1. George T. Chua vs. Judge Fortunito L.

Madrona
A.M. No. RTJ-14-2394
September 1, 2014
a. Exercise of Judicial Function; Correctible only through available judicial remedies and not
by administrative or disciplinary actions. To start with, no administrative recourse could
supplant or pre-empt the proper exercise by the CA of its certiorari jurisdiction. Furthermore,
not every error or mistake by a judge in the performance of his official duties as a judge
renders him administratively liable. Indeed, no judge can be held administratively liable for
gross misconduct, ignorance of the law, or incompetence in the adjudication of cases unless
his acts constituted fraud, dishonesty or corruption; or were imbued with malice or ill-will,
bad faith, or deliberate intent to do an injustice.
A trial judge is not accountable for performing his judicial functions and office because such
performance is a matter of public duty and responsibility. Indeed, the judge's office and duty
to render and administer justice, being functions of sovereignty, should not be simply taken
for granted. No administrative charge for manifest partiality, gross misconduct, and gross
ignorance of the law should be brought against him for the orders issued in the due course of
judicial proceedings.
2. People of the Philippines vs. Reynaldo Baturi
G.R No. 189812
September 1, 2014
a. Illegal Sale of Shabu; Elements for the Prosecution of Illegal Sale of Shabu. - In a successful
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 sale actually took place, coupled with the
presentation in court of the corpus delicti" or the illicit drug in evidence.
b. Illegal Sale of Shabu; Chain of Custody; Failure to strictly comply with the Chain of Custody
Rule is not Fatal. It is true that the prosecution did not formally offer in evidence the
Certificate of Inventory and the formal request for examination of the confiscated substance.
Be that as it may, the Court has previously held that even if an exhibit is not formally offered,
the same "may still be admitted against the adverse party if, first, it has been duly identified
by testimony duly recorded and, second, it has itself been incorporated in the records of the
case."
Besides, the failure of the police officers to comply strictly with the chain of custody rule is
not fatal. It will not render the arrest of appellant illegal or the items seized or confiscated
from him inadmissible. "What is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and
the evidentiary value of the seized items, as the same would be utilized in the determination
of the guilt or innocence of the accused."
c. Evidence; Illegal Sale of Shabu; Defenses; Denial cannot prevail over positive testimony of a
witness. - A defense of denial which is unsupported and unsubstantiated by clear and
convincing evidence becomes negative and self-serving, deserving no weight in law, and
cannot be given greater evidentiary value over convincing, straightforward and probable
testimony on affirmative matters."

d. Evidence; Illegal Sale of Shabu; Defenses; Frame-up. - "[F]rame-up is viewed with disfavor
since, like alibi, it can easily beconcocted and is a common ploy in most prosecutions for
violations of the Dangerous Drugs Law." x x x. For the police officers to frame him, they
must have known appellant prior to the incident. x x x. Also, if appellant was indeed a victim
of frame-up by police officers, he should have filed the proper charges against them. "The
fact that no administrative or criminal charges were filed lends cogency to the conclusion that
the alleged frame-up was merely concocted as a defense scheme. This inaction clearly betrays
appellants claim of frame-up."
3. ECE Realty and Development, Inc. vs. Rachel G. Mandap
G.R. No. 196182
September 1, 2014
a. Contracts; Contract to Sell; Grounds for the Nullification of Contract; Fraud; Conditions to
Constitute Fraud. - Jurisprudence has shown that in order to constitute fraud that provides
basis to annul contracts, it must fulfill two conditions. First, the fraud must be dolo
causanteor it must be fraud in obtaining the consent of the party. This is referred to as causal
fraud. The deceit must be serious. The fraud is serious when it is sufficient to impress, or to
lead an ordinarily prudent person into error; that which cannot deceive a prudent person
cannot be a ground for nullity. The circumstances of each case should be considered, taking
into account the personal conditions of the victim. Second, the fraud must be proven by clear
and convincing evidence and not merely by a preponderance thereof.
4. Colegio De San Juan De Letran vs. Isidra Dela Rosa-Meris
G.R. No. 178837
September 1, 2014
a. Rules of Procedure; Forum Shopping; When strict compliance with the forum shopping may
be tempered. The fact that the instant case anchors on one of the most cherished
constitutional rights afforded to an employee is of no moment since the Rules of Court may
not be ignored at will and at random to the prejudice of the orderly presentation and
assessment of the issues and their just resolution. While it is true that litigation is not a game
of technicalities and that rules of procedure shall not be strictly enforced at the cost of
substantial justice, it must be emphasized that procedural rules should not likewise be
belittled or dismissed simply because their non-observance might result in prejudice to a
party's substantial rights. Like all rules, they are required to be followed, except only for the
most persuasive of reasons.
b. Termination of Employees; Procedural Requirement of Lawful Dismissal of Employees. - In
the termination of employment, the employer must (a) give the employee a written notice
specifying the ground or grounds of termination, giving to said employee reasonable
opportunity within which to explain his side; (b) conduct a hearing or conference during
which the employee concerned, with the assistance of counsel if the employee so desires, is
given the opportunity to respond to the charge, present his evidence or rebut the evidence
presented against him; and (c) give the employee a written notice of termination indicating
that upon due consideration of all circumstances, grounds have been established to justify his
termination.
5. GMA Network, Inc. v. COMELEC
G.R. No. 205357
September 2, 2014

a. Constitutional Law; Locus Standi. - Standing or locus standi is the ability of a party to
demonstrate to the court sufficient connection to and harm from the law or action challenged
to support that party's participation in the case. More importantly, the doctrine of standing is
built on the principle of separation of powers, sparing as it does unnecessary interference or
invalidation by the judicial branch of the actions rendered by its co-equal branches of
government.
b. Fair Election Act (R.A. No. 9006) repealed Section ll(b) of Republic Act No. 6646. - Fair
Election Act (R.A. No. 9006) repealed Section ll(b) of Republic Act No. 6646 which
prohibited direct political advertisements -the so-called "political ad ban." If under the
previous law, no candidate was allowed to directly buy or procure on his own his broadcast or
print campaign advertisements, and that he must get it through the COMELEC Time or
COMELEC Space, R.A. No. 9006 relieved him or her from that restriction and allowed him
or her to broadcast time or print space subject to the limitations set out in the law. Congress,
in enacting R.A. No. 9006, felt that the previous law was not an effective and efficient way of
giving voice to the people. Noting the debilitating effects of the previous law on the right of
suffrage and Philippine democracy, Congress decided to repeal such rule by enacting the Fair
Election Act.
c. Election Law; Section 9 (a) of COMELEC Resolution No. 9615; Restriction on freedom of
speech. - The assailed rule on "aggregate-based" airtime limits is unreasonable and arbitrary
as it unduly restricts and constrains the ability of candidates and political parties to reach out
and communicate with the people. Here, the adverted reason for imposing the "aggregatebased" airtime limits - leveling the playing field - does not constitute a compelling state
interest which would justify such a substantial restriction on the freedom of candidates and
political parties to communicate their ideas, philosophies, platforms and programs of
government. And, this is specially so in the absence of a clear-cut basis for the imposition of
such a prohibitive measure.
Finally on this matter, it is pertinent to quote what Justice Black wrote in his concurring
opinion in the landmark Pentagon Papers case: "In the First Amendment, the Founding
Fathers gave the free press the protection it must have to fulfill its essential role in our
democracy. The press was to serve the governed, not the governors. The Government's power
to censor the press was abolished so that the press would remain forever free to censure the
Government. The press was protected so that it could bare the secrets of government and
inform the people. Only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in
government."
6. People of the Philippines vs. Leo Dela Trinidad y Oballes
G.R. No. 199898
September 3, 2014
a. Illegal possession of regulated or prohibited drugs; Elements. - In the prosecution of illegal
possession of regulated or prohibited drugs, the following elements must be established: (1)
the accused is in possession of an item or object, which is identified to be prohibited or
regulated drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely and
consciously possessed the drug.
b. Illegal possession of regulated or prohibited drugs; Elements; Mere possession is prima facie
evidence of knowledge. - Jurisprudence is consistent in that mere possession of a prohibited

drug constitutes prima facie evidence of knowledge or animus possidendi sufficient to

convict an accused in the absence of any satisfactory explanation.
c. Illegal possession of regulated or prohibited drugs; Elements; Possession. - The ruling of this
Court in People v. Lagman is instructive. It held that illegal possession of regulated drugs is
mala prohibita, and, as such, criminal intent is not an essential element. However, the
prosecution must prove that the accused had the intent to possess (animus posidendi) the
drugs. Possession, under the law, includes not only actual possession, but also constructive
possession. Actual possession exists when the drug is in the immediate possession or control
of the accused. On the other hand, constructive possession exists when the drug is under the
dominion and control of the accused or when he has the right to exercise dominion and
control over the place where it is found. Exclusive possession or control is not necessary. The
accused cannot avoid conviction if his right to exercise control and dominion over the place
where the contraband is located, is shared with another.
7. People of the Philippines vs. Eco Yaba y Basa a.k.a. "Plok"
G.R. No. 194946
September 3, 2014
a. Rape; Defenses; Sweetheart Theory must be proven by compelling evidence. - The
testimonies that they were seen together talking on the day of the incident or that they were
walking hand in hand in going to Lupi do not give rise to the inference that they were
sweethearts. We previously held that the sweetheart theory or sweetheart defense is an oftabused justification that rashly derides the intelligence of this Court and sorely tests its
patience. For the Court to even consider giving credence to such defense, it must be proven
by compelling evidence. The defense cannot just present testimonial evidence in support of
the theory, as in the instant case. Independent proof is required such as tokens, mementos,
and photographs.
b. Rape; Evidence; Medical Findings not essential. - In fact, we have already ruled that for a
conviction of rape, medical findings of injuries in the victims genitalia are not essential. Case
law has it that in view of the intrinsic nature of rape, the only evidence that can be offered to
prove the guilt of the offender is the testimony of the offended party. Even absent a medical
certificate, her testimony, standing alone, can be made the basis of conviction if such
testimony is credible.
8. Meyr Enterprises Corporation vs. Rolando Cord
G.R. No. 197336
September 3, 2014
a. Rules of Court; Appeal by Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 shall raise only
questions of law; Existence of Bad Faith is a question of fact. - "the existence of bad faith is
a question of fact and is evidentiary; x x x it requires that the reviewing court look into the
evidence to find if indeed there is proof that is substantial enough to show such bad faith."
However, this Court is not a trier of facts; it is "not duty-bound to analyze again and weigh
the evidence introduced in and considered by the tribunals below. When supported by
substantial evidence, the findings of fact of the CA are conclusive and binding on the parties
and are not reviewable by this Court x x x." This being the case, the instant Petition must fail
because a question of fact cannot properly be raised in a petition for review on certiorari. An
appeal by petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 shall raise only questions of law.

