Leonardo-De Castro

---------------------------------------------------------
Compiled by f?? of https://www.facebook.com/groups/PHLSG/

---------------------------------------------------------
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teresita_de_Castro
http://upd.edu.ph/~updinfo/jun14/articles/SC_Justice_De_Castro.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quid_pro_quo
http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/research/07/19/12/cjsearch-profile-teresita-leonardo-de-
castro
http://www.rappler.com/nation/special-coverage/scwatch/9044-justice-teresita-
leonardo-de-castro
G.R. No. 180643, Romulo L. Neri Vs. Senate Committee, et al. (2008) - on the
principle of executive privilege over Congress' right to information
She authored the Katarungang Pambarangay Law.
"Independence from undue influence, not only from the appointing power, as it
[influence] may come from a news article or a book.
Off Topic: Ma. Lisa Tolentino (Court Attorney VI Office of Associate Justice
Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro, Supreme Court of the Philippines)
Controversial Cases Handled:
- GSIS RFP
- Boracay reclamation project
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_of_Joseph_Estrada
== En Banc ==
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/june2011/P-10-2829.html
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/178158_leonardo-
decastro.htm
- Is there compelling reason to treat a compromise of an indebtedness to the
government differently from a compromise of an indebtedness of the government?
- Yes, it generally presupposes that the governments claim will be paid, albeit at
a lower amount than the actual liability.
- However, the power to compromise an indebtedness to the government does not
necessarily include the power to compromise an asserted claim against or liability
of the government, more so if the said claim against or liability of the government
is unsettled.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/169449.htm
- Misconduct means intentional wrongdoing or deliberate violation of a rule of law
or standard of behavior. To constitute an administrative offense, misconduct should
relate to or be connected with the performance of the official functions and duties
of a public officer. In grave misconduct, as distinguished from simple misconduct,
the elements of corruption, clear intent to violate the law or flagrant disregard
of an established rule must be manifest
- His act of grabbing petitioner and attempting to kiss her without her consent was
an unmistakable manifestation of his intention to violate laws that specifically
prohibited sexual harassment in the work environment. Assuming arguendo that
respondent never intended to violate RA 7877, his attempt to kiss petitioner was a
flagrant disregard of a customary rule that had existed since time immemorial
that intimate physical contact between individuals must be consensual. Respondents
defiance of custom and lack of respect for the opposite sex were more appalling
because he was a married man. Respondents act showed a low regard for women and
disrespect for petitioners honor and dignity.
- Length of service as a factor in determining the imposable penalty in
administrative cases is a double-edged sword. In fact, respondents long years of
government service should be seen as a factor which aggravated the wrong that he
committed. Having been in the government service for so long, he, more than anyone
else, should have known that public service is a public trust; that public service
requires utmost integrity and strictest discipline, and, as such, a public servant
must exhibit at all times the highest sense of honesty and integrity. Sadly,
respondents actions did not reflect the integrity and discipline that were
expected of public servants. He failed to live up to the image of the outstanding
and exemplary public official that he was. He sullied government service instead.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/175352.htm
- This Court will not touch the issue of unconstitutionality unless it is the very
lis mota. It is a well-established rule that a court should not pass upon a
constitutional question and decide a law to be unconstitutional or invalid, unless
such question is raised by the parties and that when it is raised, if the record
also presents some other ground upon which the court may [rest] its judgment, that
course will be adopted and the constitutional question will be left for
consideration until such question will be unavoidable.
- However, in accordance with the Fundamental Principle of Voluntary Service of
National Societies of the Movement, the PNRC must be distinguished from private and
profit-making entities. It is the main characteristic of National Societies that
they are not inspired by the desire for financial gain but by individual
commitment and devotion to a humanitarian purpose freely chosen or accepted as part
of the service that National Societies through its volunteers and/or members render
to the Community.
- The PNRC, as a National Society of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent
Movement, can neither be classified as an instrumentality of the State, so as not
to lose its character of neutrality as well as its independence, nor strictly as a
private corporation since it is regulated by international humanitarian law and is
treated as an auxiliary of the State.
- Based on the above, the sui generis status of the PNRC is now sufficiently
established. Although it is neither a subdivision, agency, or instrumentality of
the government, nor a government-owned or -controlled corporation or a subsidiary
thereof, as succinctly explained in the Decision of July 15, 2009, so much so that
respondent, under the Decision, was correctly allowed to hold his position as
Chairman thereof concurrently while he served as a Senator, such a conclusion does
not ipso facto imply that the PNRC is a private corporation within the
contemplation of the provision of the Constitution, that must be organized under
the Corporation Code. As correctly mentioned by Justice Roberto A. Abad, the sui
generis character of PNRC requires us to approach controversies involving the PNRC
on a case-to-case basis.
- In sum, the PNRC enjoys a special status as an important ally and auxiliary of
the government in the humanitarian field in accordance with its commitments under
international law. This Court cannot all of a sudden refuse to recognize its
existence, especially since the issue of the constitutionality of the PNRC Charter
was never raised by the parties. It bears emphasizing that the PNRC has responded
to almost all national disasters since 1947, and is widely known to provide a
substantial portion of the countrys blood requirements. Its humanitarian work is
unparalleled. The Court should not shake its existence to the core in an untimely
and drastic manner that would not only have negative consequences to those who
depend on it in times of disaster and armed hostilities but also have adverse
effects on the image of the Philippines in the international community. The
sections of the PNRC Charter that were declared void must therefore stay.
Boracay Foundation Inc., vs. The Province of Aklan -

