Remedial Law Case Digests 2

RE ME DI AL L AW
CAS E DI GE S T S
LAMBDA EPSI L ON XI DVOREF COL L EGE OF LAW
Table of Contents
Jurisdiction 1 - 3
Summary Procedure 3 - 4
Criminal Procedure 4 - 12
Civil Procedure 12 - 29
Evidence 30 - 40
Special Procedure 40 - 42
JRISDICTION
BARANGA! CONCILIATION
V"a# DE VILLANEVA$ et# al# V# CA
01 Feb 2001
Fa%ts& P iled an action a!ainst " or recovery o o#ners$ip o a parcel o land% "
&uestioned P's ailure to submit t$e issue to baran!ay conciliation%
Iss'e& (s t$ere a need to submit to baran!ay conciliation)
(el"& *o% +$e action or recovery #as iled in 1991% +$e ,ocal -overnment Code
re&uirin! conciliation too. eect only in 1992% /esides0 P and " are not even residents o
t$e same province% *o lupon $as 1urisdiction over cases #$ere t$e parties are not actual
residents o t$e same city or municipality%
SANDIGANBA!AN
ABBOT V# MAPA!O
332 SC34 252 6July 20007
Fa%ts& 4 #as c$ar!ed beore t$e Sandi!anbayan% +$e case #as transerred to 3+C by
virtue o 3%4% 8982% +$e 3+C denied 4's omnibus motion so $e iled a petition or
certiorari #it$ t$e C4% +$e Solicitor -eneral opined t$at t$e Sandi!anbayan $ad
1urisdiction over t$e petition and not t$e C4%
Iss'e& 9$et$er t$e Sandi!anbayan $ad 1urisdiction over t$e petition or certiorari%
(el"& :es% (n ; 4 6c7 o 34 89820 t$e 1urisdiction o t$e Sandi!anbayan #as e<panded
to include petitions or issuance o #rits o mandamus0 pro$ibition0 certiorari0 $abeas
corpus0 in1unction and ot$er ancillary #rits and processes in aid o its appellate
1urisdiction%
SOLLER V# SANDIGANBA!AN
9 =ay 2001
Fa%ts> 4 complaint #as iled a!ainst 40 a municipal mayor0 #it$ t$e ?ice o t$e
?mbudsman c$ar!in! $im o !ivin! alse and abricated inormation in t$e autopsy
report to mislead t$e la# enorcement a!ency and prevent t$e appre$ension o t$e
oender% +$e ?ice o t$e ?mbudsman recommended t$e ilin! o an inormation #it$
t$e Sandi!anbayan%
Iss'e> "oes t$e Sandi!anbayan $ave 1urisdiction over t$e case)
(el"> For an oense to all #it$in t$e 1urisdiction o t$e Sandi!anbayan0 t$e oense
must $ave been committed by t$e oicials enunciated in para!rap$ 6a7 @in relation to
t$eir oice0A i%e% it s$ould be intimately connected #it$ t$e oice o t$e oender0 and
s$ould $ave been perpetrated #$ile t$e oender #as in t$e perormance o $is oicial
unctions% =oreover0 t$ese re&uisites must be alle!ed in t$e inormation% (n t$is case0
1
RE ME DI AL L AW
CAS E DI GE S T S
t$ere #as no alle!ation t$at t$e oense c$ar!ed #as done in t$e perormance o oicial
unction%
JRISDICTION OVER MEMBERS OF T(E ARMED FORCES
PEOPLE V# REPIROGA
18 =ay 2001
Fa%ts> 4 #as a member o t$e P$ilippine 4rmy% 4 complaint #as iled beore t$e ?ice
o t$e Provincial Prosecutor c$ar!in! 4 #it$ murder% +$e 4ssistant Provincial Prosecutor
conducted a preliminary investi!ation and later recommended t$e ilin! o an
inormation%
Iss'es> S$ould t$e preliminary investi!ation be conducted by an authorized military
officer beore any inormation could be iled a!ainst 4FP members) "oes t$e aut$ority
to ile c$ar!es a!ainst $im lies #it$in t$e 1urisdiction o t$e ?ice o t$e ?mbudsman)
(el"> *o% +$ere is not$in! in 4rt% 81 o C4 40B t$at e<clusively vests t$e aut$ority on a
military oicer to conduct preliminary investi!ation in cases involvin! members o t$e
4FP% (t simply mentions an @investi!atin! oicerA #$o s$all e<amine available #itnesses
re&uested by t$e accused0 #it$out reerence to $is bein! a military oicer%
-iven t$e ore!oin!0 t$e contention o 4 t$at t$e aut$ority to ile c$ar!es a!ainst
$im lies #it$in t$e 1urisdiction o t$e ?ice o t$e ?mbudsman cannot be up$eld% Cnder
4? B0 t$e po#er o t$e ?mbudsman to conduct preliminary investi!ation over a military
case may be e<ercised to!et$er #it$ any provincial or city prosecutor or $is assistants
since all prosecutors are no# deputiDed ?mbudsman prosecutors% (t is only in t$e
prosecution o cases co!niDable by t$e Sandi!anbayan #$ere t$e ?mbudsman en1oys
e<clusive control and supervision%
RTC JRISDICTION
VILLEGAS V# CA
1 Feb% 2001
Fa%ts> (n a case or t$e reconstitution o an ori!inal +C+0 t$e postin! o t$e notice o t$e
petition in t$e provincial or municipal buildin! o t$e city or municipality #$ere t$e sub1ect
property is located #as not proven%
Iss'e> "id t$e court $ave 1urisdiction over t$e petition)
(el"> *o% +$e proceedin! bein! in rem0 t$e court ac&uires 1urisdiction to $ear and
decide t$e petition or t$e reconstitution o t$e o#ner's title upon compliance #it$ t$e
re&uired postin! o notices and publication in t$e ?icial -aDette% +$ese re&uirements
and procedure are mandatory and must be strictly complied #it$0 ot$er#ise0 t$e
proceedin!s are utterly void0 #$ic$ is #$y t$e petitioner is re&uired to submit proo o t$e
publication and postin! o t$e notice%
TALSAN V# TA!AG
04 4pr% 2001
Fa%ts> +$e 3+C0 actin! as a land re!istration court0 ruled on t$e validity o t$e auction
sale o t$e sub1ect parcel o land% E believes t$e 3+C $as no 1urisdiction to resolve t$is
issue and instituted a separate action to annul t$e auction sale%
Iss'e> "oes t$e 3+C0 actin! as a land re!istration court0 $ave 1urisdiction to resolve t$e
said issue)
(el"> :es% ,and re!istration courts0 as suc$0 can no# $ear and decide even
controversial and contentious cases0 as #ell as t$ose invo.in! substantial issues% +$e
court no# $as t$e aut$ority to act not only on applications or ori!inal re!istration0 but
also on all petitions iled ater t$e ori!inal re!istration o title% Coupled #it$ t$is aut$ority
2
RE ME DI AL L AW
CAS E DI GE S T S
is t$e po#er to $ear and determine all &uestions arisin! upon suc$ applications or
petitions%
PEOPLE V# OBINA
20 4pr% 2001
Fa%ts> 4 #as c$ar!ed in t$e 3+C o ,as Pinas or rape% +$e evidence introduced by t$e
prosecution0 $o#ever0 points to *asu!bu0 /atan!as as bein! t$e scene o t$e oense%
Iss'e> S$ould t$e 3+C o ,as Pinas dismiss t$e case or lac. o 1urisdiction)
(el"> :es% +$e concept o venue o actions in criminal cases0 unli.e civil cases0 is
1urisdictional% +$e ilin! o a criminal case #it$ t$e #ron! court can oust t$e court rom
tryin! t$e case% For lac. o 1urisdiction0 t$e case s$ould $ave been dismissed by t$e
court a quo%
APPELLATE JRISDICTION OVER DECISIONS OF T(E OMBDSMAN IN ADMINISTRATIVE CASES
BARATA V# ABALOS$ et# al#
5 June 2001
Fa%ts& E iled an administrative disciplinary case a!ainst 4 beore t$e ?ice o t$e
?mbudsman% +$e ?mbudsman absolved 4 o t$e c$ar!e% E iled a petition or revie#
#it$ t$e SC%
Iss'e& 9$ic$ court $as appellate 1urisdiction over t$e decisions o t$e ?mbudsman in
administrative cases)
(el"& +$e Court o 4ppeals under 3ule 43% +$e last para!rap$ o Section 28 #$ic$
provides t$at in all administrative disciplinary cases0 orders0 directives0 or decisions o
t$e ?ice o t$e ?mbudsman may be appealed to t$e SC #as rendered invalid and o
no eect in t$e case o Fabian vs. Desierto #$ic$ laid do#n t$e rule t$at said Section
28 cannot validly aut$oriDe an appeal to t$e SC rom decisions o t$e ?ice o t$e
?mbudsman in administrative disciplinary cases #it$out violatin! t$e proscription in
Section 300 4rticle F( o t$e Constitution a!ainst a la# #$ic$ increases t$e appellate
1urisdiction o t$is Court #it$out its advice and concurrence% +$us0 appeals rom
decisions o t$e ?ice o t$e ?mbudsman in administrative disciplinary cases s$ould be
brou!$t to t$e C4 under t$e provisions o 3ule 43% 6+$e only provision aected by t$e
Fabian rulin! is t$e desi!nation o t$e C4 as t$e proper orum and o 3ule 43 o t$e
3ules o Court as t$e proper mode o appealG all ot$er matters included in said Section
280 includin! t$e inality or non-inality o decisions0 are not aected and still stand7
SMMAR! PROCEDRE
CATNGAL V# (AO
22 =arc$ 2001
Fa%ts& " #as t$e lessee o E% ,ater0 P bou!$t t$e property rom E% P iled an action or
e1ectment a!ainst "% +C ordered " to vacate% /ecause P disa!reed #it$ t$e +C's rulin!
as to t$e rent0 P sou!$t reconsideration o t$e order #$ile " iled a notice o appeal%
(nstead o resolvin! t$e =otion or 3econsideration0 t$e +C issued an order elevatin! t$e
case to t$e 3+C #$ic$ in turn modiied t$e decision in avor o C% C4 ruled in "'s avor%
4ccordin! to t$e C40 t$e motion iled by P beore t$e +C #as a pro$ibited pleadin!
under t$e 3ules o Summary Procedure% (n s$ort0 suc$ motion did not produce any le!al
eect%
Iss'e& "oes t$e 3+C $ave 1urisdiction to dispose o t$e issue o =otion or
3econsideration)
3
RE ME DI AL L AW
CAS E DI GE S T S
(el"& :es% 4 readin! o t$e order issued by t$e +C #ill s$o# t$at t$e said court
elevated t$e issue on t$e amount o rentals raised by P to t$e 3+C because t$e appeal
o respondent $ad already been perected% " could $ave opposed suc$ irre!ularity in t$e
proceedin! but " ailed to do so% Even i t$e motion or reconsideration is a pro$ibited
pleadin!0 " is precluded by estoppel rom &uestionin! it% +$e ar!ument o " t$at t$e
proceedin! #as a summary one is incorrect% Considerin! t$e amount o rentals and
dama!es claimed by P0 said case #as not !overned by t$e Summary 3ules as t$e
unpaid rentals e<ceed P200 000% +$us t$e ilin! o =otion or 3econsideration is allo#ed%
CRIMINAL PROCEDRE
SERVICE OF ORDERS ) RESOLTIONS IN PRELIMINAR! INVESTIGATION
TAM WING TA* V# MA*ASIAR
320 SC34 482 6Jan% 20017
Fa%ts& P iled an aidavit-complaint #it$ t$e prosecutor's oice c$ar!in! " #it$ violation
o /P 22% +$e prosecutor dismissed t$e aidavit-complaint and a copy o t$e resolution
#as sent by re!istered mail to P $imsel% P received it on 4pril 9% P's counsel received a
copy on June 28 so counsel iled a motion or reconsideration on July 8% =otion #as
denied or bein! iled out o time because t$e prosecutor counted t$e 12-day period rom
4pril 9% P ar!ued t$at ollo#in! 3ule 13 ; 20 i a party appears by counsel0 t$en service
can only be validly made upon counsel and service upon t$e party $imsel becomes
invalid and #it$out eect%
Iss'e& 9$et$er t$e period s$ould be counted rom P's receipt o t$e prosecutor's
resolution
(el"& :es% +$e 3ules #ere meant to !overn court procedures and pleadin!s% 4
preliminary investi!ation is not a court proceedin!% +$e rule on service provided or in
t$e 3ules o Court cannot be made to apply to t$e service o resolutions by public
prosecutors especially as t$e a!ency concerned 6in t$is case0 t$e "epartment o Justice7
$as its o#n procedural rules !overnin! said service% "?J ?rder 223 ; 2 provides t$at in
preliminary investi!ations0 service o resolutions o public prosecutors could be made
upon e+t,e- t$e party or $is counsel%
DOBLE JEOPARD!
MANANTAN V# CA
320 SC34 3B8 6Jan% 20017
Fa%ts& 4 #as c$ar!ed #it$ rec.less imprudence resultin! in $omicide% 4 #as ac&uitted%
Complainant appealed t$e civil aspect o t$e 1ud!ment% C4 ound 4 civilly liable% 4
contended t$at t$is amounted to double 1eopardy%
Iss'e& 9$et$er 4 #as placed in double 1eopardy%
(el"& *o% For double 1eopardy to e<ist0 t$e % elements must be establis$ed> 6a7 a 1
st
1eopardy must $ave attac$ed prior to t$e 2
nd
G 627 t$e 1
st
1eopardy must $ave terminatedG
and 637 t$e 2
nd
1eopardy must be or t$e same oense as t$e irst% (n t$is case0 #$at #as
elevated to t$e C4 #as t$e civil aspect o t$e criminal case% 4 #as not c$ar!ed ane#
#it$ a 2
nd
oense identical to t$e 1
st
% +$ere #as no 2
nd
1eopardy to spea. oG 4's claim o
$avin! been placed in double 1eopardy is incorrect%
TIME OF COMMISSION OF T(E OFFENSE
PEOPLE V# ELPEDES
320 SC34 815 6Jan% 20017
4
RE ME DI AL L AW
CAS E DI GE S T S
Fa%ts& 4 #as ound !uilty o rape% 4 ar!ued t$at $e cannot be convicted o rape
committed on Feb% 11 '98 because t$e victim testiied t$at s$e #as raped on 4u!% 11
'98% He pointed out t$at t$e victim never testiied t$at s$e #as raped on t$e date alle!ed
in t$e inormation%
Iss'e& 9$et$er 4 s$ould be ac&uitted since t$e evidence s$o#ed t$at rape #as
committed on a date ot$er t$an indicated in t$e inormation%
(el"& *o% +$e remedy a!ainst an indictment t$at ails to alle!e t$e time o commission
o t$e oense #it$ suicient deiniteness is a motion or bill o particulars 63ule 115 ;
107% 4 did not as. or a bill o particulars% +$e ailure to move or speciication or t$e
&uas$al o t$e inormation on any o t$e !rounds provided or in t$e 3ules deprives t$e
accused o t$e ri!$t to ob1ect to evidence #$ic$ could be la#ully introduced and
admitted under an inormation o more or less !eneral terms but #$ic$ suiciently
c$ar!es t$e accused #it$ a deinite crime% /esides0 t$e e<act date o t$e commission o
t$e crime is not an essential element o t$e crime%
INFORMATION
PEOPLE V# SANTIAGO
03 4pr% 2001
Fa%ts> 4n inormation #as iled0 c$ar!in! 4 #it$ t$e t#in .illin!s o 2 brot$ers% 4 ailed to
&uestion t$e duplicitous complaint% He #as later convicted or t$e oense c$ar!ed in t$e
(normation
Iss'e> ?n appeal0 can 4 &uestion t$e deectively crated inormation)
(el"> *o% +rue0 an indictment o multiple oenses in a sin!le complaint or inormation
trans!resses 3ule 1100 ; 13% 40 $o#ever0 $as ailed to timely &uestion t$e above deect
and $e may t$us be deemed to $ave #aived t$is ob1ection%
NAMES OF WITNESSES IN T(E INFORMATION
PEOPLE V# DELA CR.