9. Ricardo A. Dalusong vs. Eagle Clarc Shipping Philippines, Inc., et al.

G.R. No. 204233
September 3, 2014
a. Labor Law; Seaman; Disability; Evidence; Company-designated doctor. - We agree with the
Court of Appealsruling, giving more credence to the medical findings of the companydesignated doctor. x x x. As the Court aptly stated in Philman Marine Agency, Inc. (now
DOHLE-PHILMAN Manning Agency, Inc.) v. Cabanban, "the doctor who have had a
personal knowledge of the actual medical condition, having closely, meticulously and
regularly monitored and actually treated the seafarers illness, is more qualified to assess the
seafarers disability." Based on the Disability Report of petitioners doctor, it appears that he
only conducted a physical examination on petitioner before issuing his final diagnosis and
disability rating on petitioners condition. Clearly, the findings of the company-designated
doctor, who, with his team of specialists which included an orthopedic surgeon and a physical
therapist, periodically treated petitioner for months and monitored his condition, deserve
greater evidentiary weight than the single medical report of petitioners doctor, who appeared
to have examined petitioner only once.
b. Labor Law; Seaman; Disability; Total and Permanent disability; Entitlement to
compensation. - Just because the seafarer is unable to perform his job and is undergoing
medical treatment for more than 120 days does not automatically entitle the seafarer to total
and permanent disability compensation. In this case, petitioner's medical treatment lasted
more than 120 days but less than 240 days, after which the company-designated doctor gave
petitioner a final disability grading under the POEA schedule of disabilities of "grade 11 complete immobility of an ankle joint in normal position." Thus, before the maximum 240day medical treatment period expired, petitioner was issued a final disability grade 11 which
is merely equivalent to a permanent partial disability, since under Section 32 of the POEASEC, only those classified under grade 1 are considered total and permanent disability.
Clearly, petitioner is only entitled to permanent partial disability compensation, since his
condition cannot be considered as permanent total disability.
10. Willaware Products Corporation vs. Jesichris Manufacturing Corporation
G.R. No. 195549
September 3, 2014
a. Human Relations; Unfair Competition under Article 28 of the Civil Code; Concept. - The
concept of "unfair competition" under Article 28 is very much broader than that covered by
intellectual property laws. Under the present article, which follows the extended concept of
"unfair competition" in American jurisdictions, the term covers even cases of discovery of
trade secrets of a competitor, bribery of his employees, misrepresentation of all kinds,
interference with the fulfillment of a competitors contracts, or any malicious interference
with the latters business.
Article 28 of the Civil Code provides that "unfair competition in agricultural, commercial or
industrial enterprises or in labor through the use of force, intimidation, deceit, machination or
any other unjust, oppressive or high-handed method shall give rise to a right of action by the
person who thereby suffers damage."
From the foregoing, it is clear that what is being sought to be prevented is not competition per
se but the use of unjust, oppressive or high- handed methods which may deprive others of a

fair chance to engage in business or to earn a living. Plainly, what the law prohibits is unfair
competition and not competition where the means used are fair and legitimate.
b. Human Relations; Unfair Competition under Article 28 of the Civil Code; Characteristics. In order to qualify the competition as "unfair," it must have two characteristics: (1) it must
involve an injury to a competitor or trade rival, and (2) it must involve acts which are
characterized as "contrary to good conscience," or "shocking to judicial sensibilities," or
otherwise unlawful; in the language of our law, these include force, intimidation, deceit,
machination or any other unjust, oppressive or high-handed method. The public injury or
interest is a minor factor; the essence of the matter appears to be a private wrong perpetrated
by unconscionable means.
11. Philippine Touristers, Inc. and/or Alejandro R. Yague, Jr. vs. Mas Transit Workers UnionAnglo KMU and its members represented by Abraham Tumala, Jr.
G.R. No. 201237
September 3, 2014
a. Labor Law; Appeal from the Labor Arbiter to the NLRC; Perfection of Appeal. - For an
appeal from the LAs ruling to the NLRC to be perfected, Article 223 (now Article 229) 61 of
the Labor Code requires the posting of a cash or surety bond in an amount equivalent to the
monetary award in the judgment appealed from. x x x. In case of a judgment involving a
monetary award, an appeal by the employer may be perfected only upon the posting of a cash
or surety bond issued by a reputable bonding company duly accredited by the Commission in
the amount equivalent to the monetary award in the judgment appealed from.
b. Labor Law; Appeal from the Labor Arbiter to the NLRC; Perfection of Appeal; Reduction of
the Bond. While it has been settled that the posting of a cash or surety bond is
indispensableto the perfection of an appeal in cases involving monetary awards from the
decision of the LA,62 the Rules of Procedure of the NLRC63 (the Rules), particularly Section
6, Rule VI thereof, nonetheless allows the reduction of the bond upon a showing of (a) the
existence of a meritorious ground for reduction, and (b) the posting of a bond in a reasonable
amount in relation to the monetary award
c. Labor Law; Appeal from the Labor Arbiter to the NLRC; Perfection of Appeal; Reduction of
the Bond not a matter of right on the part of the movant. - In this regard, it bears stressing that
the reduction of the bond provided thereunder is not a matter of right on the part of the
movant and its grant still lies within the sound discretion of the NLRC upon a showing of
meritorious grounds and the reasonableness of the bond tendered under the circumstances.
12. Omni Hauling Services, Inc., Lolita Franco, Aniceto Franco vs. Bernardo Bon, Roberto
Tortoles, Romeo Torres, Rodello Ramos, et al.
G.R. No. 199388
September 3, 2014
a. Labor Law; Article 280 of the Labor Code. Distinction between project employees and
regular employees. - Art. 280. Regular and casual employment. The provisions of written
agreement to the contrary notwithstanding and regardless of the oral agreement of the parties,
an employment shall be deemed to be regular where the employee has been engaged to
perform activities which are usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of
the employer, except where the employment has been fixed for a specific project or
undertaking the completion or termination of which has been determined at the time of the

engagement of the employee or where the work or service to be performed is seasonal in

nature and the employment is for the duration of the season.
b. Labor Law; Test to determine the status of an employee as a project employee or regular
employee. - According to jurisprudence, the principal test for determining whether particular
employees are properly characterized as "project employees" as distinguished from "regular
employees," is whether or not the employees were assigned to carry out a "specific project or
undertaking," the duration (and scope) of which were specified at the time they were engaged
for that project. The project could either be (1) a particular job or undertaking that is within
the regular or usual business of the employer company, but which is distinct and separate, and
identifiable as such, from the other undertakings of the company; or (2) a particular job or
undertaking that is not within the regular business of the corporation.1wphi1 In order to
safeguard the rights of workers against the arbitrary use of the word "project" to prevent
employees from attaining a regular status, employers claiming that their workers are project
employees should not only prove that the duration and scope of the employment was
specified at the time they were engaged, but also that there was indeed a project.
c. Labor Law; Presumption of regularity of an employee. - In this case, records are bereft of any
evidence to show that respondents were made to sign employment contracts explicitly stating
that they were going to be hired as project employees, with the period of their employment to
be co-terminus with the original period of Omnis service contract with the Quezon City
government. Neither is petitioners allegation that respondents were duly apprised of the
project-based nature of their employment supported by any other evidentiary proof. x x x. As
such, the presumption of regular employment should be accorded in their favor pursuant to
Article 280 of the Labor Code which provides that "[employees] who have rendered at least
one year of service, whether such service is continuous or broken [ as respondents in this
case ] shall be considered as [regular employees]with respect to the activity in which [they]
are employed and [their] employment shall continue while such activity actually exists."
13. Jose S. Villanueva vs. Atty. Paulino I. Saguyod, Clerk of Court VI, RTC, Branch 6, Paniqui,
Tarlac
A.M. No. P-13-3102
September 8, 2014
a. Republic Act No. 6713; Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and
Employees; Clerk of Court. - To begin with, clerks of court are important officers in the
judicial system. Their administrative functions are vital to the prompt and sound
administration of justice. They cannot be allowed to overstep their powers and
responsibilities. Their office is the hub of adjudicative and administrative orders, processes
and judicial concerns. They perform a very delicate function as custodian of the courts funds,
revenues, records, property and premises. They are specifically imbued with the mandate to
safeguard the integrity of the court as well as the efficiency of its proceedings, and to uphold
the confidence of the public in the administration of justice. As such, this Court cannot
countenance any act or omission of any court personnel that would violate the norm of public
accountability and diminish the faith of the people in the Judiciary.
14. Nancy S. Montinola vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 198656
September 8, 2014

a. Labor Law; Suspension from work. - Suspension from work is prima facie a deprivation of
this right. Thus, termination and suspension from work must be reasonable to meet the
constitutional requirement of due process of law. It will be reasonable if it is based on just or
authorized causes enumerated in the Labor Code.
b. Labor Law; Procedural Due Process. - The procedure can be summarized in this manner.
First, the employer must furnish the employee with a written notice containing the cause for
termination. Second, the employer must give the employee an opportunity to be heard. This
could be done either through a position paper or through a clarificatory hearing. The
employee may also be assisted by a representative or counsel. Finally, the employer must
give another written notice apprising the employee of its findings and the penalty to be
imposed against the employee, if any. In labor cases, these requisites meet the constitutional
requirement of procedural due process, which "contemplates notice and opportunity to be
heard before judgment is rendered, affecting ones person or property."
c. Labor Law; Moral Damages. - The employee is entitled to moral damages when the
employer acted a) in bad faith or fraud; b) in a manner oppressive to labor; or c) in a manner
contrary to morals, good customs, or public policy. Bad faith "implies a conscious and
intentional design to do a wrongful act for a dishonest purpose or moral obliquity."
d. Labor Law; Exemplary Damages. - Under Article 2229 of the Civil Code, "[e]xemplary or
corrective damages are imposed, by way of example or correction for the public good, in
addition to the moral, temperate, liquidated or compensatory damages." As this court has
stated in the past: "Exemplary damages are designed by our civil law to permit the courts to
reshape behaviour that is socially deleterious in its consequence by creating negative
incentives or deterrents against such behaviour."
If the case involves a contract, Article 2332 of the Civil Code provides that "the court may
award exemplary damages if the defendant acted in a wanton, fraudulent, reckless,oppressive
or malevolent manner." Thus, in Garcia v. NLRC, this court ruled that in labor cases, the
court may award exemplary damages "if the dismissal was effected in a wanton, oppressive
or malevolent manner."
e. Labor Law; Denial of opportunity to be heard. - There is denial of an opportunity to be heard
if the employee is not clearly apprised of the acts she committed that constituted the cause for
disciplinary action. The Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code requires that "a
written notice [be] served on the employee specifying the ground or grounds for termination,
and giving said employee reasonable opportunity within which to explain his side."
Reasonable opportunity has been described as "every kind of assistance that management
must accord to the employees to enable them to prepare adequately for their defense."
15. Federal Builders, Inc. vs. Foundation Specialists, Inc/Foundation Specialists Inc. vs. Federal
Builders, Inc.
G.R. No. 194507/G.R. No. 194621
September 8, 2014
a. Computation of Legal Interest; Legal Interest of 12% when applicable. - . In the landmark
case of Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, We laid down the following
guidelines in computing legal interest: II. With regard particularly to an award of interest in
the concept of actual and compensatory damages, the rate of interest, as well as the accrual
thereof, is imposed, as follows:

1. When the obligation is breached, and it consists in the payment of a sum of money, i.e., a
loan or forbearance of money, the interest due should be that which may have been
stipulated in writing. Furthermore, the interest due shall itself earn legal interest from the
time it is judicially demanded. In the absence of stipulation, the rate of interest shall be
12% per annum to be computed from default, i.e., from judicial or extrajudicial demand
under and subject to the provisions of Article1169 of the Civil Code.
2. When an obligation, not constituting a loan or forbearance of money, is breached, an
interest on the amount of damages awarded may be imposed at the discretion of the court
at the rate of 6% per annum. No interest, however, shall be adjudged on unliquidated
claims or damages except when or until the demand can be established with reasonable
certainty. Accordingly, where the demand is established with reasonable certainty, the
interest shall begin to run from the time the claim is made judicially or extrajudicially
(Art. 1169, Civil Code) but when such certainty cannot be so reasonably established at
the time the demand is made, the interest shall begin to run only from the date the
judgment of the court is made (at which time the quantification of damages may be
deemed to have been reasonably ascertained). The actual base for the computation of
legal interest shall, in any case, be on the amount finally adjudged.
3. When the judgment of the court awarding a sum of money becomes final and executory,
the rate of legal interest, whether the case falls under paragraph 1 or paragraph 2, above,
shall be 12% per annum from such finality until its satisfaction, this interim period being
deemed to be by then an equivalent to a forbearance of credit.
b. Computation of Legal Interest; Legal Interest of 12% and 6% when applicable. - In line,
however, with the recent circular of the Monetary Board of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas
(BSP-MB) No. 799, we have modified the guidelines in Nacar v. Gallery Frames, as follows:
I.

II.