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/196870.htm
- The parties undoubtedly too agree as to the importance of promoting tourism,
pursuant to Section 2 of Republic Act No. 9593, or The Tourism Act of 2009, which
reads: SECTION 2. Declaration of Policy. The State declares tourism as an
indispensable element of the national economy and an industry of national interest
and importance, which must be harnessed as an engine of socioeconomic growth and
cultural affirmation to generate investment, foreign exchange and employment, and
to continue to mold an enhanced sense of national pride for all Filipinos.
(Emphasis ours.)
- The primordial role of local government units under the Constitution and the
Local Government Code of 1991 in the subject matter of this case is also
unquestionable. The Local Government Code of 1991 (Republic Act No. 7160)
pertinently provides: Section 2. Declaration of Policy. - (a) It is hereby declared
the policy of the State that the territorial and political subdivisions of the
State shall enjoy genuine and meaningful local autonomy to enable them to attain
their fullest development as self-reliant communities and make them more effective
partners in the attainment of national goals. Toward this end, the State shall
provide for a more responsive and accountable local government structure instituted
through a system of decentralization whereby local government units shall be given
more powers, authority, responsibilities, and resources. The process of
decentralization shall proceed from the national government to the local government
units.[156] (Emphases ours.)
Re: Letter of the UP Law Faculty entitled Restoring Integrity: A Statement by the
Faculty of the University of the Philippines College of Law on the Allegations of
Plagiarism and Misrepresentation in the Supreme Court -
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/june2011/10-10-4-SC.htm
GSIS vs. COA -

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/september2012/162372.pdf
Fort Bonifacio Development Corporation vs CIR -

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/158885.htm
- In construing a statute, courts have to take the thought conveyed by the statute
as a whole; construe the constituent parts together; ascertain the legislative
intent from the whole act; consider each and every provision thereof in the light
of the general purpose of the statute; and endeavor to make every part effective,
harmonious and sensible.
- To be valid, an administrative rule or regulation must conform, not contradict,
the provisions of the enabling law. An implementing rule or regulation cannot
modify, expand, or subtract from the law it is intended to implement. Any rule
that is not consistent with the statute itself is null and void. [4]
- While administrative agencies, such as the Bureau of Internal Revenue, may issue
regulations to implement statutes, they are without authority to limit the scope of
the statute to less than what it provides, or extend or expand the statute beyond
its terms, or in any way modify explicit provisions of the law. Indeed, a quasi-
judicial body or an administrative agency for that matter cannot amend an act of
Congress. Hence, in case of a discrepancy between the basic law and an
interpretative or administrative ruling, the basic law prevails.
- The language of Section 105 is explicit. It precludes reading into the law that
the transitional input tax credit is limited to the amount of VAT previously paid.
When the aforesaid section speaks of eight percent (8%) of the value of such
inventory followed by the clause or the actual value-added tax paid on such
goods, materials and supplies, the implication is clear that under the first
clause, eight percent (8%) of the value of such inventory, the law does not
contemplate the payment of any prior tax on such inventory. This is distinguished
from the second clause, the actual value-added tax paid on the goods, materials
and supplies where actual payment of VAT on the goods, materials and supplies is
assumed. Had the intention of the law been to limit the amount to the actual VAT
paid, there would have been no need to explicitly allow a claim based on 8% of the
value of such inventory.
- The contention that the 8% transitional input tax credit in Section 105 presumes
that a previous tax was paid, whether or not it was actually paid, requires a
transaction where a tax has been imposed by law, is utterly without basis in law.
The rationale behind the provisions of Section 105 was aptly elucidated in the
Decision sought to be reconsidered, thus:
- It is apparent that the transitional input tax credit operates to benefit newly
VAT-registered persons, whether or not they previously paid taxes in the
acquisition of their beginning inventory of goods, materials and supplies. During
that period of transition from non-VAT to VAT status, the transitional input tax
credit serves to alleviate the impact of the VAT on the taxpayer. At the very
beginning, the VAT-registered taxpayer is obliged to remit a significant portion of
the income it derived from its sales as output VAT. The transitional input tax
credit mitigates this initial diminution of the taxpayers income by affording the
opportunity to offset the losses incurred through the remittance of the output VAT
at a stage when the person is yet unable to credit input VAT payments.
Panlilio vs. COMELEC -

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/175595.htm
- In an election case, the election tribunal has an imperative duty to ascertain,
by all means within its command, who is the real candidate elected by the
electorate. Indeed, the Court frowns upon any interpretation of the law or the
rules that would hinder in any way not only the free and intelligent casting of
votes in an election, but also the correct ascertainment of the results.
- The filing of a protest before the Board of Election Inspectors is not a
condition sine qua non before the COMELEC acquires jurisdiction over the present
election protest. Jurisdiction is conferred only by law and cannot be acquired
through, or waived by, any act or omission of the parties.
- Grave abuse of discretion means such capricious and whimsical exercise of
judgment as is equivalent to an excess or lack of jurisdiction. The abuse of
discretion must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive
duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law, or to act at all in
contemplation of law, as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic
manner by reason of passion and hostility. We find none in this case.
Pacanan vs. COMELEC -

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/august2009/186224.htm
- xxx An election contest, unlike an ordinary civil action, is clothed with a
public interest. The purpose of an election protest is to ascertain whether the
candidate proclaimed by the board of canvassers is the lawful choice of the people.
What is sought is the correction of the canvass of votes, which was the basis of
proclamation of the winning candidate. An election contest therefore involves not
only the adjudication of private and pecuniary interests of rival candidates but
paramount to their claims is the deep public concern involved and the need of
dispelling the uncertainty over the real choice of the electorate. And the court
has the corresponding duty to ascertain by all means within its command who is the
real candidate elected by the people.
- Moreover, the Comelec Rules of Procedure are subject to a liberal construction.
This liberality is for the purpose of promoting the effective and efficient
implementation of the objectives of ensuring the holding of free, orderly, honest,
peaceful and credible elections and for achieving just, expeditious and inexpensive
determination and disposition of every action and proceeding brought before the
Comelec. Thus we have declared:
- It has been frequently decided, and it may be stated as a general rule recognized
by all courts, that statutes providing for election contests are to be liberally
construed to the end that the will of the people in the choice of public officers
may not be defeated by mere technical objections. An election contest, unlike an
ordinary action, is imbued with public interest since it involves not only the
adjudication of the private interests of rival candidates but also the paramount
need of dispelling the uncertainty which beclouds the real choice of the electorate
with respect to who shall discharge the prerogatives of the office within their
gift. Moreover, it is neither fair nor just to keep in office for an uncertain
period one whose right to it is under suspicion. It is imperative that his claim
be immediately cleared not only for the benefit of the winner but for the sake of
public interest, which can only be achieved by brushing aside technicalities of
procedure which protract and delay the trial of an ordinary action.
Barillo vs. Lantion -

