petition, such as, @a co!plaint, @b positionpapers, and @c resignation letter of pri%ate respondent.5

Issue: &hether the CA erred in not finding sufficient co!pliance on the part of ( with there6uire!ents of the Rules of Ci%il (rocedure

e!": ?es. The sub!ission of said financial state!ent together with the !otion forreconsideration constitutes substantial co!pliance with the re6uire!ents of )ection *, Rule #.The rules of procedure are not to be applied in a %er rigid, technical senseD rules of procedureare used onl to help secure substantial $ustice. 7f a technical and rigid enforce!ent of the rulesis !ade, their ai! would be defeated.

LITISPENDENTIA

TOURIST DUT$ FREE SOPS V. SANDIGANBA$AN2# Jan. 2000

Facts: ( filed a case against for recon%eance, re%ersion, and restitution of illegall obtainedassets. C filed another case against ( et al., with the )andiganbaan for specific perfor!anceand the nullification of the writ of se6uestration.

Issue: &hether the second case should be dis!issed on the ground of litis pendentia orconsolidation with the first case

e!": o. The re6uisites of litis pendentia are absent in this case @no identit of partiesD noidentit of rights asserted and reliefs praed for. The cases should be resol%ed independentl

because !erger or consolidation of the two %ia !ere !otion is clearl unwarranted.

MODESOFDISCOVER$

SECURIT$ BAN# V. CA2; Jan. 2000

2


25/70



Facts: ( filed a case against I to en$oin the e"tra$udicial foreclosure of a !ortgage. Thecourt granted s !otions for production, inspection, coping of docu!ents relating to the!ortgage. ( ob$ected.

Issue: &hether the court erred in allowing the !odes of disco%er

e!": o. Courts are gi%en wide latitude in granting !otions for disco%er. Courts should allowproduction of docu!ents that are rele%ant to the sub$ect !atter of the action. To enable a partto intelligentl prepare his defenses and to co!e up with a full deter!ination of the issuesconstitute good causes for the grant of !otions for production of docu!ents.

NEWTRIAL

OLAN V. CA10 )ept. 1

Facts: lost in an e$ect!ent case. The RTC allowed e"ecution pending appeal. filed a!otion to 6uash the writ of e"ecution and attached thereto the alleged 4newl disco%erede%idence.5 The RTC denied the !otion and co!plained because his newl disco%erede%idence was not considered b the court.

Issue: &hether the newl disco%ered e%idence should be ad!itted

e!": o. should ha%e filed a !otion for new trial on the ground of newl disco%erede%idence in accordance with Rule *-. also failed to support his clai! affida%its showing that@a the e%idence was disco%ered after trialD @b such e%idence could not ha%e been disco%eredand produced at the trial with reasonable diligenceD and @c that it is !aterial and if ad!itted, it

will probabl change the $udg!ent.

PRE:TRIALANDE?TRINSICFRAUD

ALARCON V. CA28 Jan. 2000

Facts: ( filed a case for the nullification of the sale of his land to , , and E. uring pretrial, allthe parties agreed and !anifested that the docu!ent of sale was %oid so the trial court declaredthe docu!ent of sale to be %oid ab initio. filed a petition to annul the decision.

Issue: &hether the petition for annul!ent of the decision would prosper

e!": o. Eirst, there was no e"trinsic fraud to !erit annul!ent of the decision. Eraud isregarded as e"trinsic when it pre%ents a part fro! ha%ing a trial or fro! presenting his entirecase to court, or where it operates upon !atters pertaining not to the $udg!ent itself but to the!anner in which it is procured. Counsel properl represented at all stages of the proceedingsand he was not depri%ed of ha%ing a trial.

)econd, an action based on fraud !ust be filed within ears fro! disco%er thereof. +filed the petition ears fro! the rendition of the assailed $udg!ent.

Einall, pretrial is !andator. ntering into a stipulation of facts or ad!issions of factse"pedites trial and relie%es parties and the court of the costs of pro%ing facts that will not bedisputed during trial. )tipulations of facts !ade in the pretrial hearing are binding on the

parties. +ased on the clear ad!issions !ade b the parties, cannot now clai! that he wasdenied his da in court.

PREJUDICIAL%UESTION

CIT$ OF PASIG V. COMELEC10 )ept. 1

2;


26/70



Facts: C


27/70



e!": o. 7ndeed, $udg!ent upon a co!pro!ise agree!ent has the effect of res $udicata.9owe%er, there is no res $udicata when the cause of action arises fro! the application or%iolation of the co!pro!ise agree!ent.

VAN NGIA V. RODIGUE&*1 Jan. 2000

Facts: A, a foreigner, was pre%iousl deported and barred fro! again entering the (hilippines.9owe%er, A was able to enter the countr again so he was arrested and charged with %iolatingthe (hil. 7!!igration Act. A filed a petition for habeas corpus but it was denied. 9is fiancMe filedanother petition for habeas corpus on As behalf.