When an obligation, regardless of its source, i.e., law, contracts, quasi contracts,
delicts or quasi-delicts is breached, the contravenor can be held liable for damages.
The provisions under Title XVIII on "Damages" of the Civil Code govern in
determining the measure of recoverable damages.
With regard particularly to an award of interest in the concept of actual and
compensatory damages, the rate of interest, as well as the accrual thereof, is imposed,
as follows:
a. When the obligation is breached, and it consists in the payment of a sum of
money, i.e., a loan or forbearance of money, the interest due should be that which
may have been stipulated in writing. Furthermore, the interest due shall itself
earn legal interest from the time it is judicially demanded. In the absence of
stipulation, the rate of interest shall be 6% per annum to be computed from
default, i.e., from judicial or extrajudicial demand under and subject to the
provisions of Article 1169 of the Civil Code.
b. When an obligation, not constituting a loan or forbearance of money, is breached,
an interest on the amount of damages awarded may be imposed at the discretion
of the court at the rate of 6% per annum. No interest, however, shall be adjudged
on unliquidated claims or damages, except when or until the demand can be
established with reasonable certainty. Accordingly, where the demand is
established with reasonable certainty, the interest shall begin to run from the time
the claim is made judicially or extrajudicially (Art. 1169, Civil Code), but when
such certainty cannot be so reasonably established at the time the demand is
made, the interest shall begin to run only from the date the judgment of the court
is made (at which time the quantification of damages may be deemed to have
been reasonably ascertained). The actual base for the computation of legal

interest shall, in any case, be on the amount finally adjudged. 3. When the
judgment of the court awarding a sum of money becomes final and executory, the
rate of legal interest, whether the case falls under paragraph 1 or paragraph 2,
above, shall be 6% per annum from such finality until its satisfaction, this interim
period being deemed to be by then an equivalent to a forbearance of credit.
c. Legal Interest; Application. - In Reformina v. Tomol, Jr., the Court held that the legal interest
at 12% per annum under Central Bank (CB) Circular No. 416 shall be adjudged only in cases
involving the loan or forbearance of money. And for transactions involving payment of
indemnities in the concept of damages arising from default in the performance of obligations
in general and/or for money judgment not involving a loan or forbearance of money, goods,
or credit, the governing provision is Art. 2209 of the Civil Code prescribing a yearly 6%
interest.
16. National Power Corporation vs. Luis Samar and Magdalena Samar
G.R. No. 197329
September 8, 2014
a. Expropriation; Just Compensation; Basis of fixing of the amount of compensation. - In
Republic v. Court of Appeals, we held that: Just compensation is based on the price or value
of the property at the time it was taken from the owner and appropriated by the government.
However, if the government takes possession before the institution of expropriation
proceedings, the value should be fixed as of the time of the taking of said possession, not of
the filing of the complaint. The value at the time of the filing of the complaint should be the
basis for the determination of the value when the taking of the property involved coincides
with or is subsequent to the commencement of the proceedings.
17. National Power Corporation vs. Felicisimo Tarcelo, et al.
G.R. No. 198139
September 8, 2014
a. Rules of Procedure; Execution; Dispositive Portion. - Execution must always conform to that
decreed in the dispositive part of the decision, because the only portion thereof that may be
the subject of execution is that which is precisely ordained or decreed in the dispositive
portion; whatever is in the body of the decision can only be considered as part of the reasons
or conclusions and serves as a guide in determining the ratio decidendi.
b. Power of Eminent Domain; Concept. - The exercise of the right of eminent domain, whether
directly by the State or by its authorized agents, is necessarily in derogation of private rights.
It is one of the harshest proceedings known to the law. x x x The authority to condemn is to
be strictly construed in favor of the owner and against the condemnor. When the power is
granted, the extent to which it may be exercised is limited to the express terms or clear
implication of the statute in which the grant is contained.
c. Rules of Procedure; Execution; General Principle. - It is a settled general principle that a writ
of execution must conform substantially to every essential particular of the judgment
promulgated. Execution not in harmony with the judgment is bereft of validity. It must
conform, more particularly, to that ordained or decreed in the dispositive portion of the
decision.

d. Rules of Procedure; Execution; Dispositive Portion. - It has always been the rule that "[t]he
only portion of the decision that may be the subject of execution is that which is ordained or
decreed in the dispositive portion. Whatever may be found in the body of the decision can
only be considered as part of the reasons or conclusions of the court and serve only as guides
to determine the ratio decidendi." 44 "[W]here there is a conflict between the dispositive
portion of the decision and the body thereof, the dispositive portion controls irrespective of
what appears in the body of the decision. While the body of the decision, order or resolution
might create some ambiguity in the manner of the courts reasoning preponderates, it is the
dispositive portion thereof that finally invests rights upon the parties, sets conditions for the
exercise of those rights, and imposes corresponding duties or obligation."
18. Rolando C. Dela Paz vs. L & J Development Company
G.R. No. 183360
September 8, 2014
a. Contracts; Loan; Interest; No interest shall be due unless it has been expressly stipulated in
writing. - The lack of a written stipulation to pay interest on the loaned amount disallows a
creditor from charging monetary interest. Under Article 1956 of the Civil Code, no interest
shall be due unless it has been expressly stipulated in writing. Jurisprudence on the matter
also holds that for interest to be due and payable, two conditions must concur: a) express
stipulation for the payment of interest; and b) the agreement to pay interest is reduced in
writing.
b. Contracts; Loan; Interest; Estoppel. - It may be raised that L&J is estopped from questioning
the interest rate considering that it has been paying Rolando interest at such rate for more
than two and a half years. In fact, in its pleadings before the MeTC and the RTC, L&J merely
prayed for the reduction of interest from 6% monthly to 1% monthly or 12% per annum.
However, in Ching v. Nicdao, 24 the daily payments of the debtor to the lender were
considered as payment of the principal amount of the loan because Article 1956 was not
complied with. This was notwithstanding the debtors admission that the payments made
were for the interests due. The Court categorically stated therein that "[e]stoppel cannot give
validity to an act that is prohibited by law or one that is against public policy."
c. Contracts; Loan; Interest;Unconscionable Interest. Time and again, it has been ruled in a
plethora of cases that stipulated interest rates of 3% per month and higher, are excessive,
iniquitous, unconscionable and exorbitant. Such stipulations are void for being contrary to
morals, if not against the law.
19. Elsie S. Causing vs. Commission on Elections and Hernan D. Biron, Sr.
G.R. No. 199139
September 9, 2014
a. Omnibus Election Code; Prohibited Acts; Movement or transfer of personnel; Definition of
transfer and detail; Mere transfer of office location NOT prohibited. The only personnel
movements prohibited by COMELEC Resolution No. 8737 were transfer and detail. Transfer
is defined in the Resolution as "any personnel movement from one government agency to
another or from one department, division, geographical unit or subdivision of a government
agency to another with or without the issuance of an appointment;" while detail as defined in
the Administrative Code of 1987is the movement of an employee from one agency to another
without the issuance of an appointment. x x x. We cannot accept the petitioners argument,

therefore, that the phrase "any transfer or detail whatsoever" encompassed "any and all kinds
and manner of personnel movement,"35 including the mere change in office location.
b. Rules of Procedure; Rules 65; Requirement of filing a motion for reconsideration. - The wellestablished rule is that the motion for reconsideration is an indispensable condition before an
aggrieved party can resort to the special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules
of Court. The filing of the motion for reconsideration before the resort to certiorari will lie is
intended to afford to the public respondent the opportunity to correct any actual or fancied
error attributed to it by way of re-examination of the legal and factual aspects of the case.
c. Rules of Procedure; Rules 65; Requirement of filing a motion for reconsideration;
Exceptions. - The rule is not absolute, however, considering that jurisprudence has laid down
exceptions to the requirement for the filing of a petition for certiorari without first filing a
motion for reconsideration, namely: (a) where the order is a patent nullity, as where the court
a quo has no jurisdiction; (b) where the questions raised in the certiorari proceedings have
been duly raised and passed upon by the lower court, or are the same as those raised and
passed upon in the lower court; (c) where there is an urgent necessity for the resolution of the
question, and any further delay would prejudice the interests of the Government, or of the
petitioner, or the subject matter of the petition is perishable; (d) where, under the
circumstances, a motion for reconsideration would be useless; (e) where the petitioner was
deprived of due process, and there is extreme urgency for relief; (f) where, in a criminal case,
relief from an order of arrest is urgent, and the granting of such relief by the trial court is
improbable; (g) where the proceedings in the lower court are a nullity for lack of due process;
(h) where the proceeding was ex parte or in which the petitioner had no opportunity to object;
and (i) where the issue raised is one purely of law or public interest is involved.
20. Presiding Judge Jose L. Madrid, RTC Branch 51, Sorsogon City vs. Atty. Juan S. Dealca
A.C. No. 7474
September 9, 2014
a. Disbarment; Code of Professional Responsibility; Rule 1.03, Canon 1 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. As a lawyer, therefore, Atty. Dealca was aware of his duty
under his Lawyers Oath not to initiate groundless, false or unlawful suits. The duty has also
been expressly embodied in Rule 1.03, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility x
x x His being an officer of the court should have impelled him to see to it that the orderly
administration of justice must not be unduly impeded. Indeed, as he must resist the whims
and caprices of his clients and temper his clients propensities to litigate, so must he equally
guard himself against his own impulses of initiating unfounded suits. While it is the Courts
duty to investigate and uncover the truth behind charges against judges and lawyers, it is
equally its duty to shield them from unfounded suits that are intended to vex and harass them,
among other things.
b. Disbarment; Code of Professional Responsibility; Canon 11 and Rule 11.04 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. - Canon 11 A lawyer shall observe and maintain the respect
due to the courts and to the judicial officers and should insist on similar conduct by others. x
x x Rule 11.04 A lawyer shall not attribute to a Judge motives not supported by the record
or haveno materiality to the case. In light of the foregoing canons, all lawyers are bound to
uphold the dignity and authority of the courts, and to promote confidence in the fair
administration of justice. It is the respect for the courts that guarantees the stability of the
judicial institution; elsewise, the institution would be resting on a very shaky foundation.

c. Minute Resolutions; Requirement for stating the facts and the law. - The requirement for
stating the facts and the law does not apply to the minute resolutions that the Court issues in
disposing of a case. The Court explained why in Borromeo v. Court of Appeals: The
[Supreme] Court x x x disposes of the bulk of its cases by minute resolutions and decrees
them as final and executory, as where a case is patently without merit, where the issues raised
are factual in nature, where the decision appealed from is supported by substantial evidence
and is in accord with the facts of the case and the applicable laws, where it is clear from the
records that the petition is filed merely to forestall the early execution of judgment and for
non-compliance with the rules. The resolution denying due course or dismissing the petition
always gives the legal basis. x x x The Court is not duty bound to render signed Decisions
all the time. It has ample discretion to formulate Decisions and/or Minute Resolutions,
provided a legal basis is given, depending on its evaluation of a case.
21. Melody R. Nery vs. Atty. Glicerio A. Sampana
A.C. No. 10196
September 9, 2014
a. Disbarment; Code of Professional Responsibility 15, 16, and 17; Failing to file the petition
for adoption despite receiving his legal fees. Acceptance of money from a client establishes
an attorney-client relationship and gives rise to the duty of fidelity to the clients cause. Every
case accepted by a lawyer deserves full attention, diligence, skill and competence, regardless
of importance. A lawyer also owes it to the court, their clients, and other lawyers to be candid
and fair.
b. Disbarment; Code of Professional Responsibility 18.03; Misinforming the client of the filing
of the case. - Rule 18.03 - A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him and his
negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.
22. People of the Philippines vs. Bobby Belgay
G.R. No. 182794
September 8, 2014
a. Rape; Evidence; Circumstantial evidence, if sufficient and competent, may warrant the
conviction of the accused of rape. - Conviction for rape may be based on circumstantial
evidence when the victim cannot testify on the actual commission of the rape as she was
rendered unconscious when the act was committed, provided that more than one circumstance
is duly proved and that the totality or the unbroken chain of the circumstances proven lead to
no other logical conclusion than the appellants guilt of the crime charged.
23. Rosalie L. Gargoles vs. Reylita S. Del Rosario
G.R. No. 158583
September 10, 2014
a. Labor Law; Termination of Employment; Article 282 Just and Valid Causes of Termination. The just and valid causes for the dismissal of an employee, as enumerated in Article 282 of
the Labor Code, include: (a) serious misconduct or willful disobedience by the employee of
the lawful orders of his employer or representative in connection with her work; (b) gross and
habitual neglect by the employee of her duties; (c) fraud or willful breach by the employee of
the trust reposed in her by her employer or duly authorized representative; (d) commission of
a crime or offense by the employee against the person of her employer or any immediate