Bedol vs. COMELEC -

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/179830.htm
Albana vs. Belo -

Mangudadatu vs. HRET -

BPI vs. BPI Employees Union-Davao Chapter-Federation of Unions of BPI Unibank -

Rimando vs. COMELEC -

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/september2009/176364.htm
Fontana Resort and Country Club, Inc. vs. Spouses Tan -

Valencia vs. Antiniw -

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/june2008/1302_1391_1543.htm
Silkair vs. CIR -

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/184398.htm
OCA vs. Judge Aguilar - http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/june2011/RTJ-

07-2087.htm
Senior Citizens Party List vs. COMELEC -

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2013/july2013/206844-45.pdf
People vs. Sarcia -

People vs. Ildefonso -

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/jan2009/172326.htm
Atty Banda vs. Ermita -
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/april2010/166620.htm
People vs. Lopit -

CSC vs. Macud -

Barbo vs. COA -

Quirog vs. CSC -

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/november2008/163443.htm
GSIS vs. COA - http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/october2011/162372.htm
RE: CASES SUBMITTED FOR DECISION BEFORE HON. TERESITO A. ANDOY, former Judge,
Municipal Trial Court, Cainta, Rizal. -
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/may2010/09-9-163-MTC.htm
Wong vs. Moya II -

Menor vs. Guillermo - http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/december2008/P-

08-2587.htm
People vs. Mariano -

Francisco, Jr. vs. Ombudsman Disierto -

Fernandez vs. HRET -

Reyes vs. CA -
Yap vs. COA - http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/april2010/158562.htm
Boy Scouts of the Philippines vs. COA -

Agra vs. COA -

Arroyo vs. De Lima -

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/resolutions/2011/november2011/199034_19904
6_TRO.pdf
Dela Cruz vs. Zapico -

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/september2008/2007-25-SC.htm
Neri vs. SCAPO -

Agno vs. Cagatan - http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/july2008/4515.htm

Sampiano vs. Indar -
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/RTJ-05-1953.htm
Mallonga vs. Manio - http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/april2009/P-07-

2298.htm
Inonog vs. Judge Ibay - http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/RTJ-

09-2175.htm
OCA vs. Judge Perello -

Virgilio vs. Executive Secretary -

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2013/july2013/189028.pdf
Heirs of Aspiras vs. Judge Ganay -

Spouses Leynes vs. CA -

== Separate Opinion ==
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/resolutions/2011/december2011/199034_velas
co.htm
== Concurring Special En Banc ==
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/201112_decastro.htm
== Concurring Opinion ==
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/192935_decastro.htm
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/184836_leonardo-
decastro.htm
- that preventive suspension, regardless of the outcome of the case in which an
elective public officer has been preventively suspended, should not be considered
as an interruption of the service of the said public officer that would qualify him
to run for a fourth term.
== Dissenting Opinion ==
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2013/march2013/202202_decastro.pdf
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2013/february2013/10-9-15-SC_decastro.pdf
- may consultancy services rendered to the government partake of the nature of
"government service" which can be credited in the availment of retirement benefits
by public officers under the law?
- no. it is erroneous to consider a ll services rendered for the government as
government service which can be credited to claim retirement benefits, particularly
if the service is rendered not by virtue of an appointment or election to a
specific public office or position, which requires the taking of an oath of office,
but by a contractual engagement like that of a consultant.
- Penalties, such as disbarment, are imposed not to punish but to correct
offenders. While the Court is ever mindful of its duty to discipline its erring
officers, it also knows how to show compassion when the penalty imposed has already
served its purpose.
- Petitioner has sufficiently demonstrated the remorse expected of him considering
the gravity of his transgressions. Even more to his favor, petitioner has
redirected focus since his disbarment towards public service, particularly with the
Peoples Law Enforcement Board. The attestations submitted by his peers in the
community and other esteemed members of the legal profession, such as retired Court
of Appeals Associate Justice Oscar Herrera, Judge Hilario Laqui, Professor Edwin
Sandoval and Atty. Lorenzo Ata, and the ecclesiastical community such as Rev. Fr.
Paul Balagtas testify to his positive impact on society at large since the
unfortunate events of 2003.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/191084_leonardo-de-
castro.htm
- Forum shopping is an act of a party, against whom an adverse judgment or order
has been rendered in one forum, of seeking and possibly securing a favorable
opinion in another forum, other than by appeal or special civil action for
certiorari. It may also be the institution of two or more actions or proceedings
grounded on the same cause on the supposition that one or the other court would
make a favorable disposition.
- In a long line of cases, this Court has held consistently that before a party is
allowed to seek the intervention of the court, it is a pre-condition that he should
have availed of all the means of administrative processes afforded him. Hence, if
a remedy within the administrative machinery can still be resorted to by giving the
administrative officer concerned every opportunity to decide on a matter that comes
within his jurisdiction, then such remedy should be exhausted first before the
courts judicial power can be sought. The premature invocation of courts
intervention is fatal to ones cause of action.
== Division ==
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/july2008/MTJ-06-1646.htm
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/june2009/174862.htm (RA 9165, Sec 5,
Article III)
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/may2009/173049.htm
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/may2009/173049.htm (cataract
operation, still covered for reimbursement as occupational disease!)
- The degree of proof required under P.D. No. 626 is merely substantial evidence,
or "such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support
a conclusion. We have repeatedly held that to prove compensability, the claimant
must adequately show that the development of the disease is brought largely by the
conditions present in the nature of the job. What the law requires is a reasonable
work-connection and not a direct causal relation. It is enough that the hypothesis
on which the workmen's claim is based is probable. Medical opinion to the contrary
can be disregarded especially where there is some basis in the facts for inferring
a work-connection. Probability, not certainty, is the touchstone.
- Motions for extension are not granted as a matter of right but in the sound
discretion of the court. Lawyers are expected to be knowledgeable of the rule on
the grant of such motion. The requirements for perfecting an appeal within the
reglementary period specified in the law must be strictly followed as they are
considered indispensable interdictions against needless delays and for orderly
discharge of judicial business
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/december2012/RTJ-12-2331.pdf
- Even with just one clerk of record in charge of both civil and special
proceedings cases, 10 months is an unreasonable length of time for photocopying and
preparing records for transmittal to the Court of Appeals. Judges, clerks of court,
and all other coury employees share the same duty and obligation to dispense
justice promptly. They should strive to work together and mutually assist each
other to achieve this goal. But judges have the primary responsibility of
maintaining the professional competence of their staff. Judges should organize and
supervise their court personnel to ensure the prompt and efficient dispatch of
business, and require at all times the observance of high standards of public
service and fidelity.
- While having a drinking spree, appellant grabbed the victims hair with his left
hand and, with his right, pulled out a bolo from underneath his shirt and slashed
the victims neck. He then pushed the victim (who fell face down on the pavement)
and walked away.
- For his defense, appellant asserted that he accidentally killed the victim. While
they were drinking, the victim approached and confided to him that he had a problem
but did not say what his problem was. Appellant gave the victim a drink. To his
surprise, the victim allegedly pulled out his bolo from its scabbard. Afraid of
what could happen, appellant tried to wrest the bolo but the victim resisted. It
was while grappling for possession of the bolo that the victim was fatally slashed
in the neck.
- Based on the size and nature of the victims wounds, the RTC concluded that the
killing was intentional. Moreover, because appellant slashed the victims neck from
behind, the latter had no opportunity to defend himself. Hence, the trial court
appreciated the qualifying circumstance of treachery.
- The evidence of the prosecution established beyond reasonable doubt that the
appellant intended to kill (and in fact killed) the victim and that he consciously
adopted a design which deprived the victim of any opportunity to defend himself, or
to retaliate. However, the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender should
not have been considered.
- For the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender to be appreciated, the
defense must prove that:
(a) the offender had not been actually arrested;
(b) the offender surrendered himself to a person in authority;
(c) the surrender was spontaneous and voluntary.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2013/february2013/199713.pdf
- It is a fundamental rule that factual findings of the trial courts involving the
credibility of witnesses are accorded respect when no glaring errors, gross
misapprehension of facts, and specula tive, arbitrary, and unsupported conclusions
can be gathered from such fi ndings. The reason for this is that the trial court is
in a better position to decide the credibility of witnesses having heard their
testimonies and observed their deportment and manner of testifying during the
trial. The rule finds an even more stringent application where said findings are
sustained by the Court of Appeals.
- To hold the accused liable for murder, the prosecution must prove that: (1) a
person was killed; (2) the accused killed him; (3) the killing wasattended by any
of the qualifying circumstances mentioned in Article 248 ofthe Revised Penal Code;
and (4) the killing is neither parricide nor infanticide.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/155322-29.htm
- It is a basic rule that jurisdiction is determined by the allegations in the
complaint. [42] The BCDAs complaints did not contain any allegation that would,
even in the slightest, imply that the issue to be resolved in this case involved an
agrarian dispute. In the action filed by the BCDA, the issue to be resolved was
who between the BCDA and the private respondents and their purported predecessors-
in-interest, have a valid title over the subject properties in light of the
relevant facts and applicable laws. The case thus involves a controversy relating
to the ownership of the subject properties, which is beyond the scope of the phrase
agrarian dispute.
- While under the present Rules, it is now the duty of the clerk of court to set
the case for pre-trial if the plaintiff fails to do so within the prescribed
period, this does not relieve the plaintiff of his own duty to prosecute the case
diligently. This case had been at the pre-trial stage for more than two years and
petitioners have not shown special circumstances or compelling reasons to convince
us that the dismissal of their complaint for failure to prosecute was unjustified.
People vs. Dimapanan -