Issue: &hether res $udicata applies

e!": ?es. This is alread the second petition for habeas corpus filed b petitioner before thecourts. There is res $udicata when @1 a $udg!ent had beco!e finalD @2 such $udg!ent wasrendered on the !eritsD @* such $udg!ent was rendered b a court with $urisdiction o%er thesub$ect !atter and the partiesD and @ there is identit of parties, sub$ect !atter, and causes ofaction in the pre%ious and subse6uent actions. The present petition alleges the sa!e !attersand cause of action as the one pre%iousl filed. Clearl, it is barred b res $udicata.

SERVICEOFSUMMONS

PUBLIC ESTATES AUTORIT$ V. CAOIBES1 Aug. 1

Facts: 7n a ci%il case, filed a 'anifestation and 'otion praing that his answer pre%iousl filedbe treated as his answer to the a!ended co!plaint. 9owe%er, the court considered the !otionas not filed on the ground of nonco!pliance with )ec. 1* of Rule 1*.

Issue: &hether the court erred in not accepting the !otion

e!": ?es. Although A failed to co!pl with the re6uired proof of ser%ice, it is worth to notethat A Ns 'otion and 'anifestation is not a contentious !otion and therefore, no right of thead%erse part would be affected b the ad!ission thereof. The filing of said !otion was note%en necessar since the Answer pre%iousl filed b A could ser%e as the Answer to the

A!ended Co!plaint e%en if no !otion to ad!it was filed, as pro%ided in )ec. * of Rule 11.

STA$INGTEIMMEDIATEE?ECUTIONOFJUDGMENT

LAPE9A V. PAMARANG1; Eeb. 2000

Facts: ( won in an unlawful detainer case. A writ of e"ecution was issued and was deli%ered tosheriff for e"ecution. 9owe%er, sheriff returned the writ 4dul ser%ed but not satisfied.5

Issue: &hether sheriffs action was proper

e!": o. To sta the i!!ediate e"ecution of a $udg!ent in an e$ect!ent case while appeal is

pending, the defendant !ust: @a perfect his appealD @b file a supersedeas bondD and @cperiodicall deposit the rentals which beco!e due during the pendenc of the appeal. 'erefiling of a notice of appeal does not sta e"ecution in an e$ect!ent case. 7t does not appear fro!sheriff s return that the re6uisites were present so as to $ustif his desistance fro!i!ple!enting the writ of e"ecution.

SUBSTITUTIONOFCOUNSEL

2-


28/70



OBANDO V. FIGUERAS18 Jan. 2000

Facts: 7n a ci%il case, filed a !otion to dis!iss and this was granted. ( clai!ed that the!otion to dis!iss is in%alid since at the ti!e of filing, Att. ? no longer represented .

Issue: &hether or not Att. ? ceased to be s counsel

e!": o. Representation continues until the court dispenses with the ser%ices of counsel inaccordance with )ec. 2#, Rule 1*8. Counsel !a be %alidl substituted onl if the followingre6uisites are co!plied with: @1 new counsel files a written application for substitutionD @2 theclients written consent is obtainedD and @* the written consent of the lawer to be substituted issecured, if it can still beD if the written consent can no longer be obtained, then the applicationfor substitution !ust carr proof that notice of the !otion has been ser%ed on the attorne to besubstituted in the !anner re6uired b the rules.

OBANDO V. FIGUERAS18 Jan. 2000

Facts: 7n a ci%il case, filed a 'otion to is!iss on the ground that ( lost his capacit to sueduring the pendenc of the case. ( assailed the !otion, saing that it was too late since ( hadalread finished presenting his e%idence.

Issue: &hether the !otion to dis!iss should be granted

e!": ?es. The period to file a !otion to dis!iss depends upon the circu!stances of the case.

)ec. 1 of Rule 1# re6uires that, in general, a !otion to dis!iss should be filed within theregle!entar period for filing a responsi%e pleading. +ut the court allows a defendant to file a!otion to dis!iss on the ff. grounds: @1 lac of $urisdictionD @2 litis pendentiaD @* lac of causeof actionD and @ disco%er during trial of e%idence that would constitute a ground for dis!issal.

SUBSTITUTIONOFPARTIES

BENAVIDE& V. CA# )ept. 1

Facts: ( filed a forcible entr case against . ( won. assailed the ruling for he clai!ed thatduring the pendenc of the case, ( died and (s counsel failed to infor! the court thereof. contended that such failure to infor! nullifies the courts $udg!ent.

Issue: &hether or not is correct

e!": is wrong. The failure of counsel to co!pl with his dut under )ec. 1# Rule * to infor!the court of the death of his client @and as a conse6uence, no substitution of parties is effectedwill not in%alidate the proceedings and the $udg!ent thereon if the action sur%i%es the death ofsuch part. An action for forcible entr, lie an action for reco%er of real propert, is a realaction and as such sur%i%es the death of (.