member of her family or her duly authorized representative; and (e) other causes analogous to
the foregoing.
b. Labor Law; Termination of Employment; Article 282 Valid Causes of Termination; Breach of
Trust and Confidence. - An act of dishonesty by an employee who has been put in charge of
the employer's money and property amounts to breach of the trust reposed by the employer,
and normally leads to loss of confidence in her. Such dishonesty comes within the just and
valid causes for the termination of her employment under Article 282 of the Labor Code.
24. Agriex Co., Ltd. vs. Hon. Titus Villanueva, et al.
G.R. No. 158150
September 10, 2014
a. Jurisdiction; Bureau of Customs; Subic Special Economic Zone or Subic Bay Freeport. - The
Court declares that the Collector of Customs was authorized to institute seizure proceedings
and to issue WSDs in the Subic Bay Freeport, subject to the review by the Commissioner of
Customs. Accordingly, the proper remedy to question the order or resolution of the
Commissioner of Customs was an appeal to the CTA, not to the CA.
It is well settled that the Collector of Customs has exclusive jurisdiction over seizure and
forfeiture proceedings, and regular courts cannot interfere with his exercise thereof or stifle or
put it at naught. The Collector of Customs sitting in seizure and forfeiture proceedings has
exclusive jurisdiction to hear and determine all questions touching on the seizure and
forfeiture of dutiable goods. Regional trial courts are devoid of any competence to pass upon
the validity or regularity of seizure and forfeiture proceedings conducted by the BOC and to
enjoin or otherwise interfere with these proceedings. Regional trial courts are precluded from
assuming cognizance over such matters even through petitions for certiorari, prohibition or
mandamus.
25. People of the Philippines vs. Edilberto Balibay y Labis and Maricel Balibay y Bija-An
G.R. No. 202701
September 10, 2014
a. Republic Act No. 9165 otherwise known as "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002";
Substantial compliance with the requirements provided in Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165;
Corpus Delicti. - The elements necessary for the prosecution of the illegal sale of drugs are as
follows: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object and the consideration; and (2)
the delivery of the thing sold and payment therefor.9 The prosecution, to prove guilt beyond
reasonable doubt, must present in evidence the corpus delicti of the case. The corpus delicti is
the seized illegal drugs. This is to establish with unwavering exactitude that the seized illegal
drugs from the suspect is the very same substance offered in court as exhibit.
Failure to prove that the specimen allegedly seized from the accused was the same one
presented in court is fatal to the prosecutions case.
b. Republic Act No. 9165 otherwise known as "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002";
Section 1(b) of Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002; Chain Custody. "Chain of Custody" means the duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized
drugs or controlled chemicals or plant sources of dangerous drugs or laboratory equipment at
each stage, from the time of seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory to

safekeeping to presentation in court and destruction. Such record of movements and custody
of the seized item shall include the identity and signature of the person who held temporary
custody of the seized item, the date and times when such transfer of custody were made in the
course of safekeeping and use in court as evidence, and the final disposition.
The chain of evidence is constructed by proper exhibit handling, storage, labelling and
recording, and must exist from the time the evidence is found until the time it is offered in
evidence.
c. Evidence; Republic Act No. 9165 otherwise known as "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act
of 2002"; Presentation of the testimony of the police officers require; Purpose. - The purpose
of the law in requiring the prosecution to present the testimony of the police officers who
handled the substance in court is to ascertain that the integrity and identity of the substance is
preserved; that the police officers and laboratory technician who handled the seized
substance, undertook precautionary measures to preserve the identity and integrity of the
substance.
26. Nestor Ching and Andrew Wellington vs. Subic Bay Gold and Country Club, et al.
G.R. No. 174353
September 10, 2014
a. Corporation Law; Distinctions of individual suits, class suits, and derivative suit. - "Suits by
stockholders or members of a corporation based on wrongful or fraudulent acts of directors or
other persons may be classified into individual suits, class suits, and derivative suits. Where a
stockholder or member is denied the right of inspection, his suit would be individual because
the wrong is done to him personally and not to the other stockholders or the corporation.
Where the wrong is done to a group of stockholders, as where preferred stockholders rights
are violated, a class or representative suit will be proper for the protection of all stockholders
belonging to the same group. But where the acts complained of constitute a wrong to the
corporation itself, the cause of action belongs to the corporation and not to the individual
stockholder or member. Although in most every case of wrong to the corporation, each
stockholder is necessarily affected because the value of his interest therein would be
impaired, this fact of itself is not sufficient to give him an individual cause of action since the
corporation is a person distinct and separate from him, and can and should itself sue the
wrongdoer. Otherwise, not only would the theory of separate entity be violated, but there
would be multiplicity of suits as well as a violation of the priority rights of creditors.
Furthermore, there is the difficulty of determining the amount of damages that should be paid
to each individual stockholder.
However, in cases of mismanagement where the wrongful acts are committed by the directors
or trustees themselves, a stockholder or member may find that he has no redress because the
former are vested by law with the right to decide whether or not the corporation should sue,
and they will never be willing to sue themselves. The corporation would thus be helpless to
seek remedy. Because of the frequent occurrence of such a situation, the common law
gradually recognized the right of a stockholder to sue on behalf of a corporation in what
eventually became known as a "derivative suit." It has been proven to be an effective remedy
of the minority against the abuses of management. Thus, an individual stockholder is
permitted to institute a derivative suit on behalf of the corporation wherein he holds stock in
order to protect or vindicate corporate rights, whenever officials of the corporation refuse to

sue or are the ones to be sued or hold the control of the corporation. In such actions, the suing
stockholder is regarded as the nominal party, with the corporation as the party in interest."
27. Renato L. Delfino, Sr., (deceased) represented by his Heirs, namely: Gracia Delfino, et al. vs.
Avelino K. Anasao and Angel K. Anasao (deceased and represented by his sole heir, Sixto C.
Anasao)
G.R. No. 197486
September 10, 2014
a. Republic Act No. 6657 Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program; Section 6 of Republic
Act No. 6657; Right of Retention of the Landowner; Concept. - The right of retention is a
constitutionally guaranteed right, which is subject to qualification by the legislature. It serves
to mitigate the effects of compulsory land acquisition by balancing the rights of the
landowner and the tenant and by implementing the doctrine that social justice was not meant
to perpetrate an injustice against the landowner.
The right to choose the area to be retained, which shall be compact or contiguous, shall
pertain to the landowner; Provided, however, That in case the area selected for retention by
the landowner is tenanted, the tenant shall have the option to choose whether to remain
therein or be a beneficiary in the same or another agricultural land with similar or comparable
features. In case the tenant chooses to remain in the retained area, he shall be considered a
leaseholder and shall lose his right to be a beneficiary under this Act. In case the tenant
chooses to be a beneficiary in another agricultural land, he loses his right as a leaseholder to
the land retained by the landowner. The tenant must exercise this option within a period of
one (1) year from the time the landowner manifests his choice of the area for retention.
b. Procedure; Rule on Immutability of Final Judgments; Concept. - A decision that has acquired
finality becomes immutable and unalterable, and may no longer be modified in any respect,
even if the modification is meant to correct erroneous conclusions of fact or law, and whether
it will be made by the court that rendered it or by the highest court of the land. This doctrine
of finality and immutability of judgments is grounded on fundamental considerations of
public policy and sound practice to the effect that, at the risk of occasional error, the
judgments of the courts must become final at some definite date set by law.
c. Procedure; Rule on Immutability of Final Judgments; Exceptions. - There are, however,
exceptions to the general rule, namely: (1) the correction of clerical errors; (2) the so-called
nunc pro tunc entries which cause no prejudice to any party; (3) void judgments; and (4)
whenever circumstances transpire after the finality of the decision rendering its execution
unjust and inequitable. The exception to the doctrine of immutability of judgment has been
applied in several cases in order to serve substantial justice.
28. Roberto Co vs. Keng Huan Jerry Yeung and Emma Yeung
G.R. No. 212705
September 10, 2014
a. Intellectual Property Law; Unfair Competition; Concept. - Unfair competition is defined as
the passing off (or palming off) or attempting to pass off upon the public of the goods or
business of one person as the goods or business of another with the end and probable effect of
deceiving the public. This takes place where the defendant gives his goods the general
appearance of the goods of his competitor with the intention of deceiving the public that the
goods are those of his competitor.

Here, it has been established that Co conspired with the Laus in the sale/distribution of
counterfeit Greenstone products to the public, which were even packaged in bottles identical
to that of the original, thereby giving rise to the presumption of fraudulent intent. 19 In light of
the foregoing definition, it is thus clear that Co, together with the Laus, committed unfair
competition, and should, consequently, be held liable therefor.
b. Intellectual Property Law; Unfair Competition distinguished from Trademark Infringement.
x x x the distinctions between suits for trademark infringement and unfair competition prove
useful: (a) the former is the unauthorized use of a trademark, whereas the latter is the passing
off of one's goods as those of another; (b) fraudulent intent is unnecessary in the former,
while it is essential in the latter; and (c) in the former, prior registration of the trademark is a
pre-requisite to the action, while it is not necessary in the latter.
29. People of the Philippines vs. Demosthenes Bontuyan
G.R. No. 206912
September 10, 2014
a. Violations of Sections 11 and 12, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 "Comprehensive
Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002"; Elements. By way of emphasis, we have adhered to the
time-honored principle that for illegal possession of regulated or prohibited drugs, the
prosecution must establish the following elements: (1) the accused is in possession of an item
or object, which is identified to be a prohibited or regulated drug; (2) such possession is not
authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely and consciously possessed the drug.
b. Violations of Sections 11 and 12, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 "Comprehensive
Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002"; Procedure; Chain of Custody; Substantial Compliance is
sufficient. - Admittedly, a testimony about a perfect chain is not always the standard as it is
almost always impossible to obtain an unbroken chain.1wphi1 What is of utmost importance
is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items. Here, there
was substantial compliance with the law and the integrity of the seized items from accused
appellant was preserved.
30. Spouses Francisco Sierra (substituted by Donato, Teresita Teodora, Lorenza, Lucina,
Imelda, Vilma and Milagros Sierra) and Antonina Santos, et al. vs. PAIC Savings and
Mortgage Bank
G.R. No. 197857
September 10, 2014
a. Contracts; Accommodation Mortgagors; Concept. As jurisprudence states, an
accommodation mortgagor is a third person who is not a debtor to a principal obligation but
merely secures it by mortgaging his or her own property. Like an accommodation party to a
negotiable instrument, the accommodation mortgagor in effect becomes a surety to enable the
accommodated debtor to obtain credit, as petitioners in this case.
b. Contracts; Accommodation Mortgagors; Rights. As mere accommodation mortgagors,
petitioners are not entitled to the proceeds of the loan, nor were required to be furnished with
the loan documents or notice of the borrowers default in paying the principal, interests,
penalties, and other charges on due date, or of the extrajudicial foreclosure proceedings,
unless stipulated in the subject deed.

c. Contracts; Elements; Consent; Vitiation of Consent. - x x x one who alleges any defect or the
lack of a valid consent to a contract must establish the same by full, clear, and convincing
evidence, not merely by preponderance of evidence. The rule is that he who alleges mistake
affecting a transaction must substantiate his allegation, since it is presumed that a person
takes ordinary care of his concerns and that private transactions have been fair and regular.
Where mistake or error is alleged by parties who claim to have not had the benefit of a good
education, as in this case, they must establish that their personal circumstances prevented
them from giving their free, voluntary, and spontaneous consent to a contract.
d. Contracts; Prescription; Mortgage Action. - Article 1142 provides for a 10 year prescriptive
period for mortgage actions. Based on case law, a "mortgage action" refers to an action to
enforce a right necessarily arising from a mortgage. In the present case, petitioners are not
"enforcing" their rights under the mortgage but are, in fact, seeking to be relieved therefrom.
The complaint filed by petitioners is, therefore, not a mortgage action as contemplated under
Article 1142.
e. Contracts; Declaration of Nullity of Real Estate Mortgage; Four year prescriptive period on
voidable contracts shall apply. - Since the complaint for annulment was anchored on a claim
of mistake, i.e., that petitioners are the borrowers under the loan secured by the mortgage, the
action should have been brought within four (4) years from its discovery.1
f.

Contracts; Laches. - As the records disclose, despite notice on June 19, 1984 of the scheduled
foreclosure sale, petitioners, for unexplained reasons, failed to impugn the real estate
mortgage and oppose the public auction sale for a period of more than seven (7) years from
said notice. The principle of laches shall apply.