- Settled is the rule that no arrest, search or seizure can be made without a valid
warrant issued by a competent judicial authority. The Constitution guarantees the
right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects
against unreasonable searches and seizures.[13] It further decrees that any
evidence obtained in violation of said right shall be inadmissible for any purpose
in any proceeding.[14]
- Nevertheless, the constitutional proscription against warrantless searches and
seizures admits of certain legal and judicial exceptions, as follows: (1)
warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest recognized under Section 12, Rule
126 of the Rules of Court and by prevailing jurisprudence; (2) seizure of evidence
in plain view; (3) search of a moving vehicle; (4) consented warrantless search;
(5) customs search; (6) stop and frisk; and (7) exigent and emergency
circumstances.[15]
- On the other hand, Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules of Court provides that a
lawful arrest without a warrant may be made by a peace officer or a private person
under the following circumstances:
(a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually
committing, or is attempting to commit an offense;
(b) When an offense has just been committed, and he has probable cause to believe
based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that the person to be
arrested has committed it; and
(c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal
establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or is temporarily
confined while his case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from one
confinement to another.
- Transport as used under the Dangerous Drugs Act is defined to mean to carry or
convey from one place to another.[16] The evidence in this case shows that at the
time of their arrest, accused-appellants were caught in flagrante
carrying/transporting dried marijuana leaves in their traveling bags. PO3
Masanggue and SPO1 Blanco need not even open Dequinas traveling bag to determine
its content because when the latter noticed the police officers presence, she
walked briskly away and in her hurry, accidentally dropped her traveling bag,
causing the zipper to open and exposed the dried marijuana bricks therein. Since a
crime was then actually being committed by the accused-appellants, their
warrantless arrest was legally justified, and the following warrantless search of
their traveling bags was allowable as incidental to their lawful arrest.
- A person who acts under the compulsion of an irresistible force, like one who
acts under the impulse of an uncontrollable fear of equal or greater injury, is
exempt from criminal liability because he does not act with freedom. Actus me
invito factus non est meus actus. An act done by me against my will is not my act.
The force contemplated must be so formidable as to reduce the actor to a mere
instrument who acts not only without will but against his will. The duress, force,
fear or intimidation must be present, imminent and impending, and of such nature as
to induce a well-grounded apprehension of death or serious bodily harm if the act
be done. A threat of future injury is not enough. The compulsion must be of such
a character as to leave no opportunity for the accused for escape or self-defense
in equal combat.
- Conspiracy can be inferred from and proven by acts of the accused themselves when
said acts point to a joint purpose and design, concerted action, and community of
interests. Although the same degree of proof required for establishing the crime
is required to support a finding of the presence of conspiracy, it need not be
proven by direct evidence. Conspiracy may be deduced from the mode and manner in
which the offense was perpetrated.
Garcia vs. Villar -