SUMMAR$JUDGMENT

GARCIA V. CA10 Aug. 1

Facts: ( filed a case against for the nullification of the e"tra$udicial foreclosure of !ortgage. (!o%ed for su!!ar $udg!ent and later on, also !o%ed for su!!ar $udg!ent. The trial courtgranted the sa!e. The trial court ruled in fa%or of ( but the CA re%ersed. ( argued that the CA

28


29/70



co!!itted an error belie%ing that he alone as plaintiff in the trial court is entitled to su!!ar$udg!ent.

Issue: &hether the (s reasoning is correct

e!": o. Gnder Rule *, either part !a !o%e for su!!ar $udg!ent B the clai!ant b%irtue of )ec. 1 and the defending part b %irtue of )ec. 2. There was no error on the part ofthe court in resorting to su!!ar $udg!ent as praed for b both parties.

SUMMONS

E. B. VILLAROSA V. BENITO# Aug. 1

Facts: ( filed a case against for breach of contract. is a li!ited partnership. )u!!onswere ser%ed upon through its +ranch 'anager H. filed a !otion to dis!iss on the ground oflac of $urisdiction o%er its person because su!!ons were i!properl ser%ed. The trial courtdenied s !otion.

Issue: &hether there was proper ser%ice of su!!ons

e!": o. The enu!eration of persons @pro%ided under )ec. 11 Rule 1 upon who!su!!ons !a be ser%ed to bind a do!estic corporation or partnership is restricted, li!ited, ande"clusi%e. )er%ice of su!!ons upon persons other than those !entioned in the Rule isi!proper. The branch !anager is not included in the list so ser%ice of su!!ons upon hi! wasi!proper. Conse6uentl, the court did not ac6uire $urisdiction o%er the person of .

WRITOFE?ECUTION

VOLUNTAD V. DI&ON2# Aug. 1

Facts: There was a pending case concerning a parcel of land. ( caused the annotation of anotice of lis pendens on the certificate of title. The notice, howe%er, was pre!aturel cancelled.7 the !eanti!e, sold the land to H. ( won the case sought to e"ecute the $udg!ent againstH.

Issue: &hether the $udg!ent !a be e"ecuted against H

e!": ?es. A writ of e"ecution !a be issued against a person not a part to the case wherethe latters re!ed, which he did not a%ail of, was to inter%ene in the case in%ol%ing rights o%erthe parcel of land of which he clai!s to be the %endee. )ince the notice of lis pendens was onlpre!aturel cancelled, H should ha%e been aware of the pendenc of the case and should ha%einter%ened in the suit to protect his alleged rights. 9a%ing failed to do so, H is bound b theresult of the case.

TERR$ V. PEOPLE1# )(T. 1Facts:


30/70



after the e"piration of that period is null and %oid. There is a need for the interested part to filean independent action for re%i%al of $udg!ent.

ACCIONPUBLICIANA

DOMINICA CUTANDA VS. EIRS OF ROBERTO CUTANDAG.R. NO. 10-21, )2000*

Facts+ s predecessorininterest, H, ac6uired possession of a parcel of land in 1**. 7n 188,( filed a co!plaint against for reco%er of possession of said land.

Issue+&hether (s cause of action was barred.

e!"+?es. The re!edies of accion publiciana or accion rei%indicatoria !ust be a%ailed of within10 ears fro! dispossession. 9ence, insofar as is concerned, (s cause of action was barred

b e"tincti%e prescription, regardless of whether their co!plaint is considered as an accionpubliciana or an accion rei%indicatoria.

AMENDEDANDSUPPLEMENTALCOMPLAINT

ARB CONSTRUCTION CO. VS. CAG.R. NO. 12>,,( )2000*

Facts+ ( filed a Co!plaint for (reli!inar 7n$unction against . Thereafter, ( filed a 'otion for3ea%e to Eile Attached A!ended and )upple!ental Co!plaint. ( sub!itted that it now desiredto pursue a case for )u! of !one and a!ages instead of the one pre%iousl filed for(reli!inar 7n$unction. opposes the 'otion.

Issue+ &hether the A!ended and )upple!ental Co!plaint would substantiall change (scause of action

e!"+o. The a!endator allegations are !ere a!plifications of the cause of action if the factsalleged in the a!ended co!plaint show substantiall the sa!e wrong with respect to the sa!etransaction, or if what are alleged refer to the sa!e sub$ect !atter but are full and differentlstated, or where a%er!ents which were i!plied are !ade in e"pressed ter!s, and the sub$ect ofthe contro%ers or the liabilit sought to be enforced re!ains the sa!e. 9ere, the original aswell as a!ended and supple!ental co!plaints readil disclose that the a%er!ents containedtherein are al!ost identical.