31. Frumencio E. Pulgar vs. The Regional Trial Court of Mauban, Quezon, Br. 64, Quezon
Power (Philippines) Limited
G.R. No. 157583
September 10, 2014
a. Rules of Procedure; Motion for intervention; Jurisdiction. - Jurisdiction over an intervention
is governed by jurisdiction over the main action. Accordingly, an intervention presupposes
the pendency of a suit in a court of competent jurisdiction.
[I]ntervention is never an independent action, but is ancillary and supplemental to the existing
litigation. Its purpose is not to obstruct nor x x x unnecessarily delay the placid operation of
the machinery of trial, but merely to afford one not an original party, yet having a certain
right or interest in the pending case, the opportunity to appear and be joined so he could
assert or protect such right or interests.
Otherwise stated, the right of an intervenor should only be in aid of the right of the original
party. Where the right of the latter has ceased to exist, there is nothing to aid or fight for;
hence, the right of intervention ceases.
32. Heirs of Valentin Basbas, et al. vs. Ricardo Basbas, as represented by Eugenio Basbas
G.R. No. 188773
September 10, 2014
a. Article 1456 of the New Civil Code; Implied Trust; Concept. - Based on the evidence on
hand, defendants [including herein respondent Ricardo] acquired the property in question

through fraud and, therefore, an implied trust was created in favor of [petitioners] under
Article 1456 of the New Civil Code, which provides, thus: If property is acquired through
mistake or fraud, the person obtaining it is, by force of law, considered a trustee of an implied
trust for the benefit of the person from whom the property comes.
b. Reconveyance of Property; Evidence of Ownership of the land; subject lot was already
registered in claimants name and a Tax Declaration was issued in their favor for taxation
purposes is not conclusive evidence of ownership. - The fact that the subject lot was already
registered in the defendants [including herein respondent Ricardo] name and indeed a Tax
Declaration was issued in their favor for taxation purposes, and they have paid the taxes due
thereon, are not conclusive evidence of ownership. Hence, it has been held: When a person
obtains a certificate of title to a land belonging to another and he has full knowledge of the
rights of a true owner, he is considered guilty of fraud, and he may be compelled to transfer
the land to the defrauded owner so long as the property has not passed to the hands of an
innocent purchaser for value x x x. Also it has been held "that an original owner of registered
land may seek annulment of the transfer thereof on the ground of fraud and the proper
remedy is reconveyance x x x.
33. Cesar V. Areza and Lolita B. Areza vs. Express Savings Bank, Inc. and Michael Potenciano
G.R. No. 176697
September 10, 2014
a. Negotiable Instruments Law; Material Alteration; Liability of the Drawee; Two Views. Section 63 of Act No. 2031 or the Negotiable Instruments Law provides that the acceptor, by
accepting the instrument, engages that he will pay it according to the tenor of his acceptance.
The first view is supported by the leading case of National City Bank of Chicago v. Bank of
the Republic. x x x The acceptor is a drawee who accepts the bill. x x x. We think the
construction placed upon the section by the Illinois court is correct and that it was not the
legislative intent that the obligation of the acceptor should be limited to the tenor of the
instrument as drawn by the maker, as was the rule at common law, but that it should be
enforceable in favor of a holder in due course against the acceptor according to its tenor at the
time of its acceptance or certification.
The second view is that the acceptor/drawee despite the tenor of his acceptance is liable only
to the extent of the bill prior to alteration. This view appears to be in consonance with Section
124 of the Negotiable Instruments Law which states that a material alteration avoids an
instrument except as against an assenting party and subsequent indorsers, but a holder in due
course may enforce payment according to its original tenor. Thus, when the drawee bank pays
a materially altered check, it violates the terms of the check, as well as its duty to charge its
clients account only for bona fide disbursements he had made. If the drawee did not pay
according to the original tenor of the instrument, as directed by the drawer, then it has no
right to claim reimbursement from the drawer, much less, the right to deduct the erroneous
payment it made from the drawers account which it was expected to treat with utmost
fidelity. The drawee, however, still has recourse to recover its loss. It may pass the liability
back to the collecting bank which is what the drawee bank exactly did in this case.
b. Negotiable Instruments Law; Depositary Bank; Concept. - A depositary bank is the first bank
to take an item even though it is also the payor bank, unless the item is presented for
immediate payment over the counter. It is also the bank to which a check is transferred for

deposit in an account at such bank, even if the check is physically received and indorsed first
by another bank.
c. Negotiable Instruments Law; Collecting Bank; Concept. - A collecting bank is defined as any
bank handling an item for collection except the bank on which the check is drawn.
d. Negotiable Instruments Law; Liability of the Collecting Bank. - A depositary/collecting bank
where a check is deposited, and which endorses the check upon presentment with the drawee
bank, is an endorser. Under Section 66 of the Negotiable Instruments Law, an endorser
warrants "that the instrument is genuine and in all respects what it purports to be; that he has
good title to it; that all prior parties had capacity to contract; and that the instrument is at the
time of his endorsement valid and subsisting." It has been repeatedly held that in check
transactions, the depositary/collecting bank or last endorser generally suffers the loss because
it has the duty to ascertain the genuineness of all prior endorsements considering that the act
of presenting the check for payment to the drawee is an assertion that the party making the
presentment has done its duty to ascertain the genuineness of the endorsements. If any of the
warranties made by the depositary/collecting bank turns out to be false, then the drawee bank
may recover from it up to the amount of the check.
e. Negotiable Instruments law; Duty of the Collecting Bank. - The law imposes a duty of
diligence on the collecting bank to scrutinize checks deposited with it for the purpose of
determining their genuineness and regularity. The collecting bank being primarily engaged in
banking holds itself out to the public as the expert and the law holds it to a high standard of
conduct.
f.

Legal Compensation of Depositors and Bank. - It is well-settled that the relationship of the
depositors and the Bank or similar institution is that of creditor-debtor. Article 1980 of the
New Civil Code provides that fixed, savings and current deposits of money in banks and
similar institutions shall be governed by the provisions concerning simple loans. The bank is
the debtor and the depositor is the creditor. The depositor lends the bank money and the bank
agrees to pay the depositor on demand. The savings deposit agreement between the bank and
the depositor is the contract that determines the rights and obligations of the parties.

34. Francler P. Onde vs. The Office of the Local Civil Registrar of Las Pias City
G.R. No. 197174
September 10, 2014
a. R.A. No. 9048; Correction of First Name of Petitioner and his mother as appearing in his
birth certificate can be corrected by the city civil registrar under R.A. No. 9048. - Indeed,
under Section 15 of R.A. No. 9048, clerical or typographical errors on entries in a civil
register can be corrected and changes of first name can be done by the concerned city civil
registrar without need of a judicial order. Aforesaid Section 1, as amended by R.A. No.
10172, now reads: SECTION 1. Authority to Correct Clerical or Typographical Error and
Change of First Name or Nickname. No entry in a civil register shall be changed or
corrected without a judicial order, except for clerical or typographical errors and change of
first name or nickname, the day and month in the date of birth or sex of a person where it is
patently clear that there was a clerical or typographical error or mistake in the entry, which
can be corrected or changed by the concerned city or municipal civil registrar or consul
general in accordance with the provisions of this Act and its implementing rules and
regulations.

b. R.A. No. 9048; Purpose and Intent of the Law. - In Silverio v. Republic, we held that under
R.A. No. 9048, jurisdiction over applications for change of first name is now primarily
lodged with administrative officers. The intent and effect of said law is to exclude the change
of first name from the coverage of Rules 103 (Change of Name) and 108 (Cancellation or
Correction of Entries in the Civil Registry) of the Rules of Court, until and unless an
administrative petition for change of name is first filed and subsequently denied. The remedy
and the proceedings regulating change of first name are primarily administrative in nature,
not judicial.
c. Special Proceedings; Correction of Entries; Correction of civil status of parents from
married to not married substantial correction requiring adversarial proceedings. - On
the second issue, we also agree with the RTC in ruling that correcting the entry on petitioners
birth certificate that his parents were married on December 23, 1983 in Bicol to "not married"
is a substantial correction requiring adversarial proceedings. Said correction is substantial as
it will affect his legitimacy and convert him from a legitimate child to an illegitimate one. x x
x. Substantial errors in a civil registry may be corrected and the true facts established
provided the parties aggrieved by the error avail themselves of the appropriate adversary
proceedings.
d. Special Proceedings; Section 3, Rule 108 of the Rules of Court; Parties to be impleaded. - We
also stress that a petition seeking a substantial correction of an entry in a civil register must
implead as parties to the proceedings not only the local civil registrar, as petitioner did in the
dismissed petition for correction of entries, but also all persons who have or claim any
interest which would be affected by the correction. This is required by Section 3, Rule 108 of
the Rules of Court: SEC. 3. Parties. - When cancellation or correction of an entry in the civil
register is sought, the civil registrar and all persons who have or claim any interest which
would be affected thereby shall be made parties to the proceeding.
35. Microsoft Corporation and Adobe Systems Incorporated vs. Samir Farajallah, et al.
G.R. No. 205800
September 10, 2014
a. Rules of Procedure; Motions; Three-day Notice Rule; Purpose. - In Anama v. Court of
Appeals, we ruled that the three-day notice rule is not absolute. The purpose of the rule is to
safeguard the adverse partys right to due process. Thus, if the adverse party was given a
reasonable opportunity to study the motion and oppose it, then strict compliance with the
three-day notice rule may be dispensed with.
b. Rules of Procedure; Motions; Three-day Notice Rule; Strict compliance may be dispensed
with. - As correctly pointed out by the CA: In the instant case, when the court a quo ordered
petitioners to submit their comment on the motion to quash, it was, in effect, giving
petitioners their day in court. Thus, while the [three]-day notice rule was not strictly
observed, its purpose was still satisfied when respondent judge did not immediately rule on
the motion giving petitioners x x x the opportunity to study and oppose the arguments stated
in the motion.
c. Search Warrants; Probably Cause for its Issuance; Initial hearsay information or tips from
confidential informants as basis. - Initial hearsay information or tips from confidential
informants could very well serve as basis for the issuance of a search warrant, if followed up
personally by the recipient and validated.

36. Northwest Airlines, Inc. vs. Ma. Concepcion M. Del Rosario

G.R. No. 157633
September 10, 2014
a. Labor Law; Termination by Employer; Article 282 of the Labor Code. - Art. 282.
TERMINATION BY EMPLOYER: An employer may terminate an employee for any of the
following causes: (a) Serious misconduct or willful disobedience by the employee of the
lawful orders of his employer or representative in connection with his work; (b) Gross and
habitual neglect by the employee of his duties; (c) Fraud or willful breach by the employee of
the trust reposed in him by his employer or duly authorized representative; (d) Commission
of a crime or offense by the employee against the person of his employer or any immediate
member of his family or his duly authorized representative; and (e) Other causes analogous to
the foregoing.
b. Labor Law; Termination by Employer; Article 282 of the Labor Code; Grounds; Serious
misconduct and willful disobedience; Misconduct; Elements. - Misconduct refers to the
improper or wrong conduct that transgresses some established and definite rule of action, a
forbidden act, a dereliction of duty, willful in character, and implies wrongful intent and not
mere error in judgment. But misconduct or improper behavior, to be a just cause for
termination of employment, must: (a) be serious; (b) relate to the performance of the
employees duties; and (c) show that the employee has become unfit to continue working for
the employer.
37. Leopoldo Quintos y Del Amor vs. People of the Philippines
G.R. No. 205298
September 10, 2014
a. Evidence; Witness. - It is doctrinal that, for evidence to be believed, it must not only proceed
from the mouth of a credible witness, but it must be credible in itself such as the common
experience and observation of mankind can approve as probable under the circumstances.
b. Criminal Law; Justifying Circumstance; Self-Defense. - We held in People v. Nugas: x x x
Self-defense cannot be justifiably appreciated when it is uncorroborated by independent and
competent evidence or when it is extremely doubtful by itself. Indeed, the accused must
discharge the burden of proof by relying on the strength of his own evidence, not on the
weakness of the States evidence, because the existence of self-defense is a separate issue
from the existence of the crime, and establishing self-defense does not require or involve the
negation of any of the elements of the offense itself.
c. Criminal Law; Justifying Circumstance; Self-Defense; Elements. - To escape liability, the
accused must show by sufficient, satisfactory and convincing evidence that: (a) the victim
committed unlawful aggression amounting to an actual or imminent threat to the life and limb
of the accused claiming self-defense; (b) there was reasonable necessity in the means
employed to prevent or repel the unlawful aggression; and (c) there was lack of sufficient
provocation on the part of the accused claiming self-defense or at least any provocation
executed by the accused claiming self-defense was not the proximate and immediate cause of
the victims aggression.
d. Criminal Law; Justifying Circumstance; Self-Defense; Elements; Unlawful Aggression. There can be no self-defense, complete or incomplete unless there is clear and convincing
proof of unlawful aggression on the part of the victim. The unlawful aggression, a

constitutive element of self-defense, must be real or at least imminent and not merely
imaginary. A belief that a person is about to be attacked is not sufficient. Even an intimidating
or threatening attitude is by no means enough. Unlawful aggression presupposes an actual or
imminent danger on the life or limb of a person. Mere shouting, an[d] intimidating or
threatening attitude of the victim does not constitute unlawful aggression. Unlawful
aggression refers to an attack that has actually broken out or materialized or at the very least
is clearly imminent; it cannot consist in oral threats or merely a threatening stance or posture.
e. Criminal Law; Conspiracy; Mere presence does not signify conspiracy and neither does it
indicate the lack thereof. - Indeed, mere presence does not signify conspiracy. However,
neither does it indicate the lack thereof. Conspiracy can be inferred from and established by
the acts of the accused themselves when said acts point to a joint purpose and design,
concerted action and community of interest.
38. Most Rev. Pedro D. Arigo, et al. vs. Scott H. Swift, et al.
G.R. No. 206510
September 15, 2014
a. Locus Standi; Concept. - Locus standi is "a right of appearance in a court of justice on a
given question." Specifically, it is "a party's personal and substantial interest in a case where
he has sustained or will sustain direct injury as a result" of the act being challenged, and
"calls for more than just a generalized grievance." However, the rule on standing is a
procedural matter which this Court has relaxed for non-traditional plaintiffs like ordinary
citizens, taxpayers and legislators when the public interest so requires, such as when the
subject matter of the controversy is of transcendental importance, of overreaching
significance to society, or of paramount public interest.
b. Doctrine of State Immunity; Concept. - The immunity of the State from suit, known also as
the doctrine of sovereign immunity or non-suability of the State, 17 is expressly provided in
Article XVI of the 1987 Constitution which states: Section 3. The State may not be sued
without its consent.
As applied to the local state, the doctrine of state immunity is based on the justification given
by Justice Holmes that ''there can be no legal right against the authority which makes the law
on which the right depends." [Kawanakoa v. Polybank, 205 U.S. 349]
There are other practical reasons for the enforcement of the doctrine. In the case of the
foreign state sought to be impleaded in the local jurisdiction, the added inhibition is
expressed in the maxim par in parem, non habet imperium. All states are sovereign equals and
cannot assert jurisdiction over one another. A contrary disposition would, in the language of a
celebrated case, "unduly vex the peace of nations." [De Haber v. Queen of Portugal, 17 Q. B.
171]
c. UNCLOS; Immunity of warship from the jurisdiction of Coastal States. - In fine, the
relevance of UNCLOS provisions to the present controversy is beyond dispute. Although the
said treaty upholds the immunity of warships from the jurisdiction of Coastal States while
navigating the latter's territorial sea, the flag States shall be required to leave the territorial sea
immediately if they flout the laws and regulations of the Coastal State, and they will be liable
for damages caused by their warships or any other government vessel operated for noncommercial purposes under Article 31.