- The following are the elements of pactum commissorium:
(1) There should be a property mortgaged by way of security for the payment of the
principal obligation; and
(2) There should be a stipulation for automatic appropriation by the creditor of
the thing mortgaged in case of non-payment of the principal obligation within the
stipulated period.
- Simply put, a mortgage is a real right, which follows the property, even after
subsequent transfers by the mortgagor. A registered mortgage lien is considered
inseparable from the property inasmuch as it is a right in rem.
Pacific Ocean Manning vs. Penales -

- We note that under POEA SEC, the seafarer has the duty to faithfully comply with
and observe the terms and conditions of the contract, including the provisions
governing the procedure for claiming disability benefits.
- When Penales filed his complaint and refused to undergo further medical
treatment, he prevented the company-designated physician from fully determining his
fitness to work within the time allowed by the POEA SEC and by law.
- As we outlined above, a temporary total disability only becomes permanent when so
declared by the company[-designated] physician within the periods he is allowed to
do so, or upon the expiration of the maximum 240-day medical treatment period
without a declaration of either fitness to work or the existence of a permanent
disability. x x x.
Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon vs. Francisco -

- While the Court is mindful of the principle that [t]he moot and academic
principle is not a magical formula that can automatically dissuade the courts in
resolving a case. Courts will decide cases, otherwise moot and academic, if:
first, there is a grave violation of the Constitution; second, the exceptional
character of the situation and the paramount public interest is involved; third,
when the constitutional issue raised requires formulation of controlling principles
to guide the bench, the bar and the public; and fourth, the case is capable of
repetition yet evading review,[27] the above exceptions do not find application in
the instant case.
South Cotobato Communications Corporation vs. Hon. Sto Tomas -

- Clearly, it was error on the part of the Court of Appeals to dismiss petitioners
special civil action for certiorari despite substantial compliance with the rules
on procedure. For unduly upholding technicalities at the expense of a just
resolution of the case, normal procedure dictates that the Court of Appeals should
be tasked with properly disposing the petition, a second time around, on the
merits.
- The Court is mindful of previous rulings which instructs us that when there is
enough basis on which a proper evaluation of the merits can be made, we may
dispense with the time-consuming procedure in order to prevent further delays in
the disposition of the case.[20] However, based on the nature of the two remaining
issues propounded before the Court which involve factual issues and given the
inadequacy of the records, pleadings, and other evidence available before us to
properly resolve those questions, we are constrained to refrain from passing upon
them.
- After all, the Court has stressed that its jurisdiction in a petition for review
on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court is limited to reviewing only
errors of law, not of fact, unless the findings of fact complained of are devoid of
support by the evidence on record, or the assailed judgment is based on the
misapprehension of facts.
- The purpose of the Rule on Summary Procedure is to achieve an expeditious and
inexpensive determination of cases without regard to technical rules. Pursuant to
this objective, the Rule prohibits petitions for certiorari, like a number of other
pleadings, in order to prevent unnecessary delays and to expedite the disposition
of cases.[59]
- Interlocutory orders are those that determine incidental matters that do not
touch on the merits of the case or put an end to the proceedings.[60] An order
granting a preliminary injunction, whether mandatory or prohibitory, is
interlocutory and unappealable.
People vs. Mangulabnan -

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/october2012/188571.pdf
MEMORANDA OF JUDGE ELIZA B. YU ISSUED TO LEGAL RESEARCHER MARIEJOY P. LAGMAN AND TO

COURT STENOGRAPHER SOLEDAD J. BASSIG, ALL OF METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 47,
PASAY CITY - http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/august2012/P-12-3033.pdf
- From the foregoing, we hold that the mistakes or errors in the contents of the
orders, subpoena, and Minutes of the Hearing committed by respondents Lagman and
Bassig could be attributed to their lack of attention or focus on the task at hand.
These could have easily been avoided had they exercised greater care and diligence
in the performance of their duties. We find respondents Lagman and Bassig liable
for simple neglect of duty.
- In Pilipia v. Roxas, we held that: The Court cannot countenance neglect of duty
for even simple neglect of duty lessens the peoples confidence in the judiciary
and ultimately in the administration of justice. By the very nature of their duties
and responsibilities, public servants must faithfully adhere to, hold sacred and
render inviolate the constitutional principle that a public office is a public
trust; that all public officers and employees must at all times be accountable to
the people, serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty and
efficiency.
People vs. Longhas -

People vs. Kazan -
- In the prosecution of illegal sale of drugs, the elements that should be proven
are the following: (1) the identities of the buyer and the seller, the object, and
consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. The
prosecution must (1) prove that the transaction or sale actually took place, and
(2) present in court evidence of the corpus delicti.
- As regards the prosecution for illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the
elements to be proven are the following: (1) the accused is in possession of an
item or an object identified to be a prohibited or a regulated drug; (2) such
possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely and consciously
possessed the said drug.
- The above elements that should be proven in both the sale and possession of
dangerous drugs intrinsically include the identification of what was seized by
police officers to be the same item examined and presented in court. This
identification must be established with moral certainty and is a function of the
rule on the chain of custody.
- In Malillin v. People, we discussed how the chain of custody of seized items
should be established: As a method of authenticating evidence, the chain of custody
rule requires that the admission of an exhibit be preceded by evidence sufficient
to support a finding that the matter in question is what the proponent claims it to
be. It would include testimony about every link in the chain, from the moment the
item was picked up to the time it is offered into evidence, in such a way that
every person who touched the exhibit would describe how and from whom it was
received, where it was and what happened to it while in the witness possession,
the condition in which it was received and the condition in which it was delivered
to the next link in the chain. These witnesses would then describe the precautions
taken to ensure that there had been no change in the condition of the item and no
opportunity for someone not in the chain to have possession of the same.
- While testimony about a perfect chain is not always the standard because it is
almost always impossible to obtain, an unbroken chain of custody becomes
indispensable and essential when the item of real evidence is not distinctive and
is not readily identifiable, or when its condition at the time of testing or trial
is critical, or when a witness has failed to observe its uniqueness. The same
standard likewise obtains in case the evidence is susceptible to alteration,
tampering, contamination and even substitution and exchange. In other words, the
exhibits level of susceptibility to fungibility, alteration or tampering without
regard to whether the same is advertent or otherwise not dictates the level of
strictness in the application of the chain of custody rule.
People vs. Barra -