AMENDMENTTOCONFORMTOEVIDENCE

BERNARDO MERCADER VS. DBPG.R. NO. 1'0>-- )2000*

Facts+ 7n its (reTrial


31/70



G.R. NO. 1'0>-- )2000*

Eacts: uring the trial, the counsel of participated in the direct and crosse"a!ination of

witnesses whose testi!onies included an issue not a!ong those appearing in the (reTrial' )2000*

Facts+ ( filed a petition for the declaration of absolute nullit of her !arriage to on the ground

of pschological incapacit. The RTC denied the petition.


32/70



Court to address the issue of the %alidit of the !arriage which ( clai!s is %oid fro! thebeginning for lac of !arriage license. (arentheticall, the pertinent facts here are not disputedand what is re6uired is a declaration of their effects according to e"isting law.

JOSE OROSA VS. CAG.R. NO. 1110/0 )2000*

Facts+ The RTC dis!issed (s co!plaint against . 0, )2000*

Facts+ filed a notice of appeal in the RTC but failed to ser%e the notice of appeal upon (scounsel. ( filed his own notice of appeal. The RTC recalled the order granting s appeal andappro%ed the appeal of (. filed a petition for !anda!us, prohibition and in$unction with theCourt of Appeals with praer that their notice of appeal be gi%en due course. The Court of

Appeals granted the petition for !anda!us and ordered the $udge to ele%ate the original recordof the case to it 4in due course of appeal.5

Issue+ &hether the order of the Court of Appeals was correct

e!"+ ?es. ( did appeal the decision of the RTC to the Court of Appeals within the regla!entarperiod to perfect an appeal.


33/70



failed to de!onstrate wh his case falls under an of the!. There is no contrariet between thefindings of the trial court and those of the CA as to what and who had caused the accident.

SPOUSES JUAN DIA& VS. JOSE DIA&G.R. NO. 1',//, )2000*

Facts+ 7n his Co!plaint, ( alleged that he was entitled to recei%e (1;,000 as his share in thesales proceeds of a coowned propert. 9e thereafter clai!ed that, with his nowledge andwithout his ob$ection, the sa!e (1;,000.00 was used b his brother. 9a%ing allowed his brotherto use his !one, ( de!anded the return of the present e6ui%alent of his contribution but saidde!and was re$ected.

Issue+ &hether the co!plaint states a cause of action

e!"+ ?es. According to $urisprudence, a co!plaint states a cause of action when it contains thefollowing ele!ents: @1 the legal right of plaintiff, @2 the correlati%e obligation of the defendant,and @* the act or o!ission of the defendant in %iolation of said legal right. 7n the case at bar, theco!plaint satisfies all the ele!ents of a cause of action.


Facts+ ( filed an action for su! of !one with the RTC. filed a !otion to dis!iss, to which theRTC denied. 'otion for reconsideration was liewise denied. issatifsied, filed a (etition forCertiorari and (rohibition with the Court of Appeals. )aid petition was dis!issed on the ground

that a special ci%il action for certiorari is not the appropriate re!ed to 6uestion the denial oftheir !otion to dis!iss.

Issue+ &hether a special ci%il action for certiorari is the appropriate re!ed to 6uestion a denialof a !otion to dis!iss

e!"+ o. A special ci%il action for certiorari is a re!ed designed for the correction of errors of$urisdiction and not errors of $udg!ent. To $ustif the grant of such e"traordinar re!ed, theabuse of discretion !ust be gra%e and patent, and it !ust be shown that discretion wase"ercised arbitraril or despoticall. 7n this case, no such circu!stances attended the denial ofpetitioners !otion to dis!iss.


Facts+ ( recei%ed on Januar 22 a cop of the RTC, dening reconsideration of its ruling ontheir 'otion to dis!iss. ( filed a (etition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals on Eebruar #.uring the pendenc of (s (etition for Certiorari before the Court of Appeals, the RTC declared( in default for failure to file an answer on or before Januar 2-.

Issue+ &hether the order of default is correct

e!"+ ?es. ( had onl fi%e das fro! receipt of the order of the RTC, or until Januar 2-, within

which to file an answer. &hen ( filed their (etition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals onEebruar #, the were alread in default. 9ence, the filing of said (etition for Certiorari cannotbe considered as ha%ing interrupted the regla!entar period for filing an answer. 'orei!portantl, the Rules of Court pro%ide that the petition shall not interrupt the course of theprincipal case unless a te!porar restraining order or writ of preli!inar in$unction has beenissued against the public respondent fro! further proceeding in the case.

