Professional Documents
Culture Documents
July 2014 Digested Cases
July 2014 Digested Cases
Issue: The core issue for the Courts resolution is whether the RTC-SACs
determination of just compensation for the property at _25,000,000.00, with
10% attorneys fees, is proper.
Held: No. The determination of just compensation is essentially a judicial
function that the Courts exercise within the parameters of the law; the RTCSACs valuation in this case is erroneous for having been rendered outside the
contemplation of the law. Jurisprudence settles that the determination of just
compensation is fundamentally a function of the courts.31 Section 57 of R.A. No. 6657
explicitly vests in the RTC-SAC the original and exclusive jurisdiction to determine just
compensation for lands taken pursuant to the States agrarian reform program. To
guide the RTC-SAC in the exercise of its function, Section 17 of R.A. No. 6657
enumerates the factors that the RTC-SAC must take into account in its determination,
i.e., cost of acquisition of the land, the current value of like properties, its nature,
actual use and income, the sworn valuation by the owner, the tax declarations and the
assessment made by the government assessors, among others.
6. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, VS. OILINK INTERNATIONAL
CORPORATION, - July 2, 2014
Facts: This appeal is brought by the Commissioner of Customs to seek the
review and reversal of the decision promulgated on September 29, 2003,1
whereby the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the adverse ruling of the Court
of Tax Appeals (CTA) declaring the assessment for deficiency taxes and
duties against Oilink International Corporation (Oilink) null and void.
Issue: W/N CTA has jurisdiction over the case.
Held: Yes. There is no question that the CTA had the jurisdiction over the case.
Republic Act No. 1125, the law creating the CTA, defined the appellate
jurisdiction of the CTA as follows:
Section 7. Jurisdiction. - The Court of Tax Appeals shall exercise exclusive appellate
jurisdiction to review by appeal, as herein provided:
xxxx
2. Decisions of the Commissioner of Customs in cases involving liability for Customs duties,
fees or other money charges; seizure, detention or release of property affected; fines,
forfeitures or other penalties imposed in relation thereto; or other matters arising under the
Customs Law or other law or part of law administered by the Bureau of Customs;
7. PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE T14ELEPHONE COMPANY,- versusMILLARD R. OCAMPO et al July 9, 2014
Facts: In February 1996, petitioner Philippine Long Distance Telephone
Company (PLDT), through its Quality Control Investigation Division (QCID),
conducted an investigation on the alleged illegal International Simple Resale (ISR) activities
in Makati City. After confirming that some PLDT subscribers were indeed operating ISR
businesses in Makati City, under the business names INFILNET and Emergency Monitoring
System9 (EMS), petitioner requested the assistance of the National Bureau of Investigation
(NBI) to apprehend the said subscribers.
Issue: W/N the CA erred in giving due course to the Petition for Certiorari, and in
subsequently granting the same despite evident procedural lapses.
Held: The CA erred. Section 4, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court provides that a special civil
action for certiorari should be instituted within 60 days from notice of the judgment, order, or
resolution, or from the notice of the denial of the motion for reconsideration of the judgment,
order, or resolution being assailed. The 60-day period, however, is inextendible to avoid any
unreasonable delay, which would violate the constitutional rights of parties to a speedy
disposition of their cases.55 Thus, strict compliance of this rule is mandatory and imperative.
But like all rules, the 60-day limitation may be relaxed for the most persuasive of reasons,
which must be sufficiently shown by the party invoking liberality. In the absence of a motion
for reconsideration, the Petition for Certiorari should have been dismissed.
8. ALOYSIUS DAIT LUMAUIG, vs. People of the Philippines July 7, 2014
Facts: Sometime in January 1998, Commission on Audit (COA) Auditor Florence L.
Paguirigan examined the year-end reports involving the municipal officials of Alfonso Lista,
Ifugao. During the course of her examination of the records and related documents of the
municipality, she came across a disbursement voucher6 for P101,736.00 prepared for
petitioner, a former mayor of the municipality, as cash advance for the payment of freight and
other cargo charges for 12 units of motorcycles supposed to be donated to the municipality.
Issue: W/N a prior notice or demand for liquidation of cash advances is a condition
sine qua non before an accountable public officer may be held liable under Article
218 of the Revised Penal Code.
Held: No. Article 218 consists of the following elements:
1. that the offender is a public officer, whether in the service or separated therefrom;
2. that he must be an accountable officer for public funds or property;
3. that he is required by law or regulation to render accounts to the Commission on Audit, or to
a provincial auditor; and
4. that he fails to do so for a period of two months after such accounts should be rendered.