Land Bank of the Philippines vs. Santiago -

People vs. Del Rosario @ "Aging" -

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/december2012/188107.pdf
People vs. Macabalang -

- In every criminal prosecution, the State must prove beyond reasonable doubt all
the elements of the crime charged and the complicity or participation of the
accused.[22] While a lone witness testimony is sufficient to convict an accused
in certain instances, the testimony must be clear, consistent, and
crediblequalities we cannot ascribe to this case. Jurisprudence is consistent
that for testimonial evidence to be believed, it must both come from a credible
witness and be credible in itself tested by human experience, observation, common
knowledge and accepted conduct that has evolved through the years.[23] Clearly from
the foregoing, the prosecution failed to establish by proof beyond reasonable doubt
that appellant was indeed in possession of shabu, and that he freely and
consciously possessed the same.
- The presumption of innocence of an accused in a criminal case is a basic
constitutional principle, fleshed out by procedural rules which place on the
prosecution the burden of proving that an accused is guilty of the offense charged
by proof beyond reasonable doubt. Corollary thereto, conviction must rest on the
strength of the prosecutions evidence and not on the weakness of the defense.[24]
In this case, the prosecutions evidence failed to overcome the presumption of
innocence, and thus, appellant is entitled to an acquittal.
- Indeed, suspicion no matter how strong must never sway judgment. Where there is
reasonable doubt, the accused must be acquitted even though their innocence may not
have been established. The Constitution presumes a person innocent until proven
guilty by proof beyond reasonable doubt. When guilt is not proven with moral
certainty, it has been our policy of long standing that the presumption of
innocence must be favored, and exoneration granted as a matter of right.
People vs. Buenaventura -

- A buy-bust operation is far variant from an ordinary arrest; it is a form of
entrapment which has repeatedly been accepted to be a valid means of arresting
violators of the Dangerous Drugs Law. In a buy-bust operation, the violator is
caught in flagrante delicto and the police officers conducting the operation are
not only authorized, but duty-bound, to apprehend the violator and to search him
for anything that may have been part of or used in the commission of the crime.
People vs. Medinilla @ "Mao,"
People vs. Candellada -

Palm Tree States vs. PNB -

Valdez vs. Torres - http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/MTJ-11-

1796.htm
- Prompt disposition of cases is attained basically through the efficiency and
dedication to duty of judges. If they do not possess those traits, delay in the
disposition of cases is inevitable to the prejudice of litigants. Accordingly,
judges should be imbued with a high sense of duty and responsibility in the
discharge of their obligation to promptly administer justice.[21]
- Unfortunately, respondent failed to live up to the exacting standards of duty and
responsibility that her position requires. Civil Case No. 20191 was submitted for
resolution on July 19, 2006, yet it was still pending when complainant filed the
present administrative complaint on June 4, 2010, and remained unresolved per
complainants manifestation filed on September 8, 2010. More than four years after
being submitted for resolution, Civil Case No. 20191 was still awaiting decision by
respondent.
- Respondent irrefragably failed to decide Civil Case No. 20191 within the 30-day
period prescribed by the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure. Her inaction in Civil
Case No. 20191 is contrary to the rationale behind the Rule on Summary Procedure,
which was precisely adopted to promote a more expeditious and inexpensive
determination of cases, and to enforce the constitutional rights of litigants to
the speedy disposition of cases.[22] Indeed, respondent even failed to decide
Civil Case No. 20191 within the three-month period mandated in general by the
Constitution for lower courts to decide or resolve cases. Records do not show that
respondent made any previous attempt to report and request for extension of time to
resolve Civil Case No. 20191.
People vs. Garcia -
Republic vs. De Guzman -

People vs. Coronado -

People vs. Morante -

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/november2012/187732.pdf
Binayug vs. Ugaddan -

The Baguio Regreening Movement, Inc. vs. Atty Masweng -

People vs. Batula @ "Cesar" -

Astorga and Repol Law Offices vs. Roxas -

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/august2012/P-12-3029.pdf
Antiquina vs. Magsaysay Maritime Corporation -

- [t]he burden of proof rests upon the party who asserts the affirmative of an
issue. And in labor cases, the quantum of proof necessary is substantial evidence,
or such amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as
adequate to justify a conclusion.
OCA vs. Gutierrez III -

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/P-11-2951.htm
- Gutierrezs deliberate attempt to conceal or suppress his absence on February 26,
2010 by falsifying his DTR manifested his lack of integrity and responsibility.
His act constitutes dishonesty.
- Dishonesty has been defined as "the disposition to lie, cheat, deceive, or
defraud; untrustworthiness; lack of integrity; lack of honesty, probity or
integrity in principle; lack of fairness and straightforwardness; disposition to
defraud, deceive or betray."[9]
- It is well to remind Gutierrez that dishonesty is a malevolent act that has no
place in the judiciary. Public service requires utmost integrity and discipline.
A public servant must exhibit at all times the highest sense of honesty and
integrity, for no less than the Constitution declares that a public office is a
public trust, and all public officers and employees must at all times be
accountable to the people, and serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity,
loyalty and efficiency. These are not mere rhetorical words to be taken lightly as
idealistic sentiments, but as working standards and attainable goals that should be
matched with actual deeds.[10]
- Dishonesty, being in the nature of a grave offense, carries the extreme penalty
of dismissal from the service with forfeiture of retirement benefits except accrued
leave credits, and perpetual disqualification for reemployment in government
service.
People vs. Escleto -