**


34/70



CAUSEOFACTION

VIEWMASTER VS. ALLEN RO?ASG.R. NO. 1'',> )2000*

Facts+ failed to co!pl with his obligation with (. ( filed with the RTC a co!plaint for specificperfor!ance. The co!plaint was dis!issed on the ground that the co!plaint fails to state acause of action

Issue+ &hether the co!plaint states a cause of action.

e!"+ o. The test of sufficienc of the facts found in the co!plaint as constituting a cause ofaction is whether or not ad!itting the facts alleged the court can render a %alid $udg!ent uponthe sa!e in accordance with the praer thereof.

CERTIFICATEOFNON:FORUMSOPPING

MELO VS. CA'1/ SCRA -( )1---*

Facts+ ( filed a co!plaint for in$unction against . 7n turn, !o%ed to dis!iss (s action on theground of failure of to attach a certification of nonforu! shopping to her co!plaint. ( arguedthat failure to co!pl with this re6uire!ent can be e"cused b the fact that it is not guilt offoru! shopping.

Issue+ &hether the failure to co!pl with the re6uire!ent should be e"cused.

e!"+o. The re6uire!ent to file a certificate of nonforu! shopping is !andator. %er partfiling a co!plaint or an other intitiator pleading is re6uired to swear under oath that he has notco!!itted nor will he co!!it foru! shopping.


35/70



Facts+ ( did not attend the scheduled pretrial conference because he was awaiting resolutionof a !otion pre%iousl filed. +ecause of his nonappearance, the RTC declared ( as in defaultand allowed to present his e%idence e" parte. The RTC rendered a decision ad%erse to (. (

filed with the CA a special ci%il action for certiorari challenging the %alidit of the RTCs decisionand other proceedings.

Issue+ &hether certiorari here is proper e%en where appeal is a%ailable.

e!"+ ?es. An ordinar appeal is the proper re!ed in 6uestioning a $udg!ent b defaultDappeal is also the proper re!ed fro! an order dening a petition for relief of $udg!ent. 9ence,in the nor!al course of e%ents, the CA correctl denied the petition for certiorari before it,assailing the RTCs decision b default and denial of the petition for relief, in %iew of thea%ailabilit of appeal therefro!. 9owe%er, in the e"ceptional circu!stances presented in thiscase, appeal see!s to be inade6uateD conse6uentl, e%en if petitioner interposed an appeal,certiorari lies to correct such a despotic e"ercise of discretion.

NATIONAL IRRIGATION ADMIN. VS. CA'1/ SCRA 2,, )1---*

Facts+ The CA rendered a Resolution dated 28 June. ( recei%ed the said ecision on 0'arch. Thus ( had until 1 'arch within which to perfect its appeal but did not do so. &hat itdid was to file an original action for certiorari before the )C, reiterating the issues andargu!ents it raised before the CA.

Issue+&hether the action for certiorari was proper.

e!"+o. The Resolution of the CA has alread beco!e final and e"ecutor b reason of (sfailure to appeal. 7nstead of filing this petition for certiorari under Rule #; of the Rules of Court,( should ha%e filed a ti!el petition for re%iew under Rule ;. There is no doubt that the CA has

$urisdiction o%er the special ci%il action for certiorari under Rule #; filed before it b (.The appeal fro! a final disposition of the CA is a petition for re%iew under Rule ; and

not a special ci%il action under Rules #; of the 1 Rules of Court. Rule ; is clear thatdecisions, final order or resolution of the CA in an case, regardless of the nature of the actionor proceedings in%ol%ed, !a be appealed to the )C b filing a petition for re%iew, which wouldbe but a continuation of the appellate process o%er the original case. Gnder Rule ;, theregle!entar period to appeal is 1; das fro! notice of $udg!ent or denial of a 'otion forReconsideration.

Eor a writ of certiorari under Rule #; to issue, a petitioner !ust show that he has no

plain, speed and ade6uate re!ed in the ordinar course of law against its percei%edgrie%ance. A re!ed is considered 4plain, speed and ade6uate5 if it will pro!ptl relie%e thepetitioner fro! the in$urious effects of the $udg!ent and the acts of the lower court or agenc.9ere, appeal was not onl a%ailable but also a speed and ade6uate re!ed.

PAULINO VILLANUEVA VS. PEOPLEG.R. NO. 1',0-/ )2000*

Facts+ The RTC rendered a $udg!ent against . appealed to the Court of Appeals. The Courtof Appeals affir!ed the RTCs $udg!ent. 'otion for reconsideration was denied. (, the pri%ateco!plainant, then e"ecuted an affida%it of desistance. filed a (etition for Certiorari before the

)upre!e Court, contending that the re6uisites for the grant of a new trial on the ground of newldisco%ered e%idence ha%ing been substantiall shown, the Court of Appeals should ha%ere!anded the case to the RTC for new trial.