349 SC34 124 6Jan% 20017
Fa%ts& 4 #as ound !uilty o murder% 9 testiied t$at $e sa# 4 s$oot t$e victim% 4
ar!ued t$at 9's name #as not mentioned durin! t$e preliminary investi!ation so 9
s$ould not $ave been presented as a #itness%
Iss'e& 9$et$er t$e prosecution #as precluded rom presentin! 9 as a #itness durin!
t$e trial%
(el"& *o% +$e non-inclusion o some o t$e names o t$e eye#itnesses in t$e
inormation does not preclude t$e prosecutor rom presentin! t$em durin! trial% +$ere is
t$us no basis or t$e alle!ation t$at t$is act indicated t$at 9's presentation as an
eye#itness #as a mere @atert$ou!$t%A
AMENDMENTS TO T(E INFORMATION
GABION.A V# CA
30 =arc$ 2001
Fa%ts& - #as c$ar!ed o violatin! 34 1151 6SSS ,a#7% He pleaded not !uilty to t$e
oense c$ar!ed% 4bout 4 years ater $e #as arrai!ned0 t$e public prosecutor iled a
motion or leave o court to amend t$e inormation in order to c$an!e t$e dates t$erein%
+$e +C !ranted t$e motion%
Iss'e& 9as t$e !rant proper)
2
RE ME DI AL L AW
CAS E DI GE S T S
(el"& :es% 4ter t$e accused enters a plea0 amendments to t$e inormation may be
allo#ed as to matters o orm0 provided t$at no pre1udice is caused to t$e ri!$ts o t$e
accused% +$e test as to #$en t$e ri!$ts o an accused are pre1udiced by t$e amendment
is #$en a deense under t$e complaint or inormation #ould no lon!er be available ater
t$e amendment is made0 and #$en any evidence t$e accused mi!$t $ave0 #ould be
inapplicable to t$e complaint or inormation as amended%
Jurisprudence allo#s amendments to inormation so lon! as>
a% it does not deprive t$e accused o t$e ri!$t to invo.e prescription
b% it does not aect or alter t$e nature o t$e oense ori!inally c$ar!ed
c% it does not involve a c$an!e in t$e basic t$eory o t$e prosecution so as to
re&uire t$e accused to under!o any material c$ar!e or modiication in $is
deense
d% it does not e<pose t$e accused to a c$ar!e #$ic$ #ould call or a $i!$er penalty
e% it does not cause surprise or deprive t$e accused o an opportunity to meet t$e
ne# averment%
(n t$is case0 t$e &uestioned amendment is one o orm only% +$e alle!ation o time
#$en an oense is committed is a matter o orm0 unless time is a material in!redient o
t$e oense%
PLEA OF GILT!
PEOPLE V# GALAS
20 =arc$ 2001
Fa%ts& 4 #as c$ar!ed #it$ 3 counts o rape o $is 12-year old dau!$ter% 4 pleaded not
!uilty #$en arrai!ned% ,ater0 4 maniested t$rou!$ counsel $is desire to c$an!e $is plea
to !uilty% "urin! t$e searc$in! in&uiry0 t$e +C 1ud!e as.ed 4 #$et$er $e is a#are t$at $e
may be convicted o reclusion perpetua to deat$% 4 said yes0 and #as t$ereore
sentenced to deat$% He no# cries improvident plea o !uilty%
Iss'e& 9as t$e plea o !uilty improvidently made)
(el"& :es% *o#$ere in t$e proceedin!s #as it e<plained to t$e accused t$at t$e
penalty imposable is deat$ even i $e pleads !uilty% (t is not enou!$ to in&uire as to t$e
voluntariness o t$e plea% +$e court must e<plain ully to t$e accused t$at once
convicted0 $e could be meted out t$e deat$ penalty% ?ne cannot dispel t$e possibility
t$at t$e accused may $ave been led to believe t$at due to $is voluntary plea o !uilty0 $e
may be imposed t$e lesser penalty o reclusion perpetua and not deat$%
PEOPLE V# ALBORIDA
22 June 2001
Fa%ts& 4 raped $is minor dau!$ter% 4t trial0 4 #it$dre# an earlier plea o not !uilty and
substituted t$e same #it$ a plea o !uilty% +$e prosecution presented evidence and
t$ereater 4 #as ound !uilty beyond reasonable doubt and #as sentenced to suer t$e
penalty o deat$%
Iss'e& 9$et$er t$e trial court ollo#ed t$e proper procedure%
(el"& *o% +$e trial court ailed to abide by t$e strict sae!uards intended to !uarantee
a provident plea o !uilt% 3ule 115 ; 3 o t$e 3evised 3ules on Criminal Procedure
mandates 3 t$in!s upon t$e trial court in cases #$ere a positive plea is entered by
accused> 617 conduct a searc$in! in&uiry into t$e voluntariness o t$e plea and t$e
accused's compre$ension o t$e conse&uences t$ereoG 627 re&uire t$e prosecution to
prove t$e !uilt o t$e accused and t$e precise de!ree o $is culpabilityG and 637 as. t$e
accused i $e desires to present evidence on $is be$al and allo# $im to do so i $e
desires% +$e &uestions propounded by t$e trial court do not constitute a @searc$in!
in&uiryA #it$in t$e contemplation o t$e rule%
PEOPLE V# LATPAN
2B June 2001
5
RE ME DI AL L AW
CAS E DI GE S T S
Fa%ts& 4 pleaded !uilty to t$e sin!le oense o multiple murder #it$ multiple rustrated
murder% +$e trial court ound 4 !uilty o t$e comple< oense o "ouble =urder and
p$ysical in1uries%
Iss'e& 9$et$er t$e court erred in convictin! 4%
(el"& *o% 4lt$ou!$ SC $as set aside convictions based on plea o !uilty in capital
oenses because o improvidence t$ereo and #$en suc$ plea is t$e sole basis o t$e
condemnatory 1ud!ment0 t$e circumstances o t$is case merit a dierent result% @9$ere
t$e trial court receives evidence to determine precisely #$et$er or not t$e accused erred
in admittin! $is !uilt0 t$e manner in #$ic$ t$e plea o !uilty is made 6improvidently or
not7 loses le!al si!niicance0 or t$e simple reason t$at t$e conviction is based on t$e
evidence provin! t$e commission by t$e accused o t$e oense c$ar!ed%I
SEPARATE TRIALS
PEOPLE V# ELLASOS an" OBILLO
5 June 2001
Fa%ts& 4 and / #ere accused o .illin! F% +$e 1ud!e ordered t$e separate trial o t$e
case a!ainst t$e 2 and transerred t$e trial o / to =untinlupa 3+C% Still0 t$e 1ud!e
convicted bot$ 4 and /%
Iss'e& 9$et$er t$e 1ud!e correctly convicted t$e 2 accused%
(el"& *o% +$e trial 1ud!e !ravely erred in renderin! a 1ud!ment o conviction a!ainst
bot$ accused% Since t$e trial o / did not ta.e place0 t$e trial court s$ould $ave rendered
a decision only a!ainst 4%
W(EN APPEAL OF ONE BENEFITS ALL
PEOPLE V# ESCA/O
349 SC34 584 6Jan% 20017
Fa%ts& 40 /0 and C #ere convicted% 4ll o t$em appealed but 4 later #it$dre# $is appeal%
/ and C #ere ac&uitted on appeal% 4 prayed t$at $e s$ould also be ac&uitted sine t$e
appeal interposed by $is co-accused is applicable and avorable to $im%
Iss'e& 9$et$er 4 s$ould also be ac&uitted%
(el"& :es% +$is is in accordance #it$ ; 11 6a7 3ule 122 o t$e *e# 3ules o Criminal
Procedure% +$e ac&uittal o t$e 2 ot$er accused based on reasonable doubt s$ould
beneit 4 not#it$standin! t$e act t$at $e #it$dre# $is appeal%
JRISDICTION OVER PRIVATE OFFENSES
PEOPLE V# !PARRAGIRE
332 SC34 59 6July 20007
Fa%ts& 4 #as convicted o rape% 4 contended t$at t$e trial court never ac&uired
1urisdiction over t$e case because t$e complaint #as si!ned and iled by t$e c$ie o
police and not by t$e complainant%
Iss'e& 9$et$er t$e court ac&uired 1urisdiction over t$e case%
(el"& :es% +$e complaint re&uired in 4rt% 344 o t$e 3evised Penal Code is but a
condition precedent to t$e e<ercise by t$e proper aut$orities o t$e po#er to prosecute
t$e !uilty parties% +$e complaint simply starts t$e prosecutory proceedin! but does not
coner 1urisdiction in t$e court to try t$e case% 4rt% 344 is not determinative o t$e
8
RE ME DI AL L AW
CAS E DI GE S T S
1urisdiction o courts over private oenses because t$e same is !overned by t$e
Judiciary ,a# and not t$e 3evised Penal Code%
SEARC( WARRANT
GARA!GA! V# PEOPLE
332 SC34 282 6July 20007
Fa%ts& =anila 3+C issued a searc$ #arrant aut$oriDin! t$e searc$ o 4's $ouse located
in ,apu-,apu City% +$e raid #as conducted and pro$ibited parap$ernalia #ere
coniscated% 4n inormation c$ar!in! 4 #as iled /eore t$e 3+C o ,apu-,apu City% 4
iled a motion to &uas$ t$e searc$ #arrant #it$ t$e ,apu-,apu City 3+C%
Iss'e& 9$ic$ court s$ould resolve t$e motion to &uas$ t$e searc$ #arrant)
(el"& 9$ere a searc$ #arrant is issued by one court and t$e criminal action based on
t$e results o t$e searc$ is ater#ards commenced in anot$er court0 a motion to &uas$
t$e #arrantJto retrieve t$in!s t$ereunder seiDed may be iled or t$e irst time in eit$er
t$e issuin! court or t$at in #$ic$ t$e criminal action is pendin!% Ho#ever0 t$e remedy is
alternative0 not cumulative% +$us0 t$e motion to &uas$ t$e #arrant #as properly iled #it$
t$e 3+C o ,apu-,apu City%
PEOPLE V# *O
19 4pr% 2001
Fa%ts> 4 searc$ #arrant #as issued to searc$ "'s premises or @undetermined &uantity
o S$abu and "ru! Parap$ernaliaA in violation o t$e "an!erous "ru!s 4ct% " contends
t$at t$e #arrant #as issued or more t$an one speciic oense because possession or
use o S$abu and possession o dru! parap$ernalia are punis$ed under t#o dierent
provisions o t$e "an!erous "ru!s 4ct%
Iss'e> 9as t$e #arrant issued or more t$an one speciic oense and $ence invalid)
(el"> *o% +$e "an!erous "ru!s 4ct o 1982 is a special la# t$at deals speciically #it$
dan!erous dru!s #$ic$ are subsumed into @pro$ibitedA and @re!ulatedA dru!s and
deines and penaliDes cate!ories o oenses #$ic$ are closely related or #$ic$ belon!
to t$e same class or species% 4ccordin!ly0 one searc$ #arrant may t$us be validly
issued or t$e said violations o t$e "an!erous "ru!s 4ct%
WARRANTLESS ARRESTS
LACSON V# SEC# PERE.
10 =ay 2001
Fa%ts> 4ter t$e anti-4rroyo cro#d in =endiola $ad been dispersed0 President 4rroyo
declared a @state o rebellionA in =etro =anila% Pursuant to t$e proclamation0 several .ey
leaders 6Enrile0 =aceda7 o t$e opposition #ere ordered arrested #it$out #arrants% +$e
#arrantless arrests #ere 1ustiied on t$e t$eory t$at a person committin! rebellion0 #$ic$
is a continuin! crime0 may be arrested #it$out a #arrant at any time so lon! as t$e
rebellion persists%
Iss'e> 9ere t$e arrests made le!al)
(el"> *o% +o 1ustiy a #arrantless arrest0 t$ere must be a s$o#in! t$at t$e person
arrested or to be arrested $as committed0 is actually committin! or is attemptin! to
commit t$e oense o rebellion% (n ot$er #ords0 t$ere must be an overt act constitutive o
rebellion ta.in! place in t$e presence o t$e arrestin! oicer% +$is re&uirement #as not
complied #it$ in t$e arrests o Enrile0 =aceda et al% 4 declaration o a state o rebellion
does not relieve t$e State o its burden o provin! probable cause% +$e declaration does
not constitute a substitute or proo%
B
RE ME DI AL L AW
CAS E DI GE S T S
ALLEGATION OF AGE IN T(E INFORMATION
PEOPLE V# BANIGID
340 SC34 92 6Sept% 20007
Fa%ts& 4 #as accused o rape% (t #as stated in t$e inormation t$at $e $ad carnal
.no#led!e o $i @minor dau!$ter%A
Iss'e& =ay deat$ penalty be imposed on t$e accused)
(el"& *o% "eat$ penalty is imposed or t$e crime o rape i t$e @victim is under 1B
years o a!e and t$e oender is a parent o t$e victim%A For t$is purpose0 t$e special
&ualiyin! circumstances o t$e victim's minority and $er relations$ip #it$ t$e oender
must be alle!ed and proved% +$e inormation must state t$e e<act a!e o t$e victim at
t$e time o t$e commission o t$e crime%
PEOPLE V# DE VILLA
Feb% 10 2001
Fa%ts& 4 #as c$ar!ed #it$ rapin! F #$o #as at t$e time 12 years and 10 mont$s old% 4
#as F's uncle but suc$ act #as not alle!ed in t$e inormation% He #as ound !uilty and
sentenced to deat$ pursuant to 34 8529%
Iss'e& Can t$e deat$ sentence be sustained)
(el"& *o% Cnder t$e amendatory provisions o 34 8529 ; 110 t$e attendance o acts
t$at #ould mandate t$e imposition o t$e sin!le indivisible penalty o deat$ are in t$e
nature o &ualiyin! circumstances #$ic$ s$ould be alle!ed in t$e inormation and
proved at t$e trial% +$e *e# 3ules o Criminal Procedure #$ic$ too. eect on "ec% 10
20000 no# speciically re&uire t$at bot$ &ualiyin! and a!!ravatin! circumstances to be
alle!ed in t$e inormation% (n t$e case at bar0 t$e prosecution alle!ed only t$e minority o
FG it ailed to alle!e t$at 4 is $er relative by consan!uinity or ainity #it$in t$e 3
rd
civil
de!ree o relations$ip% Hence0 4 cannot be convicted o &ualiied rape%
ARRAIGNMENT
PEOPLE V# ASO!