- There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against persons,
employing means, methods, or forms in the execution, which tend directly and
specially to insure its execution, without risk to the offender arising from the
defense which the offended party might make.[16] We have also held that: [i]n
order for treachery to be properly appreciated, two elements must be present: (1)
at the time of the attack, the victim was not in a position to defend himself; and
(2) the accused consciously and deliberately adopted the particular means, methods
or forms of attack employed by him. The essence of treachery is the sudden and
unexpected attack by an aggressor on the unsuspecting victim, depriving the latter
of any chance to defend himself and thereby ensuring its commission without risk of
himself.
- As to damages, when death occurs due to a crime, the following may be awarded:
(1) civil indemnity ex delicto for the death of the victim; (2) actual or
compensatory damages; (3) moral damages; (4) exemplary damages; and (5) temperate
damages.[21]
- Civil indemnity in the amount of P75,000.00 is mandatory and is granted without
need of evidence other than the commission of the crime. Moral damages in the sum
of P50,000.00 shall be awarded despite the absence of proof of mental and emotional
suffering of the victims heirs. As borne out by human nature and experience, a
violent death invariably and necessarily brings about emotional pain and anguish on
the part of the victims family. Also under Article 2230 of the Civil Code,
exemplary damages may be imposed when the crime was committed with one or more
aggravating circumstances, like treachery, as in this case. Thus, the award of
P30,000.00 for exemplary damages is in order.[22]
- As regards actual damages, Merly, Alfredos widow, testified that she and her
family incurred expenses for Alfredos burial and wake; however, Merly failed to
present receipts to substantiate her claim. Where the amount of actual damages for
funeral expenses cannot be ascertained due to the absence of receipts to prove
them, temperate damages in the sum of P25,000.00 may be granted in lieu thereof.
Under Article 2224 of the Civil Code, temperate damages may be recovered as it
cannot be denied that the heirs of the victim suffered pecuniary loss although the
exact amount was not proved.[23]
People vs. Resureccion -

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2013/june2013/188310.pdf
People vs. Tejero -

Datu vs. People -

People vs. Dejillo -

People vs. Velasquez -

Gonzalez vs. Torres - http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/MTJ-09-

1733.htm
RE: REPORT ON FINANCIAL AUDIT CONDUCTED AT MCTC, SANTIAGO-SAN ESTEBAN, ILOCOS SUR
- http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/january2012/P-11-2950.htm
People vs. Diaz - http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2013/june2013/200882.pdf
Sta. Lucia Realty & Development, Inc. vs. Municipality of Cainta -

De La Salle University vs. DLSUEA-NAFTEU -

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/august2012/169254.pdf
Tarona vs. CA - http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/june2009/170182.htm
People vs. Gustaffon -

Senarlo vs Paderanga - http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/april2010/RTJ-

06-2025.htm
People vs. De Los Santos -

People vs. Baroquillo -

People vs. Padigos -

People vs. Tauli -

- Clearly, in view of a supervening event, it is unnecessary for the Court to rule
on Ayochoks appeal. Whether or not he was guilty of the crime charged has become
irrelevant since, following Article 89(1) of the Revised Penal Code and our
disquisition in Bayotas, even assuming Ayochok had incurred any criminal liability,
it was totally extinguished by his death. Moreover, because Ayochoks appeal was
still pending and no final judgment of conviction had been rendered against him
when he died, his civil liability arising from the crime, being civil liability ex
delicto, was likewise extinguished by his death.
People vs. Oriel -

People vs. Paniterce -

People vs. Osma, Jr. -

People vs. Amistoso y Broca -

PNB vs. CIR - http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/december2011/172458.htm
People vs. Malicdem y Molina -

Republic vs. Marawi-Marantao General Hospital, Inc.-

People vs Dulay -
Manzano vs. Garcia -

Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation vs. Hilario -

People vs. Piosang -

People vs. Garchitorena -

Fair Shipping Corp. vs. Medel -

PNB vs. Hydro Resources Contractors Corporation -

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2013/march2013/167530.pdf
RV Santos Company, Inc. vs. Belle Corporation -

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/october2012/159561-62.pdf
People vs. Regalario -

Sugue vs. Triumph International -

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/jan2009/164804.htm
People vs. Mangune -

Standard Chartered BAnk vs. SCBEU -

People vs. Guelas -

DBP vs. Traverse Development Corporation -

Alcantara vs. PCIB -

- While it is true that the rules of procedure are intended to promote rather than
frustrate the ends of justice, and the swift unclogging of court docket is a
laudable objective, it nevertheless must not be met at the expense of substantial
justice. This Court has time and again reiterated the doctrine that the rules of
procedure are mere tools aimed at facilitating the attainment of justice, rather
than its frustration. A strict and rigid application of the rules must always be
eschewed when it would subvert the primary objective of the rules, that is, to
enhance fair trials and expedite justice. Technicalities should never be used to
defeat the substantive rights of the other party. Every party-litigant must be
afforded the amplest opportunity for the proper and just determination of his
cause, free from the constraints of technicalities. Considering that there was
substantial compliance, a liberal interpretation of procedural rules in this labor
case is more in keeping with the constitutional mandate to secure social justice.
- As a general rule, employers are allowed a wider latitude of discretion in
terminating the employment of managerial personnel or those who, while not of
similar rank, perform functions which by their nature require the employers full
trust and confidence. This must be distinguished from the case of ordinary rank
and file employees, whose termination on the basis of these same grounds requires a
higher proof of involvement in the events in question; mere uncorroborated
assertions and accusations by the employer will not suffice.[29]
- On the issue of due process, it is settled that notice and hearing constitute the
essential elements of due process in the dismissal of employees. The employer must
furnish the employee with two written notices before termination of employment can
be legally effected. The first apprises the employee of the particular acts or
omissions for which his dismissal is sought. The second informs the employee of
the employers decision to dismiss him. With regard to the requirement of a
hearing, the essence of due process lies simply in an opportunity to be heard, and
not that an actual hearing should always and indispensably be held
People vs. Bernabe y Garcia -