39. Elisa Angeles vs. Court of Appeals, et al.

G.R. No. 178733
September 15, 2014
a. Rules of Court; Contempt. - And, speaking of contempt, the appellate court is likewise correct
in its position that if respondent public officers should be punished for their perceived
defiance or failure to abide by the trial courts directives and processes, then the contempt
charge should have been initiated in the court a quo, and not in the CA. Sections 4 and 5,
Rule 71 of the Rules of Court state, respectively, that [p]roceedings for indirect contempt
may be initiated motu proprio by the court against which the contempt was committed and
[w]here the charge for indirect contempt has been committed against a Regional Trial Court
or a court of equivalent or higher rank, or against an officer appointed by it, the charge may
be filed with such court.
b. Rules of Court; Contempt; Indirect Contempt. - Section 4, Rule 71 of the Rules of Court
provides, in effect, that a charge for indirect contempt must be filed with the court
contemned. Although this provision is permissive in nature, in the event of concurrent
jurisdiction over cases of contempt of court, it would be a good practice to acknowledge the
preferential right of the court against which the act of contempt was committed to try and
punish the guilty party.
40. Imelda Cato Gaddi vs. Atty. Lope M. Velasco
A.C. No. 8637
September 15, 2014
a.

2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. - The 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice provides that a
notary public should not notarize a document unless the signatory to the document is in the
notarys presence personally at the time of the notarization, and personally known to the
notary public or otherwise identified through competent evidence of identity.

b. 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice; Nature of Notarization. - Time and again, we have
reminded lawyers commissioned as notaries public that notarization is not an empty,
meaningless, and routinary act. Notarization converts a private document to a public
document, making it admissible in evidence without further proof of its authenticity. A
notarial document is, by law, entitled to full faith and credit upon its face; for this reason,
notaries public must observe with utmost care the basic requirements in the performance of
their duties.
41. Office of the Court Administrator vs. Edgar S. Cruz, Clerk III, RTC Br 52, Guagua,
Pampanga
A.M. No. P-14-3260
September 16, 2014
a. Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service; Absences. - Under Section 46 (b)
of the Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, frequent unauthorized
absences in reporting for duty is classified as a grave offense punishable by suspension of six
(6) months and one (1) day to one (1) year for the first offense and dismissal from the service
for the second offense.
b. Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service; Public Officer; Public Office is a
public trust. - Time and again, this Court has pronounced that any act which falls short of the

exacting standards for public office, especially on the part of those expected to preserve the
image of the judiciary, shall not be countenanced. Public Office is a public trust. Public
officers must at all times be accountable to the people, serve them with utmost degree of
responsibility, integrity, loyalty and efficiency.
42. Juanario G. Campit vs. Isidra B. Gripa, et al.
G.R. No. 195443
September 17, 2014
a. Res judicata. - A matter adjudged with finality by a competent court having jurisdiction over
the parties and the subject matter already constitutes res judicata in another action involving
the same cause of action, parties and subject matter. The doctrine of res judicata provides that
a final judgment on the merits rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction, is conclusive as
to the rights of the parties and their privies and constitutes as an absolute bar to subsequent
actions involving the same claim, demand, or cause of action
b. Torrens System; Indefeasibility of the Torrens title; Reconveyance. - Notwithstanding the
indefeasibility of the Torrens title, the registered owner can still be compelled under the law
to reconvey the property registered to the rightful owner under the principle that the property
registered is deemed to be held in trust for the real owner by the person in whose name it is
registered. The party seeking to recover title to property wrongfully registered in another
persons name must file an action for reconveyance within the allowed period of time.
c. Action for Reconveyance; Ground : Implied or constructive trust. - An action for
reconveyance based on an implied or constructive trust prescribes in ten (10) years from the
issuance of the Torrens title over the property.
d. Action for Reconveyance; Ground : Implied or constructive trust; Exception. - There is,
however, an exception to this rule where the filing of such action does not prescribe, i.e. when
the plaintiff is in possession of the subject property, the action, being in effect that of quieting
of title to the property, does not prescribe.
43. Cesar T. Quiambao and Eric C. Pilapil vs. People of the Philippines, Aderito Z. Yujuico and
Bonifacio C. Sumbilla
G.R. No. 185267
September 17, 2014
a. Criminal Procedure; Section 7, Rule 117; Double Jeopardy. - Thus, double jeopardy exists
when the following requisites are present: (1) a first jeopardy attached prior to the second; (2)
the first jeopardy has been validly terminated; and (3) a second jeopardy is for the same
offense as in the first. A first jeopardy attaches only (a) after a valid indictment; (b) before a
competent court; (c) after arraignment; (d) when a valid plea has been entered; and (e) when
the accused has been acquitted or convicted, or the case dismissed or otherwise terminated
without his express consent.
44. Ma. Gracia Hao and Danny Hao vs. People of the Philippines
G.R. No. 183345
September 17, 2014
a. Warrant of Arrest; Probable Cause. - Under the Constitution and the Revised Rules of
Criminal Procedure, a judge is mandated to personally determine the existence of probable

cause after his personal evaluation of the prosecutors resolution and the supporting evidence
for the crime charged. These provisions command the judge to refrain from making a
mindless acquiescence to the prosecutors findings and to conduct his own examination of the
facts and circumstances presented by both parties.
b. Rule of Criminal Procedure; Section 5(a) of Rule 112. - Section 5(a) of Rule 112, grants the
trial court three options upon the filing of the criminal complaint or information. He may: a)
dismiss the case if the evidence on record clearly failed to establish probable cause; b) issue a
warrant of arrest if it finds probable cause; or c) order the prosecutor to present additional
evidence within five days from notice in case of doubt on the existence of probable cause.
c. Probable Cause in Criminal Prosecution; Executive and Judicial Determination of Probable
Cause. - In a criminal prosecution, probable cause is determined at two stages. The first is at
the executive level, where determination is made by the prosecutor during the preliminary
investigation, before the filing of the criminal information. The second is at the judicial level,
undertaken by the judge before the issuance of a warrant of arrest.
d. Probable Cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest. - Probable cause for the issuance of a
warrant of arrest is the existence of such facts and circumstances that would lead a reasonably
discreet and prudent person to believe that an offense was committed by the person sought to
be arrested.
e. Probable Cause; Prosecutors finding of Probable Cause. Probable cause for the issuance
of a warrant of arrest must be distinguished from the prosecutors finding of probable cause
which is for the filing of the proper criminal information. Probable cause for warrant of arrest
is determined to address the necessity of placing the accused under custody in order not to
frustrate the ends of justice.
f.

Revised Penal Code; Estafa; Articles 315-316 of the RPC; Elements. - Under this provision,
estafa has the following elements: 1) the existence of a false pretense, fraudulent act or
fraudulent means; 2) the execution of the false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means
prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud; 3) the reliance by the offended
party on the false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means, which induced him to part
with his money or property; and 4) as a result, the offended party suffered damage.

g. Revised Penal Code; Estafa; Deceit. - "Deceit is the false representation of a matter of fact,
whether by words or conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment of that
which should have been disclosed, which deceives or is intended to deceive another, so that
he shall act upon it to his legal injury."
h. Estafa; Syndicated; Section 1 of PD 1689. - there is syndicated estafa if the following
elements are present: 1) estafa or other forms of swindling as defined in Articles 315 and 316
of the RPC was committed; 2) the estafa or swindling was committed by a syndicate of five
or more persons; and 3) the fraud resulted in the misappropriation of moneys contributed by
stockholders, or members of rural banks, cooperatives, "samahang nayon[s]," or farmers
associations or of funds solicited by corporations/associations from the general public.
i.

Rules of Procedure; Suspension of Arraignment. - Under Section 11(c), Rule 116of the Rules
of Court, an arraignment may be suspended if there is a petition for review of the resolution
of the prosecutor pending at either the DOJ, or the Office of the President. However, such

period of suspension should not exceed sixty (60) days counted from the filing of the petition
with the reviewing office.
45. Ma. Rosario P. Campos vs. People of the Philippines and First Women's Credit Corp.
G.R. No. 187401
September 17, 2014
a. BP 22; Elements. - To be liable for violation of B.P. 22, the following essential elements must
be present: (1) the making, drawing, and issuance of any check to apply for account or for
value; (2) the knowledge of the maker, drawer, or issuer that at the time of issue he does not
have sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank for the payment of the check in full
upon its presentment; and (3) the subsequent dishonor of the check by the drawee bank for
insufficiency of funds or creditor dishonor for the same reason had not the drawer, without
any valid cause, ordered the bank to stop payment.
46. Manuel J. Jimenez, Jr. vs. People of the Philippines/People of the Philippines vs. Manuel J.
Jimenez, Jr.
G.R. No. 209195 & G.R. No. 209215
September 17, 2014
a. Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure; Section 17, Rule 119; Discharge of the Accused;
Condition that must be present. - In the discharge of an accused in order that he may be a
state witness, the following conditions must be present, namely: (1) Two or more accused are
jointly charged with the commission of an offense; (2) The motion for discharge is filed by
the prosecution before it rests its case; (3) The prosecution is required to present evidence and
the sworn statement of each proposed state witness at a hearing in support of the discharge;
(4) The accused gives his consent to be a state witness; and (5) The trial court is satisfied that:
a) There is absolute necessity for the testimony of the accused whose discharge is requested;
b) There is no other direct evidence available for the proper prosecution of the offense
committed, except the testimony of said accused; c) The testimony of said accused can be
substantially corroborated in its material points; d) Said accused does not appear to be the
most guilty; and e) Said accused has not at any time been convicted of any offense involving
moral turpitude.
b. Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure; Section 17, Rule 119; Discharge of the Accused; most
guilty. - By jurisprudence, "most guilty" refers to the highest degree of culpability in terms
of participation in the commission of the offense and does not necessarily mean the severity
of the penalty imposed. While all the accused may be given the same penalty by reason of
conspiracy, yet one may be considered to have lesser or the least guilt taking into account his
degree of participation in the commission of the offense.
47. WPM International Trading, Inc. and Warlito P. Manlapaz vs. Fe Corazon Labayen
G.R. No. 182770
September 17, 2014
a. Doctrine of piercing the corporate veil; When applied. - Incidentally, the doctrine of piercing
the corporate veil applies only in three (3) basic instances, namely: a) when the separate and
distinct corporate personality defeats public convenience, as when the corporate fiction is
used as a vehicle for the evasion of an existing obligation; b) in fraud cases, or when the
corporate entity is used to justify a wrong, protect a fraud, or defend a crime; or c) is used in
alter ego cases, i.e., where a corporation is essentially a farce, since it is a mere alter ego or