Issue+ &hether the Court of Appeals co!!itted error in refusing to grant a new trial

*;


36/70



e!"+ o. The re6uisites for newl disco%ered e%idence as a ground for a new trial are: @a thee%idence was disco%ered after the trialD @b such e%idence could not ha%e been disco%eredand produced at the trial with reasonable diligenceD and @c that it is !aterial, not !erel

cu!ulati%e, corroborati%e, or i!peaching, and is of such weight that, if ad!itted, willprobabl change the $udg!ent. 7n the case at bar, the Affida%it of esistance wase"ecuted se%eral ears after the Court of Appeals had affir!ed the trial courts decisionand had denied s !otion for reconsideration. 7t is settled that affida%its of desistance!ade b a witness after the con%iction of the accused deser%e onl scant consideration.

COMPULSOR$COUNTERCLAIM

SPOUSES CLARO PONCIANO VS. JUDGE PARENTELAG.R. NO. 1''2/( )2000*

Facts+ ( filed a co!plaint for su! of !one and da!ages against . filed their Answer withco!pulsor counterclai!. ( filed a !otion to strie off the counterclai! for failure to co!pl with

Ad!. Circular o. 0 of the )upre!e Court which re6uires an affida%it of noforu! shoppingfor all initiator pleadings in all courts.

Issue+ &hether a co!pulsor counterclai! should be acco!panied with an affida%it of noforu!shopping

e!"+ o. The language of the circular distinctl suggests that it is pri!aril intended to co%er aninitiator pleading or an incipient application of a part asserting a clai! for relief. The circularhas not been conte!plated to include a ind of clai! which, b its %er nature as being au"iliarto the proceedings in the suit, can onl be appro"i!atel pleaded in the answer and not re!ainoutstanding for independent resolution e"cept b the court where the !ain case is pending.

COURTRULINGS

RUBEN SERRANO VS. NLRCG.R. NO. 110(0 )2000*

Facts+ The )C re%ersed the doctrine for!ulated in a pre%ious case and applied a new doctrinein the instant case. (, reling on the ruling in the pre%ious case, contends that the new doctrineenunciated in the instant case should onl be applied prospecti%el.

Issue+ &hether a new doctrine should onl be applied prospecti%el.

e!"+ o. (s %iew of the principle of prospecti%e application of new $udicial doctrines would turnthe $udicial function into a !ere acade!ic e"ercise with the result that the doctrine laid downwould be no !ore than a dictu! and would depri%e the holding in the case of an force.

DEATOFAPART$

ANG #E# CEN VS. ANDRADE'1/ SCRA 11 )1---*

Facts+ The $udge sent copies of the courts order to , who alread died. s counsel filed anad!inistrati%e case against the $udge on the ground of serious inefficienc for her failure to tae

$udicial notice of the death of .

Issue+ &hether the $udge erred in failing to tae $udicial notice of s death.

e!"+ o. The dut of infor!ing the court of the death of a part is on the counsel of thedeceased. The rules operate on the presu!ption that the attorne for the deceased part is in abetter position than the attorne for the ad%erse part to now about the death of his client and

*#


37/70



to infor! the court of the na!es and addresses of his legal representati%e or representati%es.Thus, the $udge cannot be bla!ed for sending copies of the orders to .

EIRS OF ELIAS LORILLA VS. CAG.R. NO. 11/>,, )2000*

Facts+ The RTC rendered $udg!ent in fa%or of (. s counsel recei%ed a cop of the decisionbut did not interpose an appeal therefro!. A writ of e"ecution was issued. The 9eirs of ( filed a!otion to 6uash the writ of e"ecution on the ground that died before the RTC rendered itsdecision.

Issue+ &hether the !otion should be granted.

e!"+ o. s counsel failed in his dut to pro!ptl infor! the court of the death of his client, as

the Rules re6uire. As far as the RTC was concerned, until the &rit of "ecution was issued, continued to be represented b counsel of record and that upon ser%ice of a cop of thedecision on said counsel, was dee!ed to ha%e been %alidl ser%ed notice of $udg!ent. Thefailure of s counsel to ser%e notice on the court and the ad%erse parties regarding his clientsdeath binds the 9eirs as !uch as hi!self could be bound.

DOC#ETFEES

GABRIEL LA&ARO VS. CAG.R. NO. 1'>1 )2000*

Facts+ ( obtained a fa%orable $udg!ent in a ci%il action the filed against . Thereafter,

appealed to the Court of Appeals, where the appeal was initiall dis!issed for their failure to pathe re6uired docet fees within the prescribed period. Their appeal was later reinstated whentheir !otion for reconsideration was granted.

Issue+ &hether the reinstate!ent of s appeal is correct

e!"+ o. The Rules of Court, as a!ended, specificall pro%ides that appellate court docet andother lawful fees should be paid within the period for taing an appeal. )aid rule is not !ereldirector. The pa!ent of the docet and other legal fees within the prescribed period is both!andator and $urisdictional. The failure of to confor! with the rules on appeal renders the

$udg!ent final and e"ecutor.