June 290 2001
Fa%ts& 3+C convicted 4 or rape and imposed upon $im t$e deat$ penalty% +$e
Certiicate o 4rrai!nment o 4 dated =arc$ 40 1998 states>
I+$at in open court and in t$e presence o t$e 4ssistant Provincial Prosecutor E0 t$e
accused 40 assisted by $is PC/,(C 4++?3*E: P0 o Caria!a0 ,eyte0 #as called and
,a0+n1 been +nfo-2e" of t,e nat'-e of t,e %,a-1e a1a+nst ,+2 b3 -ea"+n1 t,e
INFORMATION and in ans#er o t$e &uestion o t$e Court0 $e pleaded0 -C(,+: o t$e
crime c$ar!ed%I
Iss'e& 9$et$er t$e court properly complied #it$ 3ule 115 ;; 1 and 3%
(el"& *o% +$e mandatory and strin!ent procedural re&uirements concernin! t$e
arrai!nment and plea o an accused are set by ;; 1 and 30 3ule 115 o t$e 3ules o
Criminal Procedure0 as amended% 4s s$o#n in t$e Certiicate o 4rrai!nment0 t$e
appellant #as Iinormed o t$e nature o t$e c$ar!e a!ainst $imI by merely Ireadin! t$e
(normationI% +$e (normation is #ritten in t$e En!lis$ lan!ua!e o #$ic$ 40 a
probinsiyano, is obviously unamiliar #it$% +$e trial court0 durin! t$e arrai!nment o t$e
appellant0 ailed to comply #it$ t$e re&uirements o ; 1 6a7 o 3ule 115 #$en it did not
urnis$ t$e accused #it$ a copy o t$e (normation and read t$e same in t$e lan!ua!e or
dialect .no#n to $im% 4nd0 ater 4 entered a plea o !uilty to t$e capital oense c$ar!ed0
t$e trial court also violated ; 3 o 3ule 115 by not conductin! a searc$in! in&uiry into t$e
voluntariness and ull compre$ension o t$e conse&uences o $is plea#
9
RE ME DI AL L AW
CAS E DI GE S T S
BAIL
!AP V# CA an" t,e PEOPLE
June 50 2001
Fa%ts& 4 #as ound !uilty o estaa and #as sentenced to imprisonment or 20 years% 4
appealed and applied or bail pendin! appeal% C4 allo#ed bail or @$umanitarian
reasons%A Ho#ever0 because o t$e perceived $i!$ ris. o li!$t 64 admitted t$at $e let
t$e country several times durin! t$e pendency o t$e case7 t$e C4 deemed it necessary
to pe! t$e amount o bail at P2%2 =% 4 ar!ued t$at t$e bail re&uired #as e<cessive%
Iss'e& 9$et$er t$e bail imposed #as e<cessive%
(el"& :es% +$e pro$ibition a!ainst re&uirin! e<cessive bail is ens$rined in t$e
Constitution% +$e obvious rationale is t$at imposin! bail in an e<cessive amount could
render meanin!less t$e ri!$t to bail% +$e court $as #ide latitude in i<in! t$e amount o
bail% 9$ere it ears t$at t$e accused may 1ump bail0 it is certainly not precluded rom
installin! devices to ensure a!ainst t$e same% ?ptions may include increasin! t$e bail
bond to an appropriate level0 or re&uirin! t$e person to report periodically to t$e court
and to ma.e an accountin! o $is movements% 4lt$ou!$ an increase in t$e amount o
bail #$ile t$e case is on appeal may be meritorious0 t$e SC ound t$at t$e settin! o t$e
amount at P2%2= is unreasonable0 e<cessive0 and constitutes an eective denial o 4's
ri!$t to bail%
+$e purpose or bail is to !uarantee t$e appearance o t$e accused at t$e trial0 or
#$enever so re&uired by t$e court% +$e amount s$ould be $i!$ enou!$ to assure t$e
presence o t$e accused #$en re&uired but no $i!$er t$an is reasonably calculated to
ulill t$is purpose% +o i< bail at an amount e&uivalent to t$e civil liability o #$ic$ 4 is
c$ar!ed 6in t$is case0 P2%2=7 is to permit t$e impression t$at t$e amount paid as bail is
an e<action o t$e civil liability t$at accused is c$ar!ed oG t$is cannot be allo#ed
because bail is not intended as a punis$ment0 nor as a satisaction o civil liability #$ic$
s$ould necessarily a#ait t$e 1ud!ment o t$e appellate court%
!AP V# CA an" t,e PEOPLE
June 50 2001
Fa%ts& +$e SC ound t$at t$e bail amountin! to P2%2 = recommended by t$e appellate
court #as e<cessive% 40 t$e accused0 ar!ued t$at bail s$ould be set at P40+ based on
t$e 1995 /ail /ond -uide% 6+$e current /ail /ond -uide0 issued on 4u!ust 290 20000
maintains recommended bail at P40+ or estaa #$ere t$e amount o raud is P142+ or
over and t$e imposable penalty 20 years o reclusion temporal7%
Iss'e& 9$et$er t$e /ail /ond -uide is controllin! at all times%
(el"& *o% +rue0 t$e Court $as $eld t$at t$e /ail /ond -uide0 a circular o t$e
"epartment o Justice or t$e !uidance o state prosecutors0 alt$ou!$ tec$nically not
bindin! upon t$e courts0 @merits attention0 bein! in a sense an e<pression o policy o t$e
E<ecutive /ranc$0 t$rou!$ t$e "?J0 in t$e enorcement o criminal la#s%A +$us0 courts
are advised t$at t$ey must not only be a#are but s$ould also consider t$e /ail /ond
-uide due to its si!niicance in t$e administration o criminal 1ustice% +$is
not#it$standin!0 t$e Court is not precluded rom imposin! in 4's case an amount $i!$er
t$an P40+ 6based on t$e /ail /ond -uide7 #$ere it perceives t$at an appropriate
increase is dictated by t$e circumstances%
PEOPLE V# SING($ et# al#
June 290 2001
Fa%ts& 4 #as c$ar!ed #it$ a non-bailable oense% 4 iled an application or admission to
bail%
Iss'e& 9$o $as t$e burden o proo in $earin!s or bail application)
10
RE ME DI AL L AW
CAS E DI GE S T S
(el"& (n $earin! t$e petition or bail0 t$e prosecution $as t$e burden o s$o#in! t$at t$e
evidence o !uilt is stron! pursuant to ; B 3ule 114% (n bail proceedin!s0 t$e prosecution
must be !iven ample opportunity to s$o# t$at t$e evidence o !uilt is stron!% 9$ile t$e
proceedin! is conducted as a re!ular trial0 it must be limited to t$e determination o t$e
bailability o t$e accused% (t s$ould be brie and speedy0 lest t$e purpose or #$ic$ it is
available is rendered nu!atory%
ATOMATIC REVIEW
PEOPLE V# FRANCISCO
12 =ar% 2001
Fa%ts& 4 #as c$ar!ed #it$ rape and acts o lasciviousness by $is 11-year old dau!$ter%
+$e +C ound t$e accused !uilty o bot$ crimes%
Iss'e& 9$et$er t$e automatic revie# o t$e deat$ sentence includes t$e automatic
appeal o $is conviction or t$e less serious crime o acts o lasciviousness%
(el"& *o% (n t$e case o People v. Panganiban0 #e ruled t$at an automatic revie# o
t$e deat$ penalty imposed by t$e +C #as deemed to include an appeal o t$e less
serious crime not so punis$ed by deat$0 @but arisin! out o t$e same occurrence or
committed by t$e accused on t$e same occasion0 as t$at !ivin! rise to t$e more serious
oense%A (n t$e instant case0 $o#ever0 it cannot be said t$at t$e acts o lasciviousness
arose out o t$e same occurrence or committed by t$e accused on t$e same occasion%
+$e t#o cases involve distinct oenses committed at an interval o 2 mont$s in point o
time% (n bot$ cases0 4 #as animated by separate criminal intent% =oreover0 t$e
evidence presented by t$e prosecution in t$e rape case #as not t$e same evidence t$ey
oered to prove t$e acts o lasciviousness case%
PEOPLE V# BARCMA
08 =ay 2001
Fa%ts> 4 #as c$ar!ed #it$ murder% 4 escaped rom 1ail and since t$en $as been at
lar!e% +$e court rendered a decision indin! 4 !uilty and sentencin! $im to deat$%
Iss'e> =ay t$e automatic revie# o t$e 3+C's decision proceed despite t$e absence o
t$e accused)
(el"> :es% +$ere is no !ood reason to #it$$old 1ud!ment pendin! t$e re-arrest o
accused-appellant ater revie#in! t$e decision o t$e trail court% 3ule 122 ; 10 o t$e
3evised 3ules o Criminal Procedure in act provides or automatic revie# and 1ud!ment%
OMBDSMAN4S PROSECTOR! FNCTION
! V# SANDIGANBA!AN
20 =arc$ 2001
Fa%ts& 4 motion or urt$er clariication #as iled by ?mbudsman "esierto to t$e SC's
rulin! t$at t$e prosecutory po#er o t$e ?mbudsman e<tends only to cases co!niDable
by t$e Sandi!anbayan and t$at t$e ?mbudsman $as no aut$ority to prosecute cases
allin! #it$in t$e 1urisdiction o re!ular courts%
Iss'e& Can t$e ?mbudsman prosecute only cases allin! #it$in t$e 1urisdiction o t$e
Sandi!anbayan)
(el"& *o% 9e $eld t$at t$e ?mbudsman is clot$ed #it$ aut$ority to conduct preliminary
investi!ation and to prosecute all criminal cases involvin! public oicers and employees0
not only t$ose #it$in t$e 1urisdiction o t$e Sandi!anbayan0 but t$ose #it$in t$e
1urisdiction o t$e re!ular courts as #ell% ; 12 o 34 5880 6?mbudsman 4ct o 19B97
does not ma.e any distinction% @4ny ille!al act or omission o any public oicialA is broad
enou!$ to embrace any crime committed by a public oicer or employee% Suc$ !rant o
11
RE ME DI AL L AW
CAS E DI GE S T S
primary 1urisdiction over cases co!niDable by t$e Sandi!anbayan does not necessarily
imply t$e e<clusion rom its 1urisdiction o cases involvin! public oicers and employees
co!niDable by t$e ot$er courts%
ROXAS V# VAS5E.
19 June 2001
Fa%ts& 4 and / #ere c$ar!ed #it$ violation o t$e 4nti--rat and Corrupt Practices 4ct%
+$e ?mbudsman approved t$e recommendation or t$e dismissal o t$e complaints
a!ainst 4 and /% Cpon reinvesti!ation $o#ever0 #it$out notice to or participation o 4
and /0 t$e t#o #ere indicted% +$ey ar!ue t$at t$ere $as been a procedural inirmity
because t$e 3ules o Procedure re&uire t$at a motion or reconsideration or a
reinvesti!ation must be iled #it$in 12 days rom notice o an approved resolution% +$is
#as not done $ere%
Iss'e& 9$et$er t$e ?mbudsman erred%
(el"& *o% (n criminal prosecutions0 a reinvesti!ation0 li.e an appeal0 renders t$e entire
case open or revie#0 re!ardless o #$et$er a motion or reconsideration or
reinvesti!ation #as sou!$t% +$e ?mbudsman s$ould not be limited in its revie#% (t is
clear rom 3% 4% 5880 t$at t$e ?mbudsman may motu propio conduct a reinvesti!ation%
CIVIL PROCEDRE
CASE OF ACTION
C( V# BENELDA ESTATE DEVELOPMENT
01 =ar% 2001
Fa%ts& P and " entered into a contract o sale #it$ assumption o mort!a!e involvin!
several parcels o land% +$e a!reement #as or " to mort!a!e t$e property ater t$e
purc$ase to pay t$e remainin! balance% S$e ailed to comply and instead sold t$e 2 lots
to E% P instituted a complaint or annulment o title% +$e deense iled a motion to dismiss
on t$e !round o lac. o cause o action as P ailed to alle!e t$at t$e purc$aser #as
a#are o t$e deect in t$e title 6i.e., t$at E #as not an innocent purc$aser or value7%
Iss'e& S$ould t$e complaint be dismissed)
(el"& :es% (n a case or annulment o title0 t$e complaint must alle!e t$at t$e
purc$aser #as a#are o t$e deect in t$e title so t$at t$e cause o action a!ainst $im #ill
be suicient% Failure to do so0 as in t$e case at bar0 is atal or t$e reason t$at t$e court
cannot render a valid 1ud!ment a!ainst t$e purc$aser #$o is presumed to be in !ood
ait$ in ac&uirin! t$e property% +$ereore0 t$e tile o respondent0 bein! t$at o an innocent
purc$aser or value0 remains valid%
PA!MENT OF DOC*ET FEES
BARITA V# MERCADER
320 SC34 B5 6Jan% 20017
Fa%ts& P iled a complaint a!ainst " in 19B4% " contended t$at since P did not pay t$e
correct amounts o doc.et and ot$er la#ul ees0 t$en t$e trial court did not ac&uire
1urisdiction over t$e case0 ollo#in! t$e rulin! in t$e case o Manchester Development
Corporation v. CA%
Iss'e& 9$et$er t$e Manchester rulin! applies%
(el"& *o% +$e statute in orce at t$e commencement o t$e action determines t$e
1urisdiction o a court% ?nce t$e 1urisdiction o a court attac$es0 it cannot be ousted
t$ererom by subse&uent $appenin!s or events0 alt$ou!$ o a c$aracter t$at #ould $ave
prevented 1urisdiction rom attac$in! in t$e irst instance% +$e Manchester rulin!0 #$ic$
12
RE ME DI AL L AW
CAS E DI GE S T S
became inal in 19B80 $as no retroactive application and cannot be invo.ed in t$e
sub1ect complaint iled in 19B4%
CONTERCLAIMS
01 Feb% 2001
Fa%ts& P iled a orcible entry case a!ainst "% " iled an ans#erJcounterclaim0 ar!uin!