business conduit of a person, or where the corporation is so organized and controlled and its
affairs so conducted as to make it merely an instrumentality, agency, conduit or adjunct of
another corporation.
b. Doctrine of piercing the corporate veil; Elements; absence of any of these elements will make
the doctrine inapplicable. - Piercing the corporate veil based on the alter ego theory requires
the concurrence of three elements, namely: (1) Control, not mere majority or complete stock
control, but complete domination, not only of finances but of policy and business practice in
respect to the transaction attacked so that the corporate entity as to this transaction had at the
time no separate mind, will or existence of its own; (2) Such control must have been used by
the defendant to commit fraud or wrong, to perpetuate the violation of a statutory or other
positive legal duty, or dishonest and unjust act in contravention of plaintiffs legal right; and
(3) The aforesaid control and breach of duty must have proximately caused the injury or
unjust loss complained of. The absence of any of these elements prevents piercing the
corporate veil.
48. People of the Philippines vs. Adel Ramos y Abellana
G.R. No. 200077
September 17, 2014
a. Rape; Delay in reporting the incident does not negate the credibility of the victim. - Delay in
reporting a rape to the police authorities does not negate its occurrence nor does it affect the
credibility of the victim. In the face of constant threats of violence and death, not just on the
victim but extending to her kin, a victim may be excused for tarrying in reporting her
ravishment.
b. Evidence; Self-serving statements. - Self-serving statements cannot be accorded greater
evidentiary weight than the declaration of a credible witness on affirmative matters. Timetested is the rule that between the positive assertion of prosecution witnesses and the negative
averment of an accused, the former undisputedly deserves more credence and is entitled to
greater evidentiary value. As it has been oft pronounced, both denial and alibi are inherently
weak defenses which cannot prevail over the positive and credible testimony of the
prosecution witness that [Ramos] was the author of the crime charged.
49. Jebsen Maritime Inc., et al. vs. Wilfredo E. Ravena
G.R. No. 200566
September 17, 2014
a. Seafarer; Claim for benefits; Three-day reporting requirement. - Under Section 20-B(3),
paragraph 2, a seafarer who was repatriated for medical reasons must, within three working
days from his disembarkation, submit himself to a post-employment medical examination
(PEME) to be conducted by the company-designated physician. Failure of the seafarer to
comply with this three-day mandatory reporting requirement shall result in the forfeiture of
his right to claim the POEA-SEC granted benefits.
b. Seafarer; Claim for benefits; Three-day reporting requirement under the POEA-SEAC not
absolute. - The reporting requirement, of course, is not absolute as we have allowed, in
certain exceptional circumstances, a seafarer's claim despite his non-reporting within the
mandated three-day period, i.e., when the seafarer is physically incapacitated to comply with
the reporting requirement, provided, he gives, within the same three-day period, a written
notice of his incapacity to the manning agency.

50. Enriqueta M. Locsin vs. Bernardo Hizon, Carlos Hizon, Sps. Jose Manuel & Lourdes
Guevarra
G.R. No. 204369
September 17, 2014
a. Sale; Sale of Real Property; Innocent purchaser for value. - An innocent purchaser for value
is one who buys the property of another without notice that some other person has a right to
or interest in it, and who pays a full and fair price at the time of the purchase or before
receiving any notice of another persons claim.
b. Sale; Sale of Real Property; Innocent purchase for value; Defective title; Effect. - As such, a
defective title. - or one the procurement of which is tainted with fraud and
misrepresentationmay be the source of a completely legal and valid title, provided that the
buyer is an innocent third person who, in good faith, relied on the correctness of the
certificate of title, or an innocent purchaser for value
c. Sale; Mirror Doctrine. - the mirror doctrine which echoes the doctrinal rule that every person
dealing with registered land may safely rely on the correctness of the certificate of title issued
therefor and is in no way obliged to go beyond the certificate to determine the condition of
the property.
d. Sale; Mirror Doctrine; Exception. - [A] person dealing with registered land has a right to rely
on the Torrens certificate of title and to dispense with the need of inquiring further except
when the party has actual knowledge of facts and circumstances that would impel a
reasonably cautious man to make such inquiry or when the purchaser has knowledge of a
defect or the lack of title in his vendor or of sufficient facts to induce a reasonably prudent
man to inquire into the status of the title of the property in litigation. The presence of
anything which excites or arouses suspicion should then prompt the vendee to look beyond
the certificate and investigate the title of the vendor appearing on the face of said certificate.
One who falls within the exception can neither be denominated an innocent purchaser for
value nor a purchaser in good faith and, hence, does not merit the protection of the law.
51. Rebecca Marie Uy Yupangco-Nakpil vs. Atty. Roberto L. Uy
A.C. No. 9115
September 17, 2014
a. Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code; Gravity of Misconduct; How determined. - Canon 1 - A
lawyer shall uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect for law
and legal processes. Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or
deceitful conduct. The gravity of the misconduct determinative as it is of the errant lawyers
penalty depends on the factual circumstances of each case.
52. Atty. Fortunato Pagdanganan, Jr., et al. vs. Florentino P. Sarmiento
G.R. No. 206555
September 17, 2014
a. Rules of Procedure; Labor Case. - Under Section 4, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court (Rules), as
amended by A.M. No. 07-7-12-SC, an aggrieved party has sixty (60) days from receipt of the
assailed decision, order or resolution within which to file a petition for certiorari.

b. Rules of Procedure; Notices. - The rule is that when a party is represented by counsel in an
action in court, notices of all kinds including motions, pleadings and orders must be served
on the counsel. And notice to such counsel is notice to the client. Notice sent to counsel of
record is binding upon the client and the neglect or failure of counsel to inform him of an
adverse judgment resulting in the loss of his right to appeal is not a ground for setting aside a
judgment, valid and regular on its face.
53. People of the Philippines vs. Julito Gerandoy
G.R. No. 202838
September 17, 2014
a. Revised Penal Code; Rape; When committed. - Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code as
amended by Republic Act No. 8353 describes how rape is committed: 1) By a man who shall
have carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances: a) Through
force, threat or intimidation; b) When the offended party is deprived of' reason or is otherwise
unconscious; c) By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority; d) When the
offended party is under twelve (12) years of age or is demented, even though none of the
circumstances mentioned above be present.
b. Rape; When Qualified. - Rape is qualified if the victim is under eighteen (18) years of age
and the offender is a parent, ascendant, stepparent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or
affinity within the third civil degree, or the common-law spouse of the parent of the victim.
c. Rape; Evidence; Direct Evidence not the only means to prove rape. - Direct evidence is not
the only means of proving rape beyond reasonable doubt. Even without direct evidence, the
accused may be convicted on the basis of circumstantial evidence, provided the proven
circumstances constitute an unbroken chain leading to one fair reasonable conclusion
pointing to the accused, to the exclusion of all others, as the guilty person.
d. Rape; Evidence; Circumstantial evidence. - To prove conviction based on circumstantial
evidence, there was more than one circumstance; the facts from which the inferences were
derived were proved; and the combination of all the circumstances was such as to produce a
conviction beyond reasonable doubt. What was essential was that the unbroken chain of the
established circumstances led to no other logical conclusion except the appellant's guilt.
e. Revised Penal Code; Lascivious Conduct; Definition. - Lascivious conduct is defined as
intentional touching, either directly or through clothing, of the genitalia, anus, groin, breast,
inner thigh, or buttocks, or the introduction of any object into the genitalia, anus or mouth, of
any person, whether of the same or opposite sex, with the intent to abuse, humiliate, harass,
degrade, or arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person, bestiality, masturbation,
lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of a person.
f.

Revised Penal Code; Lascivious Conduct; Elements of Sexual Abuse. - The elements of
sexual abuse are the following: 1. The accused commits the act of sexual intercourse or
lascivious conduct; 2. The said act is performed with a child exploited in prostitution or
subjected to other sexual abuse; and 3. The child, whether male or female, is below 18 years
of age.

g. Section 5(b) of Republic Act No. 7610; A child deemed to be sexually abused. - It is deemed
that a child is sexually abused under Section 5(b) of Republic Act No. 7610, when he or she
is subjected to other lascivious conduct under the coercion or influence of any adult. There

must be some form of compulsion equivalent to intimidation which subdues the free exercise
of the offended party's free will.
54. Republic of the Philippines vs. Florendo B. Arias, Asst. Director, Bureau of Equipment,
Department of Public Works and Highways
G.R. No. 188909
September 17, 2014
a. Evidence; Quantum of Evidence for an individual to be administratively liable; Substantial
Evidence. - Section 5, Rule 133 of the Rules of Court provides: Sec. 5. Substantial evidence.
In cases filed before administrative or quasi-judicial bodies, a fact may be deemed
established if it is supported by substantial evidence, or that amount of relevant evidence
which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion.
Substantial evidence does not necessarily mean preponderant proof as required in ordinary
civil cases, but such kind of relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate
to support a conclusion or evidence commonly accepted by reasonably prudent men in the
conduct of their affairs.
b. Gross Neglect of Duty; Definition. - Gross neglect of duty or gross negligence refers to
negligence characterized by the want of even slight care, acting or omitting to act in a
situation where there is a duty to act, not inadvertently but willfully and intentionally, with a
conscious indifference to consequences, insofar as other persons may be affected. It is the
omission of that care which even inattentive and thoughtless persons never fail to take on
their own property. In cases involving public officials, there is gross negligence when a
breach of duty is flagrant and palpable.
c. Misconduct; Definition. - Misconduct is an intentional wrongdoing or deliberate violation of
a rule of law or standard of behavior, especially by a government official. As differentiated
from simple misconduct, in grave misconduct the elements of corruption, clear intent to
violate the law or flagrant disregard of established rule, must be manifest.
d. Gross Neglect of Duty and Grave Misconduct. - The failure of respondent to exercise his
functions diligently when he recommended for approval documents for emergency repair and
purchase in the absence of the signature and certification by the end user, in complete
disregard of existing DPWH rules, constitute gross neglect of duty and grave misconduct
which undoubtedly resulted in loss of public funds thereby causing undue injury to the
government.
55. Interorient Maritime Enteprises, Inc. vs. Victor M. Creer, III
G.R. No. 181921
September 17, 2014
a. Seamans claim for disability; Requirement; Examination by a company-designated
physician. - For a seamans claim for disability to prosper, it is mandatory that within three
days from his repatriation, he is examined by a company-designated physician. Noncompliance with this mandatory requirement results in the forfeiture of the right to claim for
compensation and disability benefits.
b. Seamans claim for disability; Requirement; Examination by a company-designated
physician; Rationale. - "The rationale for the rule [on mandatory post-employment medical

examination within three days from repatriation by a company-designated physician] is that

reporting the illness or injury within three days from repatriation fairly makes it easier for a
physician to determine the cause of the illness or injury. Ascertaining the real cause of the
illness or injury beyond the period may prove difficult. To ignore the rule might set a
precedent with negative repercussions, like opening floodgates to a limitless number of
seafarers claiming disability benefits, or causing unfairness to the employer who would have
difficulty determining the cause of a claimants illness because of the passage of time. The
employer would then have no protection against unrelated disability claims."
c. Seamans claim for disability; Illnesses that are compensable. - For an illness to be
compensable, Section 20(B)(6) of the 2000 Amended Standard Terms and Conditions
Governing the Employment of Filipino Seafarers on Board Ocean-Going Vessels (2000
Amended StandardTerms and Conditions), deemed incorporated in the POEA Contract,
requires the concurrence of two elements: first, that the illness mustbe work-related; and
second, that the work- related illness must have existed during the term of the seafarers
employment contract.
d. Work-related Illness; Definition. - "Work-related illness" is defined under the 2000 Amended
Standard Terms and Condition "as any sickness resulting in disability or death due to an
occupational disease listed under Section 32-A of [the said] contract[,] with the conditions set
therein satisfied."
e. Occupational Diseases; When compensable; Elements. - Section 32-An occupational diseases
- For an occupational disease and the resulting disability or death to be compensable, allof the
following conditions must be satisfied: 1. The seafarers work must involve the risks describe
herein; 2. The disease was contracted as a result of the seafarers exposure to the describe[d]
risks; 3. The disease was contracted within a period of exposure and under such other factors
necessary to contract it; 4. There was no notorious negligence on the part of the seafarer.
56. Eduardo D. Monsanto, et al. vs. Leoncio Lim and Lorenzo De Guzman
G.R. No. 178911
September 17, 2014
a. Rules of Procedure; Filing of Initiatory Pleadings and Payment of Docket Fees; Effect. "Filing the appropriate initiatory pleading and the payment of the prescribed docket fees vest
a trial court with jurisdiction over the subject matter." Section 5, Rule 1 of the Rules of Court
specifically providesthat "[a] civil action is commenced by the filing of the original complaint
in court." Moreover, "[e]very ordinary civil action must bebased on a cause of action."
b. Rules of Procedure; Payment of Docket Fees; Effect. - Section 1, Rule 141 of the Rules of
Court mandates that "[u]pon the filing of the pleading or other application which initiates an
action or proceeding, the fees prescribed therefor shall be paid in full." "It is hornbook law
that courts acquire jurisdiction over a case only upon payment of the prescribed docket fee."
In Far East Bank and Trust Company v. Shemberg Marketing Corporation, we ruled thus: A
court acquires jurisdiction over a case only upon the payment of the prescribed fees. The
importance of filing fees cannot be gainsaid for these are intended to take care of court
expenses inthe handling of cases in terms of costs of supplies, use of equipment, salaries and
fringe benefits of personnel, and others, computed as to man-hours used in the handling of
each case. Hence, the non-payment or insufficient payment of docket fees can entail
tremendous losses to government in general and to the judiciary in particular.