EJECTMENTSUITORUNLAWFULDETAINERACTION

EIRS OF FERNANDO VIN&ONS VS. CA'1, SCRA ,(1 )1---*

Facts+An e$ect!ent suit was filed b ( against in the 'TC !ore than one ear fro! theter!ination of the !onthto!onth lease so!e ti!e before April 188.

Issue+ &hether the 'TC has $urisdiction o%er the case.

e!"+ o. This case being one of unlawful detainer, it !ust ha%e been filed within one ear fro!

the date of last de!and with the 'TC.


38/70



Facts+An e$ect!ent suit was filed. ( is not na!ed a part in the suit but is a colessee of thepropert. Judg!entin the e$ect!ent suit was rendered.

Issue+&hether the $udg!ent binds (.

e!"+ ?es. Judg!ent in an e$ect!ent suit is binding not onl upon the defendants in the suit isbinding not onl upon the defendents in the suit but also against those not !ade parties thereto,if the are: a trespassers, s6uatters or agents of the defendant fraudulentl occuping thepropert to frustrate the $udg!entD b guests or other occupants of the pre!ises with theper!ission of the defendantD c transferees pendente liteD d sublesseeD e colesseeD or f!e!bers of the fa!il, relati%es and other pri%ies of the defendant.

ANITA BUCE VS. CA

G.R. NO. 1'>-1' )2000*

Facts+ leased to ( a parcel of land. The lease ter!inated without an agree!ent for renewalbeing reached. (, howe%er, still tendered checs representing rentals to which the latterrefused to accept. ( filed with the RTC a co!plaint for specific perfor!ance with praer forconsignation. 7n his Answer with counterclai!, did not include a praer for the restoration ofpossession of the leased pre!ises. The RTC ordered the e$ect!ent of in its ecision.

Issue+ &hether the order of the RTC is correct

e!"+ o. True, after the lease ter!inated without an agree!ent for renewal being reached, (beca!e sub$ect to e$ect!ent fro! the pre!ises. 9owe%er, did not include in their Answer with

counterclai! a praer for the restoration of possession of leased pre!ises. either did the filewith the proper 'TC an unlawful detainer suit against ( after the e"piration of the leasecontract. 'oreo%er, the issue of possession of the lease pre!ises was not a!ong the issuesagreed upon b the parties.

E?ECUTIONOFJUDGMENT

VDA. DE SALANGA VS. ON. ALAGARG.R. NO. 1'(0/- )2000*

Facts+ The 'TC rendered a decision ad%erse to (. ( appealed the decision all the wa to the)C. 'eanwhile, e"ecution proceedings were conducted on (s propert. Accordingl, a public

auction sale proceeded with e!erging as the highest bidder. Certificates of )ale were issuedto . After the )C rendered a decision affir!ing the 'TCs decision, the RTC re!anded thecase to the 'TC for proceedings on issues in%ol%ing e"ecution of its final $udg!ent.

Issue+ &hether the 'TC can still act on (s 6uestions regarding the auction sale of itsproperties

e!"+ o. The e"ecution of the 'TC $udg!ent has been partiall satisfied with the issuance ofthe Certificates of )ale to . Thus it can no longer act on (s 6uestions regarding the auctionsale of its properties. The 'TC loses $urisdiction o%er a case that has been partiall satisfied.

U$ VS. ON. SANTIAGOG.R. NO. 1'12' )2000*

Facts+An 'TC decision was appealed to the RTC which affir!ed the said decision. filed apetition for re%iew with the CA assailing the decision of the RTC. 'eanwhile, ( filed a 'otion for7ssuance of &rit of "ecution (ending Appeal with the RTC. The RTC denied such !otion.

Issue+ &hether the !otion should be granted

*8


39/70



e!"+ ?es. *


40/70



Issue+ &hether ( co!!itted foru!shopping

e!"+ o. Eoru!shopping consists of filing !ultiple suits in%ol%ing the sa!e parties for thesa!e cause of action, either si!ultaneousl or successi%el, for the purpose of obtaining afa%orable $udg!ent. 7t is readil apparent that the present charge will not prosper because thecause of action herein, i.e., %iolation of The Anti=raft and Corrupt (ractices Acts, is differentfro! the cause of action in the case pending before the trial court which is collection of a su! of!one plus da!ages.

INDIGENTPART$

TEOFILO MARTINE& VS. PEOPLEG.R. NO. 1'2/,2 )2000*

Facts+ ( filed with the Court of Appeals a petition for certiorari. 9e also filed a 'otion to 3itigateas (auper attaching thereto supporting affida%its e"ecuted b ( hi!self and b 2 ostensibldisinterested persons attesting to (s eligibilit to a%ail hi!self of this pri%ilege. The CA deniedthe !otion and directed ( to re!it the docet fees.