t$at P's certiicate o title is invalid since t$e land is a @s#amp landA and " $ad a
Fis$eries ,eases 4!reement over t$at land%
Iss'e& Can t$e validity o t$e certiicate o title be assailed in a counterclaim)
(el"& *o% 4 collateral attac. is made #$en0 in anot$er action to obtain a dierent relie0
t$e certiicate o title is assailed as an incident in said action% " raised t$e issue o
invalidity as a deense in an ans#erJcounterclaim to P's action or recovery o o#ners$ip%
+$is parta.es o t$e nature o a collateral attac. and is an indirect c$allen!e to t$e inal
1ud!ment and decree o re!istration #$ic$ resulted in t$e issuance o t$e titles% +$e
Property 3e!istration "ecree re&uires no less t$an a direct action or reconveyance duly
iled #it$in t$e period provided by la#G a collateral attac. is not allo#ed% Plus0 t$ere is
also a presumption t$at t$e lots could be re!istered and t$at titles #ere re!ularly issued
and valid since t$ey #ere issued as a result o a decision rendered by a competent land
re!istration court%
COMPLSOR! CONTERCLAIMS
FINANCIAL BILDING CORPORATION V# FORBES PAR*
33B SC34 345 64u!% 20007
Fa%ts& P iled an in1unction suit to stop " rom suspendin! all permit's o entry or P's
personnel in t$e construction site% " iled a motion to dismiss% +$e case #as eventually
dismissed #it$ inality% " subse&uently iled a complaint or dama!es a!ainst P or
alle!ed violation o certain deed restrictions%
Iss'e& 9$et$er "'s separate suit s$ould be !iven due course%
(el"& *o% " s$ould $ave set it up as a compulsory counterclaim in t$e irst case% +$e
prior case and t$e instant case arose rom t$e same occurrence and t$e issues o act
and la# in bot$ cases are identical% Since " iled a motion to dismiss in t$e previous
case0 $is compulsory counterclaim t$at s$ould $ave been iled at t$at time is no#
barred% +$e ilin! o a motion to dismiss and t$e settin! up o a compulsory counterclaim
are incompatible remedies% ( t$e dismissal o t$e main action results in t$e dismissal o
t$e counterclaim already iled0 it stands to reason t$at t$e ilin! o a motion to dismiss
t$e complaint is an implied #aiver o t$e compulsory counterclaim%
ALDA! V# FG INSRANCE
320 SC34 113 6Jan% 20017
Fa%ts& P iled a case a!ainst insurance a!ent "% " iled an ans#er and by #ay o
counterclaim0 asserted $er ri!$t to be paid commission and prayed or dama!es% P
moved to dismiss "'s counterclaim or bein! merely permissive in nature and " ailed to
pay t$e re&uired doc.et ees%
Iss'e& 9$et$er "'s counterclaim is merely permissive in nature%
(el"& :es% +$e criteria or tests t$at may be used in determinin! #$et$er a
counterclaim is permissive or compulsory is as ollo#s>
1% 4re t$e issues of fact and la raised by t$e claim and counterclaim lar!ely
t$e same)
13
RE ME DI AL L AW
CAS E DI GE S T S
2% 9ould res !udicata bar a subse&uent suit on deendant's claim absent t$e
compulsory counterclaim rule)
3% 9ill substantially t$e same evidence support or reute plainti's claim as #ell
as deendant's counterclaim)
4% (s t$ere any lo!ical relation bet#een t$e claim and t$e counter claim)
4not$er test is t$e @compellin! test o compulsoriness0A #$ic$ re&uires a @lo!ical
relations$ip bet#een t$e claim and t$e counterclaim0 t$at is0 #$ere conductin! separate
trials o t$e parties' respective claims #ould entail a substantial duplication o eort and
time by t$e parties and t$e court%A
+ested a!ainst t$ese standards0 "'s counterclaim is merely permissive% ?nly $er
claims or dama!es alle!edly suered as a result o P's ilin! o t$e complaint are
compulsory% (n order or t$e trial court to ac&uire 1urisdiction over $er permissive
counterclaim0 " is bound to pay t$e prescribed doc.et ee%
SERVICE OF SMMONS IN CASES OF COMPLAINTS FOR PRELIMINAR! INJNCTION OR TRO
GON.ALES V# STATE PROPERTIES
320 SC34 311 6Jan% 20017
Fa%ts& P iled a case a!ainst " or recovery o property a!ainst " and $is brot$ers and
sisters% P's complaint #as accompanied by an application or preliminary in1unction
andJor +3?% +$e case #as raled but " re&uested t$at anot$er rale be $eld because
t$e ot$er deendants did not receive notice o t$e rale% Summons #as served by
publication on all deendants 6e<cept "7 because t$eir residences could not be
ascertained despite dili!ent in&uiry% 4!ain0 " opposed t$e $oldin! o a rale on t$e
!round t$at t$e ot$er deendants #ere not duly notiied%
Iss'e& 9$et$er t$e notice re&uirement prior to rale #as properly complied #it$%
(el"& :es% ; 4 6c7 3ule 2B states t$at t$e prere&uisites or conductin! a rale #$en
t$ere is a prayer or a #rit o preliminary in1unctionJ+3? are 617 notice to and 627
presence o t$e adverse party or person to be en1oined% +$is rule also provides t$at t$e
notice s$all be preceded or accompanied by a service o summons to t$e adverse
partyJperson to be en1oined% +$e 2
nd
para!rap$ o t$e rule states t$at t$e re&uired prior
or contemporaneous service o summons in t$e % instances> 6a7 #$en summons cannot
be served personally or by substituted service despite dili!ent eorts 6b7 #$en t$e
adverse party is a resident o t$e P$ils% temporarily absent t$ererom0 or 6c7 #$en suc$
party is a nonresident% (n suc$ event0 t$e notice o rale and t$e presence o t$e adverse
party must also be dispensed #it$% (n t$is case0 t$e situation in par% 6a7 applies so t$e
rale may t$ereore proceed even #it$out notice to and t$e presence o t$e parties%
SERVICE OF PROCESSES
TCL SALES V# TENG
349 SC34 32 6Jan% 20017
Fa%ts& " received a copy o t$e decision o t$e SEC en banc on June 14% " iled a
motion or reconsideration on June 23 613
t$
day7% " received t$e order denyin! t$is
motion on 4u!% 5% " iled a petition or revie# #it$ t$e C4 on Sept% 22% C4 $eld t$at "
s$ould $ave iled t$e petition not later t$at 4u!% 21 or 12 days ater 4u!% 5%
Iss'e& 9$et$er t$e period s$ould be counted rom "'s receipt o t$e order%
(el"& *o% 9$ere a party is represented by counsel0 service o process must be made
on counsel and not on t$e party% +$is rule applies to proceedin!s beore t$e SEC as t$e
3ules o Court apply suppletorily t$ereto%
FILING AND SERVICE OF PLEADINGS
MC ENGINEERING$ INC# ) (ANIL DEVELOPMENT V# NLRC
2B June 2001
14
RE ME DI AL L AW
CAS E DI GE S T S
Fa%ts& 4 copy o t$e pleadin! #as not personally served to P and t$ere #as no
e<planation !iven as to #$y personal service #as not made%
Iss'e& 9$at is t$e eect i service o pleadin!s is not done personally and no
e<planation is !iven t$ereor)
(el"& Service and ilin! o pleadin!s and ot$er papers must0 #$enever practicable0 be
done personally% ( t$ey are made t$rou!$ ot$er modes0 t$e party concerned must
provide a #ritten e<planation as to #$y t$e service or ilin! #as not done personally% +o
underscore t$e mandatory nature o t$is rule re&uirin! personal service #$enever
practicable0 ; 11 o 3ule 13 !ives t$e court t$e discretion to consider a pleadin! or paper
as not iled i t$e ot$er modes o service or ilin! #ere resorted to and no #ritten
e<planation #as made as to #$y personal service #as not done in t$e irst place%
SPECIFIC DENIAL
NITED AIRLINES V# CA
20 4pr% 2001
Fa%ts> P iled a case a!ainst "% (n t$e Complaint0 P alle!ed t$at0 at 9>42 a%m%0 P
c$ec.ed in at "'s desi!nated counter% (n $is 4ns#er0 " denies t$at P c$ec.ed in at 9>42
a%m%0 or @lac. o .no#led!e or inormation at t$is point in time as to t$e trut$ t$ereo%A
Iss'e> (s suc$ denial contained in t$e 4ns#er allo#ed by t$e 3ules)
(el"> *o% +$e rule aut$oriDin! an ans#er t$at t$e deendant $as no .no#led!e or
inormation suicient to orm a belie as to t$e trut$ o an averment and !ivin! suc$
ans#er t$e eect o a denial0 does not apply #$ere t$e act as to #$ic$ #ant o
.no#led!e is asserted is so plainly and necessarily #it$in t$e deendant's .no#led!e
t$at $is averment o i!norance must be palpably untrue% 9$et$er or not P c$ec.ed in at
"'s desi!nated counter at 9>42 a%m% must necessarily be #it$in P's .no#led!e%
PRE6TRIAL
DE GIA V# DE GIA
04 4pr% 2001
Fa%ts> 4 notice o pre-trial #as served only on t$e counsel0 #it$out e<pressly directin!
t$e counsel to inorm t$e client o t$e date0 t$e time and t$e place o t$e pretrial
conerence%
Iss'e> 9$at is t$e eect o t$e absence o suc$ notice)
(el"> +$e absence o suc$ notice renders t$e proceedin!s void and t$e 1ud!ment
rendered t$erein cannot ac&uire inality and may be attac.ed directly or collaterally%
EXECTION OF JDGMENT
DE JESS V# OBNAMIA
340 SC34 1 6Sept% 20007
Fa%ts& P #on an e1ectment suit a!ainst "% +$e decision became inal and e<ecutory and
t$e 1ud!e issued t$e #rit o e<ecution% (t appeared t$at t$e C4 modiied t$e order o
e<ecution% /ecause " reused to vacate0 P iled a motion or an alias #rit o e<ecution%
+$e motion #as set or $earin! on 4pril 5 but "'s counsel only received a copy o t$e
motion on t$at date so " #as not represented durin! t$e $earin! o t$e motion% +$e alias
#rit o e<ecution #as !ranted%
Iss'e& 9$et$er t$e 3-day notice rule or motions must be ollo#ed%
12
RE ME DI AL L AW
CAS E DI GE S T S
(el"& :es% -enerally0 no notice or even prior $earin! o suc$ motion or e<ecution is
re&uired beore a #rit o e<ecution is issued #$en a decision $as become inal%
Ho#ever0 t$ere are circumstances in t$is case #$ic$ ma.e a $earin! and t$e re&uisite
3-day notice o t$e same to t$e adverse party necessary% +$e e<ecution o t$e decision
is a contentious matter as t$ere #as an issue concernin! t$e modiication o t$e #rit%
BSTOS V# CA
320 SC34 122 6Jan% 20017
Fa%ts& P #on in an unla#ul detainer case a!ainst "% +$e trial court issued #rits o
e<ecution and demolition0 but t$ese #ere stayed #$en " iled a petition or certiorari and
in1unction% " subse&uently became t$e o#ner o t$e land% (n anot$er case or accion
reivindicatoria0 t$e C4 airmed "'s o#ners$ip over t$e land%
Iss'e& 9$et$er " could be e1ected rom #$at is no# $is o#n land%
(el"& *o% 4dmittedly0 t$e decision in t$e e1ectment case is inal and e<ecutory%
Ho#ever t$e ministerial duty o t$e court to order e<ecution o a inal and e<ecutory
1ud!ment admits o e<ceptions> as in special and e<ceptional cases #$ere it becomes
imperative in t$e $i!$er de!ree o 1ustice to direct suspension o its e<ecutionG #$enever
it is necessary to accomplis$ t$e aims o 1usticeG or #$en certain acts and
circumstances transpired ater t$e 1ud!ment became inal t$at #ould render t$e
e<ecution o t$e 1ud!ment un1ust%
(n t$is case0 t$e stay o e<ecution is #arranted by t$e act t$at " is no# t$e le!al
o#ner o t$e land% 4llo#in! t$e e<ecution o 1ud!ment #ould result to !rave in1ustice and
t$e issue o possession #as already rendered moot #$en t$e court ad1udicated
o#ners$ip to "%
SANTOS V# SILVA
349 SC34 425 6Jan% 20017
Fa%ts& 9rits o e<ecution and demolition #ere issued in avor o P% +$e structures #ere
demolis$ed pursuant to t$e #rit% " complained t$at t$e cler. o court ille!ally e<panded
t$e covera!e o t$e demolition order%
Iss'e& 9$et$er t$e cler. o court could validly amend t$e #rit on $is o#n initiative%
(el"& *o% /y e<pandin! t$e covera!e o t$e #rit0 t$e cler. o court ille!ally arro!ated
unto $imsel t$e e<ercise o 1udicial discretion% /eore $e or s$e can amend t$e #rit0 t$e
court's order !rantin! t$e issuance s$ould irst be amended% (ndeed0 t$e preparation o a
#rit o e<ecution is t$e duty o t$e cler. o court% /ut t$e perormance o suc$ duty is
under t$e supervision and control o t$e 1ud!e and t$e cler. o court cannot amend t$e
#rit on $is o#n initiative%
RES JDICATA
01 Feb% 2001
Fa%ts& P bou!$t 2 parcels o land rom E but no decree o re!istration $ad yet been
issued% P iled a orcible entry case a!ainst "% 3 mont$s later0 a decree o re!istration
#as issued in avor o P% " claimed t$at t$e land #as @s#amp landA and t$at $e $ad a
Fis$eries ,ease 4!reement% +$e trial court dismissed t$e complaint% P iled anot$er
action to assert o#ners$ip over t$e property%
Iss'e& (s t$e present action barred by res 1udicata)
(el"& *o% +$e earlier action iled by P #as or orcible entry #$ic$ involved only t$e
issue o p$ysical possession and not o#ners$ip% =ean#$ile0 t$e instant case is an
accion reinvindicatoria or a suit to recover possession o a parcel o land as an element
o o#ners$ip% 4 1ud!ment rendered in a orcible entry case #ill not bar an action
15
RE ME DI AL L AW
CAS E DI GE S T S
bet#een t$e same parties respectin! title or o#ners$ip because t$ere is no identity o
causes o action%
MOTIONS
FAJARDO V# CA
20 =ar% 2001
Fa%ts& / sued F or collection o attorney's ees% 4ter t$e presentation o evidence0 t$e
+C rendered a decision in avor o /% F0 alle!in! t$at s$e received a copy o t$e decision
on Jan% 190 iled a notice o appeal on Feb% 3% ?n t$e same day0 t$e +C denied t$e
notice o appeal or bein! premature as t$ere #as a pendin! motion or correction o
1ud!ment% 4ter !rantin! t$e motion or correction0 t$e +C !ranted t$e motion or
issuance o a #rit o e<ecution%

Iss'e& 9$et$er t$e court erred in issuin! a #rit o e<ecution%
(el"& :es% +$e motion or correction #as deective0 as it did not $ave a proper notice
o $earin!% Suc$ deect reduced t$e motion to a mere scrap o paper #$ic$ may not be
ta.en co!niDance o by t$e court% +$is is re&uired under ;; 4 and 2 o 3ule 12% +$e
rationale be$ind t$e rule is plain> unless t$e movant sets t$e time and place o $earin!0
t$e court #ill be unable to determine #$et$er t$e adverse party a!rees or ob1ects to t$e
motion0 and i $e ob1ects0 to $ear $im on $is ob1ection%
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
ABRA(AM V# NLRC
5 =ar 2001
Fa%ts& P iled a complaint or constructive dismissal a!ainst "% ,abor 4rbiter rendered a
decision in avor o P% *,3C at irst up$eld t$e decision but reversed later upon motion
or reconsideration by "% P immediately #ent to C4 via 3ule 52 certiorari% C4 dismissed
t$e petition on t$e !round t$at s$e ailed to ile a motion or reconsideration 6=F37%
Iss'e& 9as t$e C4 correct in dismissin! t$e petition)
(el"& *o% -enerally0 certiorari as a special civil action #ill not lie unless a motion or