Nowhere in the provision does it require that there first be a demand before an accountable
officer is held liable for a violation of the crime. The law is very clear. Where none is provided,
the court may not introduce exceptions or conditions, neither may it engraft into the law
qualifications not contemplated. Where the law is clear and unambiguous, it must be taken to
mean exactly what it says and the court has no choice but to see to it that its mandate is obeyed.
There is no room for interpretation, but only application.
9. SOLEDAD L. LAVADIA,- versus -HEIRS OF JUAN LUCES LUNA,
represented by GREGORIO Z.LUNA and EUGENIA ZABALLERO-LUNA July 23,
2014
Facts: The petitioner, the second wife of the late Atty. Juan Luces Luna, appeals the adverse
decision promulgated on November 11, 2005, 1 whereby the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed
with modification the decision rendered on August 27, 2001 by the Regional Trial Court
(RTC), Branch 138, in Makati City.2 The CA thereby denied her right in the 25/100 pro
indiviso share of the husband in a condominium unit, and in the law books of the husband
acquired during the second marriage.
Issue: W/N plaintiff should be entitled to the 25/100 pro indiviso share in the condominium
unit; and to the law books (i.e., Corpus Juris, Fletcher on Corporation, American Jurisprudence
and Federal Supreme Court Reports).
Held: No. Due to the second marriage between Atty. Luna and the petitioner being void ab
initio by virtue of its being bigamous, the properties acquired during the bigamous marriage
were governed by the rules on co-ownership, conformably with Article 144 of the Civil Code,
viz:
Article 144. When a man and a woman live together as husband and wife, but they are not
married, or their marriage is void from the beginning, the property acquired by either or both of
them through their work or industry or their wages and salaries shall be governed by the rules
on co-ownership.(n)
In such a situation, whoever alleges co-ownership carried the burden of proof to confirm such
fact. To establish co-ownership, therefore, it became imperative for the petitioner to offer proof
of her actual contributions in the acquisition of property. Her mere allegation of co-ownership,
without sufficient and competent evidence, would warrant no relief in her favor.
Divorce between Filipinos is void and ineffectual under the nationality rule adopted by
Philippine law. Hence, any settlement of property between the parties of the first marriage
involving Filipinos submitted as an incident of a divorce obtained in a foreign country lacks
competent judicial approval, and cannot be enforceable against the assets of the husband who
contracts a subsequent marriage.
10. THE HERITAGE HOTEL MANILA, ACTING THROUGH ITS OWNER, GRAND
PLAZA HOTEL CORPORATION,- versus - SECRETARY OF LABOR AND
EMPLOYMENT et. Al July 23, 2014
Facts: On October 11, 1995, respondent National Union of Workers in Hotel
Held: No. Basic in the realm of labor union rights is that the certification
election is the sole concern of the workers, and the employer is deemed an
intruder as far as the certification election is concerned.30 Thus, the petitioner
lacked the legal personality to assail the proceedings for the certification
election, and should stand aside as a mere bystander who could not oppose
the petition, or even appeal the Med-Arbiters orders relative to the conduct
of the certification election. The petitioners meddling in the conduct of the
certification election among its employees unduly gave rise to the suspicion that
it intended to establish a company union.34 For that reason, the challenges it posed
against the certification election proceedings were rightly denied.
11. CATHAY METAL CORPORATION, VS. LAGUNA WEST MULTIPURPOSE COOPERATIVE, INC.
Facts: Respondent Laguna West Multi-Purpose Cooperative is a cooperative
recognized under Republic Act No. 6657 or the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform
Law. It allegedly entered into a joint venture agreement with farmer-beneficiaries
through Certificates of Land Ownership Award (CLOA) in Silang, Cavite. While
respondent was negotiating with the farmer-beneficiaries, petitioner Cathay Metal
Corporation entered into Irrevocable Exclusive Right to Buy (IERB) contracts
with the same farmer beneficiaries. Under the IERB, the farmer-beneficiaries
committed themselves to sell to petitioner their agricultural properties upon
conversion to industrial or commercial properties or upon expiration of the period
of prohibition from transferring title to the properties.
Issue: W/N respondent was validly served with summon.