Issue+ &hether ( should be allowed to litigate as pauper

e!"+?es. ( has co!plied with all the e%identiar re6uire!ents for prosecuting a !otion toappear in court as a pauper. 9e has e"ecuted an affida%it attesting to the fact that he and hisi!!ediate fa!il do not earn a gross inco!e of !ore than (*,000.00 a !onth, and that theironl real propert, a hut, cannot be worth !ore than (10,000.00. 9e has also sub!itted a $ointaffida%it e"ecuted b H and ? who generall attested to the sa!e allegations contained in

petitioners own affida%it.

JUDGMENT

RI&AL SURET$ VS. CAG.R. NO. 112'>0 )2000*

Facts+ 7n an appealed case, the CA ruled on s insurable interest and co!pensabilit for theloss of certain ob$ects. The )C affir!ed the CAs ruling. ( filed a !otion of reconsideration of theCAs decision with the CA. The CA reconsidered its decision as regards interest.

Issue+ &hether the rule on conclusi%eness of $udg!ent as regards s insurable interest.

e!"+ ?es. The rule on conclusi%eness of $udg!ent precludes the relitigation of a particular factor issue in another action between the sa!e parties based on a different clai! or cause ofaction. Considering that s insurable interest and co!pensabilit for the loss of certain ob$ectshas been settled b the CA and the )C, the sa!e can no longer be relitigated.

INDUSTRIAL MANAGEMENT VS. NLRCG.R. NO. 1012' )2000*

Facts+ The 3abor Arbiter @3A rendered $udg!ent ordering H, ? and O to pa ( a su! of !one.

7n the alias writ of e"ecution issued subse6uentl, the 3A ordered the sheriff to proceed againstH andFor ? and O. H sought to 6uash the writ of e"ecution on the ground that it changed thetenor of the decision b !aing hi! solidaril liable with ? and O.

Issue+ &hether the writ of e"ecution changed the tenor of the decision

e!"+ ?es. A solidar obligation cannot lightl be inferred. There is a soldar liabilit onl whenthe obligation e"pressl so states, when the law so pro%ides or when the nature of the obligation

0


41/70



so re6uires. 7n the dispositi%e portion of the 3A, the word 4solidar5 does not appear. or can itbe inferred fro! the fallo that the liabilit of H, ? and O is solidar, thus their liabilit should!erel be $oint.

#ATARUNGANGPAMBARANGA$

VALENCIDES VERCIDE VS. JUDGE PRISCILLA ERNANDE&A.M. NO. MTJ:00:12>, )2000*

Facts+ ( filed a case for reco%er of possession of a piece of land against . The case was filedin court without prior referral to the 3upong Tagapa!aapa since the parties do not reside in thesa!e or ad$acent barangas. e%ertheless, raised as an affir!ati%e defense the nonreferralof the case to the +aranga and conse6uentl, the $udge dis!issed the case

Issue+ &hether the parties are re6uired to sub!it their dispute in%ol%ing real propert to the3upong Tagapa!aapa

e!"+ o. ( 1;08 is clear on this point. &here parties do not reside in the sa!e cit or!unicipalit or in ad$oining barangas, there is no re6uire!ent for the! to sub!it their disputein%ol%ing real propert to the 3upong Tagapa!aapa.

LACES

JOSEFINA VILLANUEVA:MIJARES VS. CAG.R. NO. 10/-21 )2000*

Facts+A left a parcel of land to his 8 children. +, one of the heirs, held the propert in trust forhis coheirs. )e%eral ears after, the other coheirs disco%ered that their shares had beenpurchased b + and sold in fa%or of +s children. The other children of A filed an action forpartition with annul!ent of docu!ents andFor recon%eance and da!ages against +s children.

Issue+ &hether the action is alread barred b laches.

e!"+o. 3aches is negligience or o!ission to assert a right witin a reasonable ti!e, warrantingthe presu!ption that the part entitled to assert it has either abandoned or declined to assert it.There is no absolute rule on what constitute laches. 7t is a creation of e6uit and applied notreall to penali/e neglect or sleeping upon ones rights but rather to a%oid recogni/ing a rightwhen to do so would result in a clearl ine6uitable situation. 9ere, the other coheirs could nobe faulted for their failure to file a case since up to the age of !a$orit, the belie%ed andconsidered + their coheir and ad!inistrator. 7t was onl later that the beca!e aware of theactionable betraal of +.

LIBERALIT$OFTERULES


Facts+ 7n an action to reco%er a su! of !one, ( was declared in default for his failure to file ati!el answer.

Issue+&hether the order of default should be set aside.

e!"+ ?es. )uits should a

Date post:	03-Jun-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	existentialist5alday
View:	218 times
Download:	0 times

Complete 20 Remedial 20 Digests

Documents