reconsideration is iled beore t$e respondent tribunal to allo# it an opportunity to correct
its imputed errors% Ho#ever0 t$is is sub1ect to e<ceptions0 amon! #$ic$ are> #$ere t$e
&uestions raised in t$e certiorari proceedin!s $ave been duly raised and passed upon by
t$e lo#er court0 or are t$e same as t$ose raised and passed upon in t$e lo#er courtG
and0 #$ere t$e =F3 #ould be useless% (n t$e present case0 *,3C #as clearly !iven t$e
opportunity to revie# its rulin! and correct itsel #$en " iled its =F3% (n act0 it !ranted
t$e =F3 iled by t$e "% +$us0 t$e *,3C $ad more t$an one opportunity to resolve t$e
issues o t$e case and in act reversed itsel upon reconsideration% (t is $i!$ly improbable
t$at t$e *,3C #ould reverse itsel a!ain%
APPEAL
FAJARDO V# CA
20 =ar 2001
Fa%ts& F lost in t$e case iled a!ainst $im% F received t$e copy o t$e decision on "ec%
12% F's counsel received a copy only on Jan% 19% F iled a notice o appeal on Feb% 3%
Iss'e& 9$et$er t$e appeal #as timely iled%
(el"& :es% 9$ile t$e copy #as received by F on "ec% 120 t$e copy o t$e decision #as
received by F's counsel only on Jan% 19% +$e 12-day period or ilin! t$e appeal s$ould
be counted rom t$e date #$en petitioner's counsel received a copy o said 1ud!ment%
18
RE ME DI AL L AW
CAS E DI GE S T S
9$en a party is represented by counsel0 service o process must be made on counsel0
not on t$e party% 6; 20 3ule 137
METROPOLITAN BAN* V# CA
18 4pr% 2001
Fa%ts> " #as declared in deault% +$e 3+C rendered a "ecision orderin! $im to pay P a
sum o money% +$e "ecision became inal and e<ecutory% 4ter e<ecutin! on t$e various
properties o#ned by "0 t$e 3+C directed t$e s$eri to sell at a public auction t$e Club
Filipino s$are o#ned by "% 4 Certiicate o Sale #as issued in avor o P as purc$aser o
t$at s$are% P t$en iled a =otion to $old in abeyance t$e delivery o t$e Certiicate% +$e
3+C issued an ?rder denyin! t$e =otion% P t$en iled a =otion or 3econsideration
#$ic$ #as denied%
Iss'e> Can " appeal rom t$e denial o t$e =otion to $old in abeyance t$e delivery o
t$e Certiicate o Sale and to declare t$e sale void)
(el"> :es% 4s provided in ; 20 3ule 41 o t$e pre-1998 3ules o Court0 one #$o $as
been declared in deault may appeal0 #it$out need o an order litin! t$e deault% +$e
denial o t$e =otion bein! inal in c$aracter0 and not merely interlocutory0 $e is allo#ed
by t$e 3ules to appeal t$ererom% +$e test to ascertain #$et$er an order is interlocutory
or inal is> @"oes it leave somet$in! to be done in t$e trial court #it$ respect to t$e merits
o t$e case) ( it does0 it is interlocutoryG i it does not0 it is inal%
APPEAL7NASSIGNED ERRORS
LDO AND L!M V# CA
01 Feb 2001
Fa%ts& P sued " because "'s s$ip alle!edly rammed and destroyed P's ender pile
clusters used or doc.in! at t$e #$ar% +$e trial court ruled in avor o P and ordered " to
pay dama!es% +$e C4 reversed% P ar!ued t$at " did not assi!n as an error t$e
eye#itness' incompetence to testiy on t$e ne!li!ence o t$e s$ip's oicers and cre# so
t$at matter s$ould not $ave been disturbed by t$e C4%
Iss'e& "id t$e C4 !o beyond t$e issues raised)
(el"& *o% +$e SC noted t$at #$ile t$e #itness' incompetence #as not one o t$e
assi!ned errors in "'s brie0 t$e latter raised it in connection #it$ t$e issue o t$eir
ne!li!ence% +$e C40 t$ereore0 did not err in addressin! t$e matter because an appellate
court can consider an unassi!ned error on #$ic$ depends t$e determination o t$e
&uestion in t$e properly assi!ned error% +$e issue o ne!li!ence o t$e s$ip's oicers and
cre# depends si!niicantly on t$e determination o #$et$er t$e #itness is competent to
testiy on t$e maneuverin! o a doc.in! vessel%
APPELLANT4S BRIEF
DBP V# CA et# al#
05 June 2001
Fa%ts& P0 a !overnment inancial institution0 lost in a case a!ainst "% P iled a notice o
appeal and re&uested or an e<tension to ile appellant's brie% +$e appellate court
!ranted a number o e<tensions% P ailed to iled its appellant's brie #it$in t$e last
e<tended period accorded to it by t$e appellate court
Iss'e& 9$at is t$e dierence bet#een t$e ailure to ile a notice o appeal #it$in t$e
re!lementary period and t$e ailure to ile a brie #it$in t$e period !ranted by t$e
appellate court)
(el"& Failure to ile a notice o appeal results in t$e ailure o t$e appellate court to
ac&uire 1urisdiction over t$e appealed decision0 resultin! in its becomin! inal and
1B
RE ME DI AL L AW
CAS E DI GE S T S
e<ecutory upon ailure o t$e appellant to move or reconsideration% Failure to ile a brie
#it$in t$e period !ranted simply results in t$e abandonment o t$e appeal #$ic$ could
lead to its dismissal upon ailure to move or its reconsideration0 in #$ic$ case t$e
appealed decision #ould also become inal and e<ecutory0 but prior t$ereto0 t$e
appellate court s$all $ave obtained 1urisdiction o t$e appealed decision% +$ere is more
lee#ay to e<empt a case rom t$e strictures o procedural rules #$en t$e appellate court
$as already obtained 1urisdiction over t$e appealed case%
EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE PLEADINGS
DBP V# CA et# al#
05 June 2001
Fa%ts& P appealed to t$e C4% P iled a motion or e<tension to ile t$e appellant's brie%
Iss'e& 9$en may e<tensions to ile pleadin!s be !ranted)
(el"& 4n e<tension #ill only be !ranted i t$ere is !ood and suicient cause0 and i t$e
motion as.in! or t$e same is iled beore t$e e<piration o t$e time sou!$t to be
e<tended% +$e !rantin! o an e<tension0 includin! t$e duration t$ereo0 lies #it$in t$e
sound discretion o t$e court0 to be e<ercised in accordance #it$ t$e attendant
circumstances o eac$ case% Ho#ever0 t$e movant is not 1ustiied in assumin! t$at t$e
e<tension sou!$t #ill be !ranted0 or t$at it #ill be !ranted or t$e len!t$ o time sou!$t%
+$us0 it is t$e duty o t$e movant or e<tension to e<ercise due dili!ence and inorm
$imsel as soon as possible o t$e appellate court's action on $is motion%
CERTIORARI
ESTATE OF SALD JIMENE. V# P(IL# EXPORT PROCESSING .ONE
349 SC34 240 6Jan% 20017
Fa%ts& PEK4 received t$e unavorable order o t$e trial court on 4u!% 11% (t iled a
motion or reconsideration on t$e 12
t$
day% PEK4 received t$e order denyin! t$e motion
on *ov% 23% ?n *ov% 280 PEK4 iled a petition or certiorari% " ar!ued t$at t$e petition or
certiorari iled by PEK4 #as actually a substitute or lost appeal t$at s$ould not be
entertained% 4ccordin! to "0 t$e rule t$at a petition or certiorari can be availed o despite
t$e act t$at t$e proper remedy is an appeal only applies in cases #$ere t$e petition is
iled #it$in t$e re!lementary period or appeal 6as in t$e cases o Aguilar v. "an and
#autista v. $armiento7%
Iss'e& 9$et$er t$e petition or certiorari s$ould be allo#ed to prosper%
(el"& :es% +$ere #as !rave abuse o discretion in t$is case and appeal #as not a
plain0 speedy and ade&uate remedy so t$e petition or certiorari #as proper% +$e SC
ound "'s interpretation to be too restrictive% +$e said cases do not set as a condition
sine qua non t$e ilin! o a petition or certiorari #it$in t$e 12-day period to appeal in
order or t$e said petition to be entertained by t$e court% +o espouse "'s contention
#ould render inutile t$e 50-day period to ile a petition or certiorari under 3ule 52%
PCGG V# DESIERTO
349 SC34 858 6Jan% 20017
Fa%ts& +$e PC-- received a copy o t$e assailed resolution on B 4pril% (t iled a motion
or reconsideration on 12 4pril% ?n 5 4u!ust0 it received a copy o t$e order denyin! its
motion% PC-- iled a petition or certiorari on 2 ?ctober%
Iss'e& 9$et$er t$e petition #as timely iled%
(el"& :es% (ndeed0 pursuant to 3ule 52 o t$e 1998 3ules o Civil Procedure0 t$e
petition s$ould $ave been iled on 2 ?ctober so t$e petition s$ould $ave been dismissed
or late ilin!% Ho#ever0 durin! t$e pendency o t$e case0 SC promul!ated 4%=% *o% 00-2-
19
RE ME DI AL L AW
CAS E DI GE S T S
03-SC 6eective 1 Sept% 20007 #$ic$ provided> @(n case a motion or reconsideration or
ne# trial is timely iled0 #$et$er suc$ motion is re&uired or not0 t$e 50-day period s$all
be counted rom notice o t$e denial o said motion%A (n vie# o t$e retroactive application
o procedural la#s0 t$e petition s$ould be considered timely iled%
NIT! FIS(ING V# CA
02 Feb% 2001
Fa%ts> +$e *,3C-3esolution denyin! P's motion or reconsideration #as received by P
on ?ct% 5% P iled a petition or certiorari on "ec% 5%
Iss'e& 9as t$e petition or certiorari iled #it$in t$e re!lementary period)
(el"& :es% Cnder 4%=% *o% 00-2-03-SC0 amendin! ; 40 3ule 520 t$e 50-day period to
ile a petition or certiorari is rec.oned rom t$e receipt o t$e resolution denyin! t$e
motion or reconsideration% 4pplyin! t$e amendment0 t$e last day or ilin! t$e petition or
certiorari s$ould $ave been "ec% 2% "ec% 2 bein! a Sunday0 t$e time s$all not run until
t$e ne<t #or.in! day pursuant to 3ule 22%
INDIANA V# C(ED
04 4pr% 2001
Fa%ts> +$e (ndiana 4erospace Cniversity iled a complaint or dama!es a!ainst t$e
Commission on Hi!$er Education 6@CHE"A7 beore t$e 3+C% +$e 3+C denied CHE"'s
motion to dismiss% 9it$out ilin! a motion or reconsideration0 CHE" iled a Petition or
Certiorari #it$ t$e C4%
Iss'e> "oes CHE"'s Petition or Certiorari re&uire a prior resort to a motion or
reconsideration)
(el"> *o% +$e !eneral rule is t$at0 in order to !ive t$e lo#er court t$e opportunity to
correct itsel0 a motion or reconsideration is a prere&uisite to certiorari% +$is rule0
$o#ever0 is sub1ect to certain e<ceptions suc$ as> 617 t$e issues raised are purely le!al
in natureG 627 public interest is involvedG 637 e<treme ur!ency is obviousG or 647 special
circumstances #arrant immediate or more direct action% (t is patently clear t$at t$e
re!ulation or administration o educational institutions0 especially on t$e tertiary level0 is
invested #it$ public interest% +$us CHE"'s Petition or Certiorari did not re&uire prior
resort to a motion or reconsideration%
DEPOSITIONS
REPBLIC V# SANDIGANBA!AN
30 =ay 2001
Fa%ts> /eore t$e deendants $ave iled t$eir ans#ers0 t$e prosecution moved to ta.e
t$e deposition o E% +$e prosecution alle!es t$at E0 #$o $as been out o t$e country0
#ould !ive vital testimony but #ould not return to t$e country because $e ears or $is
saety%
Iss'e> (s t$ere a valid reason or t$e court to allo# t$e ta.in! o E's deposition)
(el"> *one% +$e !eneral rule is t$at a plainti may not be permitted to ta.e
depositions beore ans#er is served% Ho#ever0 deposition is allo#ed to be ta.en beore
service o ans#er #$ere conditions point to t$e necessity o presentin! a stron! case or
allo#ance o t$e motion% (n t$is case0 no proo0 muc$ less any alle!ation0 $as been
presented to s$o# t$ere e<ists a real t$reat to E's lie once $e returns to t$e P$ilippines
and t$at ade&uate security cannot be provided or suc$ a vital #itness%
ATTAC(MENT
20
RE ME DI AL L AW
CAS E DI GE S T S
C(IDIAN V# SANDIGANBA!AN
349 SC34 842 6Jan% 20017
Fa%ts& +$e !overnment iled beore t$e Sandi!anbayan a complaint a!ainst several
individuals0 includin! "0 or restitution o ill-!otten #ealt$% +$e !overnment as.ed or t$e
issuance o a #rit o attac$ment and t$is #as !ranted% " assailed t$e propriety o t$e
issuance o t$e #rit%
Iss'e& 9$et$er t$e issuance o t$e #rit #as proper%
(el"& :es% (n order to &uas$ a #rit o attac$ment0 a party may ile a counterbond 63ule
28 ; 127 or to &uas$ t$e attac$ment on t$e !round t$at it #as irre!ularly or improvidently
issued 63ule 28 ; 137% +$e !rounds cited by " $ave not$in! to do #it$ t$e issuance o
t$e #rit% His !rounds #ere acts t$at too. place ater t$e #rit $ad already been
implemented% Supervenin! events0 #$ic$ may or may not 1ustiy t$e disc$ar!e o t$e
#rit0 are not #it$in t$e purvie# o 3ule 28 ; 13%
LITIS PENDENTIA
S(ANGRI6LA INTERNATIONAL (OTEL V# CA
21 June 2001
Fa%ts& 4 case or t$e cancellation o a mar. #it$ t$e /ureau o ,e!al 4airs0 (ntellectual
Property ?ice #as iled by P% " iled a subse&uent action or inrin!ement a!ainst P
#it$ t$e re!ular courts in connection #it$ t$e same re!istered mar.%
Iss'e& 9$et$er t$e administrative case or cancellation barred t$e ilin! o an
inrin!ement case #it$ t$e court%
(el"& *o% +$e earlier case or cancellation o a mar. cannot eectively bar t$e
subse&uent ilin! o an inrin!ement case by t$e re!istrant o suc$ mar.% +$e certiicate
o re!istration still subsists and is prima acie evidence o t$e validity o t$e re!istration0
as suc$ a correspondin! inrin!ement suit may be iled a!ainst t$e party #$o inrin!es
on t$e ri!$ts o t$e re!istrant%
BANG*O SILANGAN DEVELOPMENT BAN* V# CA
29 June 2001
Fa%ts& +$ere #as an e<istin! case involvin! P and "% " sou!$t t$e dismissal o t$e
present case on t$e !round o litis pendentia%
Iss'e& 9$at are t$e re&uisites o litis pendentia)
(el"& %itis pendentia as a !round or t$e dismissal o a civil action reers to a situation
#$erein anot$er action is pendin! bet#een t$e same parties or t$e same cause o
action and t$at t$e second action becomes unnecessary and ve<atious% (t must conorm
to t$e ollo#in! re&uisites> 6a7 identity o parties0 or at least suc$ parties #$o represent
t$e same interests in bot$ actionsG 6b7 identity o ri!$ts asserted and relie prayed or0 t$e
relie bein! ounded on t$e same actsG and 6c7 identity #it$ respect to t$e t#o 627
precedin! particulars in t$e t#o 627 cases is suc$ t$at any 1ud!ment t$at may be
rendered in t$e pendin! case0 re!ardless o #$ic$ party is successul0 #ould amount to
res !udicata in t$e ot$er case%
RLE 89
PENGSON V# OCAMPO$ et# al#
29 June 2001
Fa%ts& P iled an e1ectment case a!ainst " beore t$e =+C% " averred t$at s$e is a co-
o#ner o suc$ land bein! a compulsory $eir o its ori!inal o#ners% =+C ruled in avor o
"0 $oldin! t$at s$e is a le!itimate dau!$ter o t$e ori!inal o#ners% 3+C airmed% C4
21
RE ME DI AL L AW
CAS E DI GE S T S
reversed% Hence0 t$is certiorari proceedin! under 3ule 42%
Iss'e& 9$et$er a petition or revie# under 3ule 42 is proper%
(el"& *o% +$e 1urisdiction o SC in cases brou!$t beore it rom t$e C4 via 3ule 42 is
limited to revie#in! errors or &uestions o la#% (t is t$e burden o t$e party see.in!