Held: No. We rule that respondent was not validly served with summons or
notice of the hearing. The Rules of Court governs court procedures, including the
rules on service of notices and summons. The Cooperative Code provision on notices
cannot replace the rules on summons under the Rules of Court. Rule 14, Section 11
of the Rules of Court provides an- exclusive enumeration of the persons authorized
to receive summons for juridical entities. These persons are the juridical entity's
president, managing partner, general manager, corporate secretary, treasurer, or inhouse counsel. However, its annotations of adverse claims should be cancelled for
being based on a future claim. A claim based on a future right does not ripen into
an adverse claim as defined in Section 70 of Presidential Decree No. 1529. A
right still subject to negotiations cannot be enforced against a title holder or
against one that has a legitimate title to the property based on possession,
ownership, lien, or any valid deed of transfer.
2001, petitioners were arrested at the corner of Gueco St. and MacArthur
Highway, Balibago, Angeles City for delivering, with the intention to sell, five
cases of counterfeit Fundador Brandy. On the strength of the Joint Affidavit6 of
the police operatives, petitioners were formally charged in an Information7 dated
July 6, 2004 with violation of Section 155 in relation to Section 170 of Republic
Act No. 8293, otherwise known as the Intellectual Property Code of the
Philippines.
Issue: W/N THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE
OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION IN
DENYING THE MOTION OF THE PETITIONERS TO SET THE CASE FOR
SUPPRESSION HEARING.
Issue: W/N the petition of relief for judgment by the petitioner be granted.
Held: Yes. Rule 38 of the Rules of Court allows for the remedy called a petition
for relief from judgment. This is an equitable remedy allowed in exceptional
cases when there is no other available or adequate remedy that will allow for
substantive justice.
Section 1 of Rule 38 provides for the grounds that warrant the filing of a petition
under Rule 38:
SECTION 1. Petition for relief from judgment, order, or other proceedings. When a judgment
or final order is entered, or any other proceeding is thereafter taken against a party in any court
through fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence, he may file a petition in such court
and in the same case praying that the judgment, order or proceeding be set aside.
(Emphasissupplied)
Courts may set aside final and executory judgments provided that any of the
grounds for their grant are present.
14. CRISANTO F. CASTRO, JR., - versus - ATENEO DE NAGA
UNIVERSITY, FR. JOEL TABORA, and MR. EDWIN BERNAL, - July 23,
2014
Facts: The petitioner started his employment with respondent Ateneo de Naga
University (University) in the first semester of school year 1960-1961. At the time of
his dismissal, he was a regular and full-time faculty member of the University's
Accountancy Department in the College of Commerce with a monthly salary of
P29,846.20.3 Allegedly, he received on February 22, 2000 a letter from respondent Fr.
Joel Tabora, SJ., the University President, informing him that his contract (which was
set to expire on May 31, 2000) would no longer be renewed.4 After several attempts to
discuss the matter with Fr. Tabora in person, and not having been given any teaching
load or other assignments effective June 2000, he brought his complaint for illegal
dismissal.
Issue: W/N Claim for accrued benefits should be sustained despite dismissal of the
petitioner's complaint.
Held: Yes. The employer is obliged to reinstate and to pay the wages of the dismissed
employee during the period of appeal until its reversal by the higher Court; and that
because he was not reinstated either actually or by payroll, he should be held entitled to
the accrued salaries. Article 279 of the Labor Code, as amended, entitles an illegally
dismissed employee to reinstatement. Article 223 of the Labor Code requires the
reinstatement to be immediately executory even pending appeal. With its intent being
ostensibly to promote the benefit of the employee, Article 223 cannot be the source of
any right of the employer to remove the employee should he fail to immediately comply
with the order of reinstatement.31 In Roquero, the Comi ruled that the unjustified refusal
of the employer to reinstate the dismissed employee would entitle the latter to the
payment of his salaries effective from the time when the employer failed to reinstate
him; thus, it became the ministerial duty of the LA to implement the order of
reinstatement.
15. MANOLITO GIL Z. ZAFRA, vs. People of the Philippines July 23, 2014
Facts: This appeal by petition for review on certiorari is taken from the judgment
promulgated on August 16, 2006, 1 whereby the Court of Appeals affirmed the
consolidated decision rendered on February 17, 2004 by the Regional Trial Court
(RTC) in San Fernando, La Union in Criminal Cases Nos. 4634 to Nos. 4651,
inclusive,2 finding Manolito Gil Z. Zafra, a Revenue Collection Agent of the Bureau
of Internal Revenue (BIR) assigned in Revenue District 3 in San Fernando, La