57. People of the Philippines vs. Primo P. Japson alias "Longlong"

G.R. No. 210658
September 17, 2014
a. Rape; Proof that rape was committed; Resistance not an element of rape. - "A rape victim has
no burden to prove that she did all within her power to resist the force or intimidation
employed upon her." The lack of active resistance cannot be equated to consent. "[I]t is not
necessary on the part of the victim to put up a tenacious physical struggle." Besides,
resistance is not an element of rape.
b. Rape; Proof that rape was committed; Absence of external signs of physical injuries; Effect. Similarly, "absence of external signs or physical injuries does not negate the commission of
rape since proof of injuries is not an essential element of the crime."
58. Soledad Tria vs. People of the Philippines
G.R. No. 204755
September 17, 2014
a. Revised Penal Code; Article 315 paragraph 1(b); Estafa through misappropriation or
conversion; Elements. - The elements of estafa under this provision are: (1) that the money,
good or other personal property is received by the offender in trust, or on commission, or for
administration, or under any other obligation involving the duty to make delivery of, or to
return, the same; (2) that there be misappropriation or conversion of such money or property
by the offender or denial on his part of such receipt; (3) that such misappropriation or
conversion or denial is to the prejudice of another; and (4) that there is a demand made by the
offended party on the offender.
b. Revised Penal Code; Article 315 paragraph 1(b); Estafa through misappropriation or
conversion; Elements; Convert and Misappropriate; Definition. - The words "convert"
and "misappropriate" connote the act of using or disposing of anothers property as if it were
ones own, or of devoting it to a purpose or use different from that agreed upon. To
misappropriate for ones own use includes not only conversion to ones personal advantage,
but also every attempt to dispose of the property of another without right. In proving the
element of conversion or misappropriation, a legal presumption of misappropriation arises
when the accused fails to deliver the proceeds of the sale or to return the items to be sold and
fails to give an account of their whereabouts.
59. Pedro L. Libang, Jr. vs. Indochina Ship Management, Inc., Mr. Miguel Santos and Majestic
Carriers, Inc.
G.R. No. 189863
September 17, 2014
a. Seamans disability claim; Seeking the medical expertise of a physician of his choice when
there is a clear breach of obligation of the company physician. - Clearly, there was a breach
by Dr. Lim of his obligation as the company-designated physician. Although Libang
repeatedly argued that Dr. Lim failed to give an assessment of his illness, herein respondents
and Dr. Lim failed to explain and justify such failure.
Given the failure of Dr. Lim to fully evaluate Libangs illness, disability or fitness to work,
the seafarer was justified in seeking the medical expertise of his physician of choice.

60. Edita S. Bueno and Milagros E. Quinajon vs. Office of the Ombudsman, Napoleon S.
Ronquillo, Jr., Edna G. Raa and Romeo G. Refruto
G.R. No. 191712
September 17, 2014
a. Ombudsman; Authority to investigate and prosecute illegal and unjust acts of those who are
in the public service emanates from no less than the 1987 Constitution. - Section 12 of Article
XI states: The Ombudsman and his Deputies, as protectors of the people, shall act promptly
on complaints filed in any form or manner against public officials or employees of the
Government, or any subdivision, agency or instrumentality thereof, including government
owned or controlled corporations, and shall, in appropriate cases, notify the complainants of
the action taken and the result thereof.
b. Ombudsman; Powers and Functions; Sec. 15. Powers, Functions and Duties under the
Ombudsman Act. - Indeed, the Office of the Ombudsman is mandated to "investigate and
prosecute on its own or on complaint by any person, any act or omission of any public officer
or employee, office or agency, when such act or omission appears to be illegal, unjust,
improper or inefficient."
61. Carmen T. Gahol, substituted by her heirs, Ricardo T. Gahol, et al. vs. Esperanza
Cobarrubias
G.R. No. 187144
September 17, 2014
a. Rules of Procedure; Section 11, Rule 13 of the Revised Rules of Procedure; Modes of Service
and Filing. - Personal service of pleadings is the general rule, and resort to other modes of
service is the exception, so that where personal service is practicable, in the light of the
circumstances of time, place and person, personal service is mandatory. Only when personal
service is not practicable may resort to other modes be had, which must then be accompanied
by a written explanation as to why personal service or filing was not practicable to begin
with. Based on this explanation will the court then determine whether personal service is
indeed not practicable so that resort to other modes is made. At this stage, the judge exercises
proper discretion but only upon the explanation given. In adjudging the plausibility of an
explanation, the court shall consider not only the circumstances, the time and the place but
also the importance of the subject matter of the case or the issues involved therein, and the
prima facie merit of the pleading involved.
62. Atty. Felipe B. Almazan, Sr. vs. Atty. Marcelo B. Suerte-Felipe
A.C. No. 7184
September 17, 2014
a. 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice; Section 11, Rule III; Territorial Limitations. - Sec. 11.
Jurisdiction and Term A person commissioned as notary public may perform notarial acts in
any place within the territorial jurisdiction of the commissioning court for a period of two (2)
years commencing the first day of January of the year in which the commissioning court is
made, unless either revoked or the notary public has resigned under these Rules and the Rules
of Court.
b. Notarial Law; Section 240 of Chapter 12, Book V, Volume I of the Revised Administrative
Code of 1917; Territorial Jurisdiction. - The jurisdiction of a notary public in a province shall

be co-extensive with the province. The jurisdiction of a notary public in the City of Manila
shall be co-extensive with said city. No notary shall possess authority to do any notarial act
beyond the limits of his jurisdiction.
c. Notarial Law; Notarizing outside of jurisdiction; Malpractice. - While seemingly appearing
to be a harmless incident, respondents act of notarizing documents in a place outside of or
beyond the authority granted by his notarial commission, partakes of malpractice of law and
falsification. While perhaps not on all fours because of the slight dissimilarity in the violation
involved, what the Court said in Nunga v. Viray is very much apropos: Where the
notarization of a document is done by a member of the Philippine Bar at a time when he has
no authorization or commission to do so, the offender may be subjected to disciplinary action.
For one, performing a notarial [act] without such commission is a violation of the lawyers
oath to obey the laws, more specifically, the Notarial Law. Then, too, by making it appear that
he is duly commissioned when he is not, he is, for all legal intents and purposes, indulging in
deliberate false hood, which the lawyers oath similarly proscribes.
63. Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. CE Luzon Geothermal Power Company, Inc.
G.R. No. 190198
September 17, 2014
a. Tax Law; Tax claims; Refund; Period within which Refund or Tax Credit of Input Taxes shall
be Made; Within 120 days. - Section 112. Refunds or Tax Credits of Input Tax. (D) Period
within which Refund or Tax Credit of Input Taxes shall be Made. In proper cases, the
Commissioner shall grant a refund or issue the tax credit certificate for creditable input taxes
within one hundred twenty (120) days from the date of submission of complete documents in
support of the application filed in accordance with Subsections (A) and (B) hereof.
b. Tax Law; Tax claims; Refund; Period within which Refund or Tax Credit of Input Taxes shall
be Made; Reconciling Jurisprudence. - Reconciling the pronouncements in the Aichi and San
Roque cases, the rule must therefore be that during the period December 10, 2003 (when BIR
Ruling No. DA-489-03 was issued) to October 6, 2010(when the Aichi case was
promulgated), taxpayers-claimants need not observe the 120-day period before it could file a
judicial claim for refund of excess input VAT before the CTA. Before and after the
aforementioned period (i.e., December 10, 2003 to October 6, 2010), the observance of the
120-day period is mandatory and jurisdictional to the filing of such claim.
64. Puerto Azul Land, Inc. vs. Pacific Wide Realty Development Corporation
G.R. No. 184000
September 17, 2014
65. Mariano R. Cristobal vs. Atty. Ronaldo E. Renta
A.C. No. 9925
September 17, 2014
66. Office of the Court Administrator vs. May F. Hernandez, Clerk III, RTC, Branch 199, Las
Pias City
A.M. No. P-13-3130
September 22, 2014
67. Hacienda Leddy/Ricardo Gamboa, Jr. vs. Paquito Villegas
G.R. No. 179654

September 22, 2014

68. Nenita Carganillo vs. People of the Philippines
G.R. No. 182424
September 22, 2014
69. People of the Philippines vs. Mark Jason Chavez y Bitangcor
G.R. No. 207950
September 22, 2014
70. Spouses Michelle M. Noynay and Noel S. Noynay vs. Cityhomes Builder and Development,
Inc.
G.R. No. 204160
September 22, 2014
71. Spouses Teodorico and Pacita Rosete vs. Felix and/or Marieta Briones, et al.
G.R. No. 176121
September 22, 2014
72. People of the Philippines vs. Bobby Torres
G.R. No. 189850
September 22, 2014
73. Re: Allegations made under oath at the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee hearing held on
September 26, 2013 Against Associate Justice Gregory S. Ong, Sandiganbayan
A.M. No. SB-14-21-J
September 23, 2014
74. CF Sharp Crew Management Incorporated vs. Nicolas C. Torres
A.C. No. 10438
September 23, 2014
75. Lina Dela Pea Jalover, et al. vs. John Henry R. Osmea, et al.
G.R. No. 209286
September 23, 2014
76. Alfredo L. Villamor, Jr. vs. John S. Umale, in substitution fo Hernando F. Balmores
G.R. No. 172843
September 24, 2014
77. Conrado Abe Lopez, represented by Atty. Romualdo Jubay vs. Judge Rogelio S. Lucmayon,
MTCC, Br. 1, Mandaue, Cebu City
A.M. No. MTJ-13-1837
September 24, 2014
78. Leonardo Bognot vs. RPI Lending Corporation represented by its General Manager, Dario
J. Bernandez
G.R. No. 180144
September 24, 2014
79. Leonardo A. Villalon and Erlinda Talde-Villalon vs. Amelia Chan

G.R. No. 196508

September 24, 2014
80. Mount Carmel College Employees Union (MCCEU)/Romulo S. Bascar, et al. vs. Mount
Carmel College, Incoporated
G.R. No. 187621
September 24, 2014
81. People of the Philippines vs. Richard Guinto y San Andres
G.R. No. 198314
September 24, 2014
82. Philippine National Bank vs. Spouses Eduardo and Ma. Rosario Tajonera, et al.
G.R. No. 195889
September 24, 2014
83. Capital Shoes Factory, Ltd. vs. Traveler Kids, Inc.
G.R. No. 200065
September 24, 2014
84. Dionisio B. Coloma, Jr. vs. Hon. Sandiganbayan and People of the Philippines
G.R. No. 205561
September 24, 2014
85. Government Service Insurance Corporation vs. Jose M. Capacite
G.R. No. 199780
September 24, 2014
86. Amanda C. Zacarias vs. Victoria Anacay, Edna Anacay, et al.
G.R. No. 202354
September 24, 2014
87. Robert Kua, et al. vs. Gregorio Sacupayo and Maximiano R. Panerio
G.R. No. 191237
September 24, 2014
88. Emeritu C. Barut vs. People of the Philippines
G.R. No. 167454
September 24, 2014
89. People of the Philippines vs. Eladio B. Lumaho alias "Attumpang"
G.R. No. 208716
September 24, 2014
90. H.H. Hollero Construction, Inc. vs. Government Services Insurance Systems, et al.
G.R. No. 152334
September 24, 2014
91. People of the Philippines vs. Jose C. Go and Aida C. Dela Rosa
G.R. No. 201644
September 24, 2014

92. Robinson's Bank Corporation (formerly The Royal Bank of Scotland[Phils.], Inc.) vs. Hon.
Samuel H. Gaerlan, et al.
G.R. No. 195289
September 24, 2014