revie# o a decision o t$e C4 or ot$er lo#er tribunals to distinctly set ort$ in $is petition
or revie#0 not only t$e e<istence o &uestions o la# airly and lo!ically arisin!
t$ererom0 but also &uestions substantial enou!$ to merit consideration0 or s$o# t$at
t$ere are special and important reasons #arrantin! t$e revie# t$at $e see.s% ( t$ese are
not s$o#n prima facie in t$e petition0 t$e Court #ill be 1ustiied in summarily spurnin! t$e
petition as lac.in! in merit%
APPEAL:PETITION FOR REVIEW:CERTIORARI7DOCMENTS T(AT S(OLD BE ATTAC(ED
CSI6(ERNANDE. V# DIA.
335 SC34 113 6July 20007
Fa%ts& P iled a case o accion publiciana a!ainst "% +$ey $ad a contract to sell but P
rescinded t$is because " ailed to ulill $is obli!ation% " reused to vacate t$e premises%
+$e =+C ruled in avor o P but 3+C reversed% +$e C4 denied due course to P's appeal
because o $er ailure to attac$ a certiied true copy o t$e contract to sell%
Iss'e& 9$et$er t$ere #as a need to attac$ t$e contract to sell%
(el"& *o% 4ttac$ed to t$e petition or revie# #ere ori!inal duplicate copies o t$e 3+C
and =+C decisions% +$e SC ound t$at t$e =+C decision reproduced verbatim t$e
contract to sell0 #$ic$ is central to t$e dispute% +$ere #as substantial compliance #it$ ;
2 3ule 42% (n Caydona v. CA0 it #as $eld t$at @#e do not construe ; 2 6d7 o 3ule 42 as
imposin! t$e re&uirement t$at all supportin! papers accompanyin! t$e petition s$ould
be certiied as true copies%A
ATILLO V# BOMBA!
08 Feb% 2001
Fa%ts& " entered into a ,ease 4!reement #it$ P0 alle!ed o#ner o 4lto Commercial
/uildin!% " ailed to pay $er rentals so P iled an action or e1ectment #$ic$ t$e =+C
dismissed% 3+C reversedG C4 dismissed on "'s ailure to attac$ pleadin!s and ot$er
material portions o t$e record o t$e case in violation o 3ule 42 ; 26d7%
Iss'e& (s ; 26d7 o 3ule 42 mandatory0 or merely directory)
(el"& =andatory0 and t$ereore non-compliance #it$ t$e ; 26d7 is a !round or t$e
dismissal o a petition based on ; 3 o t$e same rule% +$e p$rase @o t$e pleadin!s and
ot$er material portions o t$e recordA in ; 26d7 is ollo#ed by t$e p$rase @as #ould
support t$e alle!ations o t$e petition%A +$is contemplates t$e e<ercise o discretion on
t$e part o t$e petitioner in t$e selection o documents t$at are deemed to be relevant to
t$e petition% Ho#ever0 #$ile it is true t$at it is petitioner #$o initially e<ercises t$e
discretion in selectin! t$e relevant supportin! documents t$at #ill be appended to t$e
petition0 it is t$e C4 t$at #ill ultimately determine i t$e supportin! documents are
suicient to even ma.e out a prima acie case%
PARAS V# BALDADO
0B =ar% 2001
Fa%ts& (n an estate proceedin!0 petitioners moved to in$ibit t$e respondent 1ud!e on t$e
!round o bias% +$e 1ud!e reused to do so% Certiorari #it$ C4% C4 dismissed on t$e
!round o ailure to attac$ a certiied true copy o impu!ned order as re&uired by ; 1 o
3ule 52 as #$at #as attac$ed #as a mere plain <ero< copy o t$e order%
Iss'e& 9as t$e C4 correct in dismissin! t$e petition)
22
RE ME DI AL L AW
CAS E DI GE S T S
(el"& *o% +$e ilin! o ori!inal actions or certiorari in t$e C4 is !overned by ; 30 3ule
45 #$ic$ mandates a certiied true copy o t$e impu!ned order as a 1urisdictional
re&uirement% (n t$is case0 t$e C4 #as correct in disre!ardin! t$e copies o t$e 3+C
orders even i t$ese #ere certiied by a notary public% Ho#ever0 t$e records reveal t$at
duplicate ori!inal copies #ere in act attac$ed to one o t$e seven copies o t$e petition
iled #it$ t$e C40 moreover0 copies o t$e same orders0 t$is time accomplis$ed by t$e
cler. o court0 #ere submitted by petitioners in t$eir =otion or 3econsideration% +$us0
t$e Court inds t$at t$ere #as substantial compliance #it$ t$e re&uirement and t$e C4
s$ould $ave !iven t$e petition due course%
VERIFICATION
! V# LANDBAN*
335 SC34 419 6July 20007
Fa%ts& P iled an unla#ul detainer case a!ainst "% (t reac$ed t$e SC% " iled a petition
or revie# #it$ t$e SC% ?n 12 Feb% t$e SC denied t$e petition or 617 lac. o certiication
a!ainst orum s$oppin! and 627 lac. o veriication% /eore "'s counsel received t$e
3esolution denyin! t$e petition0 $e iled a =otion or 4dmission o Feriication and
Certiication a!ainst Forum S$oppin! on 4 =arc$%
Iss'e& 9$et$er t$e 617 lac. o veriication and 627 certiication a!ainst orum s$oppin!
may be cured by t$e submission t$ereo ater t$e ilin! o t$e petition%
(el"& 617 :es% +$e re&uirement re!ardin! veriication o a pleadin! is ormal0 not
1urisdictional% Suc$ re&uirement is simply a condition aectin! t$e orm o pleadin!0 t$e
non-compliance o #$ic$ does not necessarily render t$e pleadin! atally deective%
Feriication is simply intended to secure an assurance t$at t$e alle!ations in t$e
pleadin! are true and correct and not t$e product o ima!ination or speculation0 and t$at
t$e pleadin! is iled in !ood ait$%
627 -enerally0 no% 3ule 42 ; 2 provides t$at ailure o petitioner to submit t$e
re&uired documents t$at s$ould accompany t$e petition0 includin! t$e certiication
a!ainst orum s$oppin!0 s$all be suicient !round or t$e dismissal t$ereo% /ut t$e SC
may ind special circumstances or compellin! reasons or t$e reinstatement o t$e
petition as #$at occurred in t$is case%
CERTIFICATION AGAINST FORM S(OPPING
LO5IAS V# OFFICE OF T(E OMBDSMAN
33B SC34 52 64u!% 20007
Fa%ts& 4 s#orn complaint #as iled #it$ t$e ?ice o t$e ?mbudsman c$ar!in! 40 /0 C0
and " #it$ t$e violation o t$e 4nti--rat and Corrupt Practices 4ct% +$e ?mbudsman
ound probable cause and recommended t$e ilin! o t$e inormation% +$e accused iled
a petition or certiorari% +$e ?mbudsman ar!ued t$at t$e petition did not comply #it$
3ule 8 ; 2 because t$e veriication a!ainst orum s$oppin! #as si!ned only by / and
not by all petitioners%
Iss'e& 9$et$er t$ere #as substantial compliance #it$ ; 2 3ule 8%
(el"& *o% +$e petition is deective% +$ere #as no s$o#in! t$at / #as aut$oriDed by $is
co-petitioners to represent t$em and to si!n t$e certiication% (t cannot be presumed t$at
/ .ne#0 to t$e best o $is .no#led!e0 #$et$er $is co-petitioners $ad t$e same or similar
actions or claims iled or pendin!% +$e attestation contained in t$e certiication on non-
orum s$oppin! re&uires personal .no#led!e by t$e party #$o e<ecuted t$e same%
Petitioners must s$o# reasonable cause or ailure to personally si!n t$e certiication%
DAR V# ALON.O6LEGASTO
339 SC34 305 64u!% 20007
23
RE ME DI AL L AW
CAS E DI GE S T S
Fa%ts& Spouses E and : in an unla#ul detainer case iled by P% +$ey #ere sued as @=r%
and =rs%A +$ey iled a petition or revie# #it$ t$e C% +$is petition #as dismissed or
ailure to comply #it$ t$e rule on Certiication o *on-Forum S$oppin! since it #as
si!ned by E only%
Iss'e& 9$et$er t$ere #as substantial compliance #it$ t$e 3ule on Certiication a!ainst
Forum S$oppin!%
(el"& :es% 9it$ respect to t$e contents o t$e certiication #$ic$ t$e pleader may
prepare0 t$e rule o substantial compliance may be availed o% 9$ile t$e rule re&uires
t$at it be strictly complied #it$0 it merely underscores its mandatory nature in t$at it
cannot be alto!et$er dispensed #it$ or its re&uirements completely disre!arded but it
does not prevent substantial compliance on t$e aspect o its provisions under 1ustiiable
circumstances% (n t$is case0 it s$ould be noted t$at E and : #ere sued 1ointly as
spouses over a property in #$ic$ t$ey $ave a common interest% +$e si!nin! o one o
t$em in t$e certiication substantially complies #it$ t$e rule%
SOLLER V# COMELEC
339 SC34 5B2 6Sept% 20007
Fa%ts& P iled #it$ t$e C?=E,EC a petition or annulment o t$e proclamation o " as
mayor% He also iled #it$ t$e 3+C an election protest a!ainst "% " moved to dismiss t$e
protest on t$e !round o orum s$oppin!% P ar!ued t$at $e did not need to disclose in $is
election protest t$at $e earlier iled a petition or annulment o proclamation because $e
deemed t$e C?=E,EC petition abandoned upon t$e ilin! o t$e protest%
Iss'e& 9$et$er P s$ould comply #it$ t$e certiication o non-orum s$oppin!%
(el"& :es% /eore t$e C?=E,EC dismissed P's petition or annulment o
proclamation0 t$is #as le!ally still pendin! resolution and $e s$ould $ave disclosed t$e
e<istence o suc$ action in $is election protest% +$e act t$at P's protest #as not based
on t$e same cause o action as $is pre-proclamation case is not a valid e<cuse or not
complyin! #it$ t$e rule% +$e re&uirement to ile a certiicate o non-orum s$oppin! is
mandatory% +$e rule applies to any complaint0 petition0 application0 or ot$er initiatory
pleadin!0 re!ardless o #$et$er t$e party ilin! it $as actually committed orum s$oppin!%
DOCENA V# LAPESRA
2B =arc$ 2001
Fa%ts& P iled a complaint or t$e recovery o a parcel o land a!ainst $is lessees0
spouses H and 9% +C ruled in avor o P% C4 dismissed t$e petition on t$e !round t$at
only one o t$e petitioners si!ned t$e certiication o non-orum s$oppin!%
Iss'e& 9as t$e dismissal correct)
(el"& *o% (t $as been t$e Court's previous rulin! t$at all t$e petitioners s$ould si!n t$e
certiicate o non-orum s$oppin! or plaintis in a case and t$at t$e si!nin! by only one
o t$em is insuicient% (n t$e case at bar0 $o#ever0 #e $old t$at t$ere is substantial
compliance% +$ere are only 2 petitioners in t$is case and t$ey are $usband and #ie%
+$e certiication #as si!ned statin! t$at @$e and $is #ieLA +$e property sub1ect o t$e
ori!inal action or recovery is con1u!al% Cnder t$e Family Code0 mana!ement or
administration belon!s to t$e $usband and t$e #ie 1ointly% Ho#ever0 eac$ spouse may
validly e<ercise ull po#er o mana!ement alone0 sub1ect only to t$e intervention o t$e
Court% +$us0 suc$ omission is not a atal deect%
EXECTION PENDING APPEAL
! V# SANTIAGO
335 SC34 5B0 6July 20007
24
RE ME DI AL L AW
CAS E DI GE S T S
Fa%ts& =+C ruled in avor o P in an e1ectment case% " appealed to t$e 3+C% +$e 3+C
airmed t$e =+C rulin! in toto% P iled a motion or issuance o #rit o e<ecution pendin!