- While witnesses may differ in their recollections of an incident, it does not
necessarily follow from their disagreement that all of them should be disbelieved
as liars and their testimonies completely discarded as worthless. As long as the
mass of testimony jibes on material points, the slight clashing statements neither
dilute the witnesses credibility nor the veracity of their testimony, for indeed,
such inconsistencies are but natural and even enhance credibility as these
discrepancies indicate that the responses are honest and unrehearsed.
- xxx The test in appreciating cruelty as an aggravating circumstance is whether
the accused deliberately and sadistically augmented the wrong by causing another
wrong not necessary for its commission and inhumanly increased the victims
suffering or outraged or scoffed at his/her person or corpse. The victim in this
case was already weak and almost dying when appellant Bonito inserted the cassava
trunk inside her private organ. What appellant Bonito did to her was totally
unnecessary for the criminal act intended and it undoubtedly inhumanly increased
her suffering. xxx
- Indemnification for loss of earning capacity partakes of the nature of actual
damages which must be duly proven. The certificate of employment which did not
state the victims salary is not enough proof for lost income to be recovered.
There must likewise be an unbiased proof of the deceaseds average income. An
award for loss of earning capacity refers to the net income of the deceased, i.e.,
his total income net of expenses.
People vs. Mores -

People vs. Magundayao y Alejandro @ "Rose" -

Jarantilla vs. Jarantilla -

Pfizer, Inc. vs. Velasco -

- In sum, the Court reiterates the principle that reinstatement pending appeal
necessitates that it must be immediately self-executory without need for a writ of
execution during the pendency of the appeal, if the law is to serve its noble
purpose, and any attempt on the part of the employer to evade or delay its
execution should not be allowed. Furthermore, we likewise restate our ruling that
an order for reinstatement entitles an employee to receive his accrued backwages
from the moment the reinstatement order was issued up to the date when the same was
reversed by a higher court without fear of refunding what he had received.
Dycoco vs. CA - http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2013/july2013/147257.pdf
Oropesa vs. CA - http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/april2012/184528.htm
Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils, Inc. vs. Villar -

- Redundancy, for purposes of the Labor Code, exists where the services of an
employee are in excess of what is reasonably demanded by the actual requirements of
the enterprise. Succinctly put, a position is redundant where it is superfluous,
and superfluity of a position or positions may be the outcome of a number of
factors, such as overhiring of workers, decreased volume of business, or dropping
of a particular product line or service activity previously manufactured or
undertaken by the enterprise.[33]
- The determination that the employee's services are no longer necessary or
sustainable and, therefore, properly terminable for being redundant is an exercise
of business judgment of the employer. The wisdom or soundness of this judgment is
not subject to discretionary review of the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC, provided
there is no violation of law and no showing that it was prompted by an arbitrary or
malicious act. In other words, it is not enough for a company to merely declare
that it has become overmanned. It must produce adequate proof of such redundancy
to justify the dismissal of the affected employees.
Spouses Anunciacion vs. Bocanegra -

The Law Firm of Raymundo Armovit vs. CA -

- It is basic that when there is a conflict between the dispositive portion or
fallo of a Decision and the opinion of the court contained in the text or body of
the judgment, the former prevails over the latter. An order of execution is based
on the disposition, not on the body, of the Decision. This rule rests on the
theory that the fallo is the final order while the opinion in the body is merely a
statement ordering nothing.
- Indeed, the foregoing rule is not without an exception. We have held that where
the inevitable conclusion from the body of the decision is so clear as to show that
there was a mistake in the dispositive portion, the body of the decision will
prevail. x x x.[29]
- Applying this ruling to the case at bar, it is clear that the statement in the
body of our 1991 Decision (that we do not find Atty. Armovits claim for twenty
percent of all recoveries to be unreasonable[30]) is not an order which can be
the subject of execution. Neither can we ascertain from the body of the Decision
an inevitable conclusion clearly showing a mistake in the dispositive portion.
People vs. Magayon -


Leonardo-De Castro

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Leonardo-De Castro

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

---------------------------------------------------------

Compiled by f?? of https://www.facebook.com/groups/PHLSG/

She authored the Katarungang Pambarangay Law.

Controversial Cases Handled:

- Boracay reclamation project

Boracay Foundation Inc., vs. The Province of Aklan -

GSIS vs. COA -

Fort Bonifacio Development Corporation vs CIR -

Panlilio vs. COMELEC -

Pacanan vs. COMELEC -

Barillo vs. Lantion -

Bedol vs. COMELEC -

Albana vs. Belo -

Mangudadatu vs. HRET -

BPI vs. BPI Employees Union-Davao Chapter-Federation of Unions of BPI Unibank -

Rimando vs. COMELEC -

Fontana Resort and Country Club, Inc. vs. Spouses Tan -

Valencia vs. Antiniw -

Silkair vs. CIR -

OCA vs. Judge Aguilar - http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/june2011/RTJ-

Senior Citizens Party List vs. COMELEC -

People vs. Sarcia -

People vs. Ildefonso -

People vs. Lopit -

CSC vs. Macud -

Barbo vs. COA -

Quirog vs. CSC -

GSIS vs. COA - http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/october2011/162372.htm

Wong vs. Moya II -

Menor vs. Guillermo - http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/december2008/P-

People vs. Mariano -

Francisco, Jr. vs. Ombudsman Disierto -

Fernandez vs. HRET -

Yap vs. COA - http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/april2010/158562.htm

Boy Scouts of the Philippines vs. COA -

Agra vs. COA -

Arroyo vs. De Lima -

Dela Cruz vs. Zapico -

Neri vs. SCAPO -

Agno vs. Cagatan - http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/july2008/4515.htm

Mallonga vs. Manio - http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/april2009/P-07-

Inonog vs. Judge Ibay - http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/RTJ-

OCA vs. Judge Perello -

Virgilio vs. Executive Secretary -

Heirs of Aspiras vs. Judge Ganay -

Spouses Leynes vs. CA -

== Concurring Special En Banc ==

People vs. Dimapanan -

Garcia vs. Villar -

Pacific Ocean Manning vs. Penales -

Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon vs. Francisco -

South Cotobato Communications Corporation vs. Hon. Sto Tomas -

People vs. Mangulabnan -

MEMORANDA OF JUDGE ELIZA B. YU ISSUED TO LEGAL RESEARCHER MARIEJOY P. LAGMAN AND TO

People vs. Longhas -

People vs. Barra -

Land Bank of the Philippines vs. Santiago -

People vs. Del Rosario @ "Aging" -

People vs. Macabalang -

People vs. Buenaventura -

People vs. Medinilla @ "Mao,"

People vs. Candellada -

Palm Tree States vs. PNB -