appeal to #$ic$ " iled $is opposition% =ean#$ile0 " iled a petition or revie# #it$ t$e
C4 assailin! t$e 3+C decision in t$e e1ectment case% 3+C 1ud!e denied e<ecution
pendin! appeal because " perected $is appeal0 iled a supersedeas bond and !ave
periodic deposits o t$e rentals allin! due durin! t$e pendency o t$e appeal%
Iss'e& 9$et$er t$e decision o t$e 3+C in t$e appealed e1ectment case is immediately
e<ecutory pendin! appeal%
(el"& :es% (t is only e<ecution o t$e =+C 1ud!ment pendin! appeal #it$ t$e 3+C0
#$ic$ may be stayed by a compliance #it$ t$e re&uisites0 provided in 3ule 89 ; 19% ?n
t$e ot$er $and0 once t$e 3+C $as rendered a decision in its appellate 1urisdiction0 suc$
decision s$all under 3ule 80 ; 210 be immediately e<ecutory0 #it$out pre1udice to an
appeal via a petition or revie# #it$ t$e C4 andJor SC%
RELIEF FROM JDGMENT
BASCO V# CA
338 SC34 482 64u!% 20007
Fa%ts& 4 #as convicted o ille!al possession o irearm% ?n t$e last day o ilin! an
appeal0 4's counsel submitted a motion ro reconsideration #it$out t$e re&uired notice o
$earin!% B days later0 counsel submitted a notiication and maniestation in an attempt to
rectiy t$e error% 3+C denied bot$ t$e motion or reconsideration and t$e notiication and
maniestation% 4 iled a petition or relie rom 1ud!ment pursuant to 3ule 3B0 #$ic$ #as
also denied or lac. o merit% 4 t$en appealed t$e order o denial to t$e C4%
Iss'e& 9$et$er an order denyin! a petition or relie is appealable%
(el"& *o% Cnder t$e old 3ules o Court0 a 1ud!ment or order denyin! relie under 3ule
3B is inal and appealable% Ho#ever0 under t$e 1998 4mended 3ules o Procedure0 an
order denyin! a petition or relie is no lon!er sub1ect to appeal% +$e a!!rieved party's
recourse is to ile t$e appropriate special civil action under 3ule 52%
DAP MINING ASSOCIATION V. CA$ et# al#
5 June 2001
Fa%ts& P ailed to ile an appeal o t$e decision o t$e "irector o =ines #it$in t$e 2-day
re!lementary period prescribed by Sec% 20 o P%"% 453% P iled a petition or relie rom
1ud!ment but it #as not accompanied by aidavits o merit%
Iss'e& 9$et$er t$e petition or relie s$ould be allo#ed to prosper%
(el"& *o% 4 petition or relie is a special remedy desi!ned to !ive a party a last
c$ance to deend $is ri!$t or protect $is interest% (t is a relie t$at can only be availed o
in e<ceptional cases% /ein! an act o !race0 so desi!ned as it #ere to !ive t$e a!!rieved
party a second opportunity0 t$e e<traordinary period i<ed t$ereor must be considered
non-e<tendible and not sub1ect to condition or contin!ency% (n t$is case0 t$e petition or
relie ailed to be accompanied by aidavits o merit0 s$o#in! t$e raud0 accident0
mista.e or e<cusable ne!li!ence relied upon0 and t$e facts constituting petitioner&s good
and substantial cause of action or defense% +$ese aidavits o merit #ould serve as t$e
indispensable basis or a court to be called upon to entertain a petition or relie%
ANNLMENT OF JDGMENT
TRINIDAD V# CA
5 June 2001
Fa%ts& P sou!$t to annul t$e inal 1ud!ment rendered a!ainst $is interest%
22
RE ME DI AL L AW
CAS E DI GE S T S
Iss'e& 9$et$er t$e petition to annul 1ud!ment #as timely iled%
(el"& *o% +$e petition to annul t$e 1ud!ment o t$e trial court #as iled more t$an 5
mont$s ater t$e 1ud!ment $ad become inal and e<ecutory% +$e action to annul t$e
compromise 1ud!ment s$ould even be deemed barred under 3ule 3B ; 3 providin! t$at
t$e 1ud!ment could only be set aside i t$e action #ere brou!$t #it$in 50 days ater
petitioners' .no#led!e o t$e 1ud!ment but in no case later t$an si< mont$s ater its
entry%
INJNCTION
CANSON V# (IDALGO
338 SC34 293 64u!% 20007
Fa%ts& C4PC?= 3e!ional "irector ordered t$e re-assi!nment o P0 a police oicer%
(nstead o complyin! #it$ t$e directive0 P iled a petition or pro$ibition #it$ preliminary
in1unction #it$ t$e 3+C to en1oin t$e enorcement o t$e directive% 3+C !ranted
preliminary in1unction%
Iss'e& 9$et$er t$e court may en1oin t$e assi!nmentJre-assi!nment o a police oicer%
(el"& *o% +$e court $as no supervisory po#er over t$e oicers and men o t$e
national police0 unless t$e acts o t$e latter are plainly done in !rave abuse o discretion
or beyond t$e competence o t$e unctions or 1urisdiction o t$eir oice% (n t$is case0
t$ere #as no s$o#in! o !rave abuse o discretion on t$e part o t$e C4PC?= 3e!ional
"irector% Courts cannot by in1unction revie#0 overrule or ot$er#ise interere #it$ t$e valid
acts o police oicials%
IDOLOR V# CA
08 Feb% 2001
Fa%ts> E0 #$ose mort!a!ed property #as oreclosed and sold in a public auction0 ailed
to e<ercise $er ri!$t o redemption #it$in t$e proper period% E t$en iled a complaint or
annulment o s$eri's sale a!ainst t$e buyers #it$ prayer or t$e issuance o a #rit o
preliminary in1unction%
Iss'e> S$ould t$e #rit o preliminary in1unction be issued)
(el"> *o% E ailed to s$o# suicient interest or title in t$e property sou!$t to be
protected as $er ri!$t o redemption $ad already e<pired t#o days beore t$e ilin! o t$e
complaint% (t is al#ays a !round or denyin! in1unction t$at t$e party see.in! it $as
insuicient title or interest to sustain it0 and no claim to t$e ultimate relie sou!$t%
RBANES V# CA
2B =arc$ 2001
Fa%ts& E a!ency participated in a public biddin! to secure a contract providin! security
services to t$e SSS% Ho#ever0 t$e contract #as a#arded to :% Claimin! t$at
irre!ularities and anomalies attended t$e public biddin!0 E iled an action or in1unction to
prevent t$e a#ardin! o t$e contract to :% E as.ed or t$e issuance o a #rit o
preliminary in1unction as #ell% +C issued t$e #rit% C4 set it aside and also dismissed t$e
main action%
Iss'e& "id t$e C4 !ravely abuse its discretion)
(el"& :es% +$e C4 overstepped its boundaries #$en it dismissed t$e main action%
+$e issue to be resolved #as only in respect to t$e #rit o preliminary in1unction% +$e
main action o in1unction see.s a 1ud!ment embodyin! a inal in1unction #$ic$ is distinct
rom t$e provisional remedy o preliminary in1unction%
25
RE ME DI AL L AW
CAS E DI GE S T S
SPOSES CR!STAL V# CEB INT4L SC(OOL
04 4pr% 2001
Fa%ts> E #as not able to pay t$e re&uired sc$ool ees on time% +$us0 E #as not enrolled
in : sc$ool% E iled a complaint a!ainst : sc$ool0 prayin! or t$e issuance o a #rit o
preliminary pro$ibitory and mandatory in1unction%
Iss'e> S$ould t$e #rit be issued)
(el"> *o% E ailed to s$o# t$at $e $as a clear and unmista.able ri!$t t$at $as been
violated% +$e ri!$t to enroll in a private sc$ool is not absoluteG it is sub1ect to @air0
reasonable and e&uitable re&uirements%A E $as no ri!$t or standin! to pray or t$e
issuance o an in1unctive #rit0 because $e ailed to pay t$e re&uired sc$ool ees on time%
=oreover0 E $as not s$o#n any ur!ent and permanent necessity or it0 considerin! t$at
E is already enrolled in anot$er sc$ool%
MOTION FOR CLARIFICATOR! JDGMENT
VIRGILIO V# PATRICIA
340 SC34 222 6Sept% 20007
Fa%ts& P #on in an unla#ul detainer case a!ainst "% ?n appeal0 3+C reversed and
ruled in avor o "% P iled a motion or clariicatory 1ud!ment% 9it$out #aitin! or t$e
resolution o t$e motion0 P iled a petition or revie# #it$ t$e C4% " ar!ued t$at t$e
petition or revie# #as premature% For "0 because o t$e pendency o P's motion0 t$ere
#as no inal 1ud!ment or decision t$at could be t$e sub1ect o a petition or revie#%
Iss'e& 9as t$e petition or revie# premature because o t$e pendency o t$e motion or
clariicatory 1ud!ment)
(el"& *o% 4 motion or clariicatory 1ud!ment0 not bein! in t$e c$aracter o a motion or
reconsideration0 does not toll t$e re!lementary period or ilin! a petition or revie#% (ts
ilin! #ill not bar t$e 1ud!ment rom attainin! inality0 nor #ill its resolution amen t$e
decision to be revie#ed%
DECLARATOR! RELIEF
SPS# MIRASOL V# CA
01 Feb% 2001
Fa%ts& Spouses H and 9 entered into a crop loanin! inancin! sc$eme #it$ P*/% P*/
#as empo#ered as t$e spouses attorney-in-act and could sell t$eir su!ar in order to
apply t$e proceeds to t$e payment o obli!ation% +$e spouses #anted an accountin! o
t$e proceeds o t$e sale o t$eir e<port su!ar but P*/ i!nored t$eir re&uests% Come time
to settle t$eir obli!ations0 it #as ound t$at H and 9 o#ed P*/ around 12%9 million
pesos% +$e spouses claimed t$at $ad P*/ made t$e accountin!0 it #ould $ave ound
out t$at t$e proceeds #ere enou!$ to cover t$e obli!ation% +$ey t$en iled a suit or
accountin!0 speciic perormance and dama!es a!ainst t$e latter%
Iss'e& S$ould t$e Sol -en be notiied in respect to actions or declaratory relie)
(el"& :es% 3ule 53 ; 3 o t$e 3ules o Court re&uire notice to t$e Solicitor -eneral%
+$e mandatory notice re&uirement is not limited to actions or declaratory relie but in
act e<tends to @any actionA contrary to t$e spouses' contention t$at said rule applies
only to actions or declaratory relie and not to t$e present action #$ic$ is only or
accountin!0 speciic perormance and dama!es%
SPOSES LIM V# CR.
04 4pr% 2001
28
RE ME DI AL L AW
CAS E DI GE S T S
Fa%ts> 4 complaint or &uietin! o title #as iled by P a!ainst "% P caused t$e annotation
o a notice o lis pendens at t$e bac. o t$e +C+ coverin! t$e said sub1ect land% 4 motion
to cancel notice o lis pendens #as iled by "0 on t$e !round t$at a notice o lis pendens
cannot be !ranted on t$e basis o an unre!istered deed o sale%
Iss'e> Can a notice o lis pendens be !ranted0 even on t$e basis o an unre!istered
deed o sale)
(el"> :es% For purposes o annotatin! a notice o lis pendens0 t$ere is not$in! in t$e
rules #$ic$ re&uires t$e party see.in! annotation to s$o# t$at t$e land belon!s to $im%
(n act0 t$ere is no re&uirement t$at t$e party applyin! or t$e annotation o t$e notice
must prove $is ri!$t or interest over t$e property sou!$t to be annotated% Hence0 even
on t$e basis o an unre!istered deed o sale0 a notice o lis pendens may be annotated
on t$e title%
SPOSES LIM V# CR.
04 4pr% 2001
Fa%ts> 4 complaint or &uietin! o title #as iled by P a!ainst "% P caused t$e annotation
o a notice o lis pendens at t$e bac. o t$e +C+ coverin! t$e said sub1ect land% 4 motion
to cancel notice o lis pendens #as iled by "% +$e 1ud!e issued an order cancelin! t$e
notice o lis pendens annotated at t$e bac. o a party's +C+ upon "'s postin! o an
indemnity bond%
Iss'e> Can t$e court allo# " to ile a bond in substitution o t$e notice o lis pendens)
(el"> *o% +$e doctrine o lis pendens is ounded upon reasons o public policy and
necessity0 t$e purpose o #$ic$ is to .eep t$e properties in liti!ation #it$in t$e po#er o
t$e court until t$e liti!ation is terminated and to prevent t$e deeat o t$e 1ud!ment or
decree by subse&uent alienation% +$is purpose #ould be rendered meanin!less i " is
allo#ed to ile a bond0 re!ardless o t$e amount0 in substitution o t$e notice%
OMNIBS MOTION
MEDISERV V# C(INA BAN*ING
18 4pr% 2001
Fa%ts> " #as declared in deault% " iled an ?mnibus =otion 6a7 to lit ?rder o "eaultG
and 6b7 dismiss t$e Complaint #it$ Pre1udice% +$e ?mnibus =otion #as not under oat$0
and t$e 4idavit o =erit ailed to aver any act #$ic$ constitutes movant's !ood and
substantial deense nor alle!e circumstances constitutin! "'s mista.e or e<cusable
ne!li!ence%
Iss'e> S$ould t$e ?mnibus =otion be !ranted)
(el"> *o% +$e ?mnibus =otion #as not under oat$ as re&uired in 3ule 90 Sec% 3 6b70
and t$e 4idavit o =erit is deective or ailin! to aver any act #$ic$ constitutes
movant's !ood and substantial deense nor alle!e circumstances constitutin! "'s
mista.e or e<cusable ne!li!ence%
SMMAR! JDGMENT
EVADEL V# SPOSES SORIANO
20 4pr% 2001
Fa%ts> P iled a!ainst " an action to recover o#ners$ip over real property% P see.s to
recover a certain portion o land #it$ a total area o 20420 s&uare meters rom " #$ic$
portion #as alle!edly in e<cess o t$e total area o t$e property actually sold by t$em to
t$e latter% (n $is 4ns#er0 " admitted t$e e<istence and due e<ecution o t$e Contract to
sell #$ic$ contained t$e speciic description o t$e property it bou!$t rom P%
2B
RE ME DI AL L AW
CAS E DI GE S T S
Iss'e> (s t$ere a !enuine issue as to any material act)
(el"> *o% +$ere is no !enuine issue o act as to o#ners$ip o t$e sub1ect property
because t$e admissions made by " in its 4ns#er are tantamount to an admission t$at P
o#ned t$e property in &uestion% +$us0 t$e court may summarily resolve t$e issue o
o#ners$ip o t$e sub1ect property%
PERSONS BOND B! JDGMENT IN AN EJECTMENT SIT
E5ITABLE PCI BAN* V# *
25 =arc$ 2001
Fa%ts& P mort!a!ed property to "% Ho#ever0 due to deault in t$e payment o t$e loan0 "
instituted e<tra1udicial oreclosure and #as issued a ne# certiicate o title in $is name%
" t$en iled an action or e1ectment a!ainst P's at$er% +$e order directin! t$e at$er to
vacate became inal% P appealed claimin! t$at s$e #as deprived o due process0 as s$e
#as not made a party to t$e e1ectment suit%
Iss'e& S$ould P $ave been impleaded in t$e e1ectment suit)
(el"& *o% -enerally0 no man s$all be aected by any proceedin! to #$ic$ $e is a
stran!er0 and stran!ers to a case are not bound by 1ud!ment rendered by t$e court%
*evert$eless0 a 1ud!ment in an e1ectment suit is bindin! not only upon t$e deendants in
t$e suit but also t$ose not made parties i t$ey are trespassers0 s&uatters or a!ents o
t$e deendant raudulently occupyin! t$e property to rustrate t$e 1ud!mentG !uests or
ot$er occupants #it$ deendant's permissionG transerees pendente liteG sub-lesseesG co-
lesseesG members o t$e amily0 relatives and ot$er privies o t$e deendant% P0 bein! t$e
dau!$ter0 is bound%
EX(ASTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES
GARCIA V# CA et# al#
5 June 2001
Fa%ts& 4n administrative case #as iled a!ainst 4 beore t$e PC4% 4 iled a case #it$
t$e C4 ar!uin! t$at t$ere #as violation o administrative due process% +$e C4 reused to
ta.e co!niDance o t$e case or 4's ailure to e<$aust administrative remedies%
Iss'e& 9$et$er t$e doctrine o e<$austion o administrative remedies applies%
(el"& :es% Cnder t$e doctrine o e<$austion o administrative remedies0 recourse
t$rou!$ court action cannot prosper until ater all suc$ administrative remedies #ould
$ave irst been e<$austed% +$e rule is an element o petitionerMs ri!$t o action0 and it is
too si!niicant a mandate to be 1ust #aylaid by t$e courts% +$is traditional attitude o t$e
courts is based not only on convenience but li.e#ise on respect> convenience o t$e
party liti!ants and respect or a coe&ual oice in t$e !overnment% ( a remedy is available
#it$in t$e administrative mac$inery0 t$is s$ould be resorted to beore resort can be
made to 6t$e7 courts% Even comity dictates t$at unless t$e available administrative
remedies $ave been resorted to and appropriate aut$orities !iven an opportunity to act
and correct t$e errors committed in t$e administrative orum0 1udicial recourse must be
$eld to be inappropriate and impermissible%
4 ar!ued t$at $is case s$ould $ave been vie#ed as an e'ception rom t$e
principle o e<$austion o administrative remedies% 4 cannot deny t$at $e $as been able
to eectively0 i not deliberately0 delayed t$e resolution o t$e administrative case a!ainst
$im due to $is repeated requests for extension of time to file answer and his
inexcusable refusal to attend the scheduled hearings thereon despite due notice.
4Ms invocation t$at $is ailure to e<$aust administrative remedies s$ould be EECEP+E"
by t$e act t$at irreparable dama!e #ould ensue upon $is overdue suspension and
ille!al ouster rom oice cannot be countenanced%
29
RE ME DI AL L AW
CAS E DI GE S T S
EVIDENCE
IMPEAC(MENT B! BIAS
PEOPLE V# PERALTA
320 SC34 19B 6Jan% 20017
Fa%ts& 4 #as ound !uilty o murder% 4 attempted to impeac$ t$e credibility o 3
prosecution #itnesses0 especially #itness 9% 4 pointed out t$at 9 testiied t$at as t$e
victim's raternity brot$er0 $e #ould do @anyt$in! and everyt$in!A or t$e victim%
Iss'e& 9$et$er 4 #as able to properly impeac$ t$e #itnesses on account o bias%
(el"& *o% 4 #itness may be said to biased #$en $is relation to t$e cause or to t$e
parties is suc$ t$at $e $as an incentive to e<a!!erate or !ive alse color or pervert t$e
trut$0 or to state #$at is alse% +o impeac$ a biased #itness0 t$e counsel must lay t$e
proper oundation o t$e bias by as.in! t$e #itness acts constitutin! t$e bias% (n t$is
case0 t$ere #as no proper impeac$ment by bias o t$e 3 prosecution #itnesses% 9's
testimony t$at $e #ould do anyt$in! or $is ello# brot$ers #as too broad and !eneral so
as to constitute a motive to lie beore t$e court%
PEOPLE V# MACANDOG et# al#
5 June 2001
Fa%ts& 4 #as accused o t$e murder o F% E0 a #itness o t$e prosecution0 testiied t$at
4 #as amon! t$ose present at t$e crime scene% 4 ar!ued t$at E's testimony s$ould not
$ave been !iven credence because s$e #as biased0 as s$e #as t$e sister o t$e
deceased%
Iss'e& 9$et$er E is a biased #itness%
(el"& *o% +$e act t$at E is t$e sister o deceased does not per se ma.e $er a biased
#itness% =ere relations$ip o t$e victim to a #itness does not automatically impair $er
credibility and render $er testimony less #ort$y o credence #$ere no improper motive
can be ascribed% Suc$ relations$ip lends more credence to t$e testimony considerin!
$er natural interest to see t$e !uilty punis$ed% (t #ould be unnatural or a relative #$o is
interested in vindicatin! t$e crime to accuse anyone ot$er t$an t$e real culprit%
C(ILD WITNESS
PEOPLE V# RAMA
320 SC34 255 6Jan% 20017
Fa%ts& 4 #as ound !uilty o .idnappin! a baby% 90 t$e 2-year old cousin o t$e victim0
identiied 4 as t$e one #$o too. t$e victim% 4 contended t$at 9's testimony0 comin!
rom t$e mout$ o a 2-year old0 does not deserve credit because s$e could not ans#er
many &uestions and appeared to $ave been coac$ed by $er !randmot$er%
Iss'e& 9$et$er 9 is dis&ualiied as a #itness%
(el"& *o% +$e re&uirements o a c$ild's competency as a #itness are t$e> 6a7 capacity
o observation0 6b7 capacity o recollection and 6c7 capacity o communication% Proessor
9i!more said t$at no rule deines any particular a!e as conclusive o incapacity% (n t$is
case0 #$ile t$e 2-year old #itness #as not able to ans#er some &uestions0 s$e #as
strai!$tor#ard in identiyin! 4 as t$e culprit% +$is is in accord #it$ t$e 3ule on
E<amination o a C$ild 9itness 6became eective "ec% 120 200070 #$ic$ provides in ; 5
6a7 t$at t$e a!e o t$e c$ild by itsel is not a suicient basis or a competency
e<amination%
30
RE ME DI AL L AW
CAS E DI GE S T S
PROOF OF PREVIOS CONVICTION
PEOPLE V# FELWA
20 4pr% 2001
Fa%ts> 4 #as c$ar!ed #it$ .idnappin! and serious ille!al detention% (n t$e course o t$e
trial0 t$e prosecution attempted to brin! out 4's ormer conviction o anot$er crime%
Iss'e> Can t$e proo o 4's past conviction be used to prove $is !uilt o t$e crime
c$ar!ed)
(el"> *o% 4 previous decision or 1ud!ment0 #$ile admissible in evidence0 may only
prove t$at an accused #as previously convicted o a crime% (t may not be used to prove
t$at t$e accused is !uilty o a crime c$ar!ed in a subse&uent case%
OPINION RLE
PEOPLE V# DRANAN
349 SC34 1B0 6Jan% 20017
Fa%ts& 4 #as ound !uilty o rape% +$e victim's mot$er testiied as to t$e mental
condition o $er dau!$ter% +$e victim #as considered retarded and 4 #as sentenced
accordin!ly% 4 contended t$at since t$e victim's mental a!e #as not proven0 $e cannot
be convicted o rape o a mental retardate%
Iss'e& 9$et$er t$e testimony o t$e victim's mot$er #as suicient to establis$ t$e
mental condition o t$e victim%
(el"& :es% +$e mot$er o an oended party in a case o rape0 t$ou!$ not a
psyc$iatrist0 i s$e .no#s t$e p$ysical and mental condition o t$e party0 $o# s$e #as
born0 #$at s$e is suerin! rom0 and #$at $er attainments are0 is competent to testiy on
t$ese matters% +$is is in accordance #it$ t$e e<ception to t$e opinion rule provided in
3ule 130 ; 20%
(EARSA!
PEOPLE V# GARCIA
332 SC34 20B 6July 20007
Fa%ts& 4 #as convicted o murder% +$e police oicer #$o prepared t$e inormation
testiied t$at $e #as inormed by E and : o t$e identity o t$e assailant% Ho#ever0 E and
: did not actually see t$e assailants but merely $eard t$e ne#s rom ot$ers%
Iss'e& 9$et$er t$e police oicer's testimony as to t$e identity o t$e assailants is
admissible%
(el"& *o% +$e inormation !iven by E and : to t$e police oicer #as $earsay% +$e
police oicer's testimony is even multiple $earsay0 since it is based upon @t$ird $andA
inormation related to t$e #itness by someone #$o $eard it rom ot$ers%
GO V# CA
2 Feb% 2001
Fa%ts> +$e prosecution sou!$t to establis$ t$e act t$at a certain c$ec.boo. #as
delivered personally to =r% 4 by presentin! t$e testimony o E0 #$o testiied t$at : told
$er t$at $e let t$e c$ec.boo. on top o =r% 4's table%
Iss'e> (s E's testimony admissible)
(el"> *o% E's testimony is $earsay% (t does not appear t$at E $as irst-$and .no#led!e
t$at t$e c$ec.boo. #as indeed delivered to =r% 4%
31
RE ME DI AL L AW
CAS E DI GE S T S
ESTRADA V# ANIANO DESIERTO
03 4pr% 2001
Fa%ts> +$e Supreme Court0 in a prior decision0 used t$e 4n!ara "iary 6@4"A7 to
establis$ Estrada's intent to resi!n%
Iss'e> "oes t$e use o t$e 4" violate t$e rule a!ainst t$e admission o $earsay
evidence)
(el"> *o%
1% +$e 4" is not an out o court statement% +$e 4" is part o t$e pleadin!s in t$e
cases at bar% Estrada 6E7 cannot complain $e #as not urnis$ed a copy o t$e
4"% *or can $e ei!n surprise on its use% +o be sure0 t$e said diary #as
re&uently reerred to by t$e parties in t$eir pleadin!s% E $ad all t$e opportunity to
contest t$e use o t$e diary but unortunately ailed to do so%
2% Even assumin! ar!uendo t$at t$e 4" #as an out o court statement0 still its use
is not covered by t$e $earsay rule% +$e rules o e<clusion do not cover
admissions o a party and t$e 4" belon!s to t$is class% 4lt$ou!$ t$e 4" is not
t$e diary o E0 E is bound by it0 in accordance #it$ t$e doctrine o adoptive
admission% Sec% 4n!ara acted or and in be$al o E in t$e crucial days beore
Pres% 4rroyo too. $er oat$ as President% 4dmissions o an a!ent 6Secretary
4n!ara7 are bindin! on t$e principal 6E7%
3% =oreover0 t$e ban on $earsay evidence does not cover independently relevant
statements% +$e 4" contains statements o E #$ic$ relect $is state o mind and
are circumstantial evidence o $is intent to resi!n%
SEVILLANA V# I#T# CORP
15 4pr% 2001
Fa%ts> (n a labor case0 t$e *,3C considered P's complaint-aidavit as mere $earsay
evidence since P #as not cross-e<amined%
Iss'e> S$ould t$e complaint-aidavit be considered $earsay evidence)
(el"> *o% ,abor la#s mandate t$e speedy disposition o cases0 #it$ t$e least attention
to tec$nicalities but #it$out sacriicin! t$e undamental re&uisites o due process% (n t$is
li!$t0 t$e *,3C0 li.e t$e labor arbiter is aut$oriDed to decide cases based on t$e position
papers and ot$er documents submitted0 #it$out resortin! to tec$nical rules o evidence%
D#M# CONSNJI V# CA
20 4pr% 2001
Fa%ts> 4 police oicer investi!ated t$e deat$ o P and iled a police report% P's #ido#
iled in t$e 3+C a complaint or dama!es a!ainst P's employer0 "% +$e police report #as
admitted in evidence and t$e police oicer #$o prepared t$e same testiied durin! trial%
Iss'e> 9as t$e police report $earsay and0 t$ereore0 inadmissible)
(el"> +$e report #as inadmissible or t$e purpose o provin! t$e trut$ o t$e
statements contained in t$e report but admissible insoar as it constitutes part o t$e
testimony o t$e oicer #$o e<ecuted t$e report% (n any case0 t$e Court $eld t$at
portions o t$e report #$ic$ #ere o t$e personal .no#led!e o t$e police oicer suice
to prove t$e cause o deat$ o P%
CIT! GOV4T V# MONTEVERDE
21 =ay 2001
Fa%ts> 4 #itness !ave $earsay testimony% (t #as not ob1ected to%
Iss'e> "oes t$e testimony $ave probative value)
32
RE ME DI AL L AW
CAS E DI GE S T S
(el"> *o% Hearsay evidence $as no probative value0 #$et$er ob1ected to or not%
MOLLANEDA V# MACOB
5 June 2001
Fa%ts& 4n administrative case #as iled a!ainst 4% Complainant sou!$t 4's dismissal as
Sc$ools "ivision Superintendent% Complainant oered in evidence t$e testimony o
#itnesses #$o $eard t$e complainant's !rievance a!ainst 4% 4 contended t$at suc$
testimony is $earsay%
Iss'e& 9$et$er t$e testimonies o t$e #itnesses constitute $earsay%
(el"& *o% +$e testimonies #ere not presented to prove t$e trut$ o complainant's
accusations a!ainst 40 but only to establis$ t$e act t$at complainant narrated to t$em
#$at transpired bet#een $er and 4% 9$ile it is true t$at t$e testimony o a #itness
re!ardin! a statement made by anot$er person0 i intended to establis$ t$e trut$ o t$e
acts asserted in t$e statement0 is clearly $earsay evidence0 it is ot$er#ise i t$e purpose
o placin! t$e statement in t$e record is merely to establis$ t$e act t$at t$e statement
#as made% 3e!ardless o t$e trut$ or alsity o a statement0 #$en t$e act t$at it $as
been made is relevant0 t$e $earsay rule does not apply and t$e statement may be
s$o#n% Evidence as to t$e ma.in! o t$e statement is not secondary but primary0 or t$e
statement itsel may constitute a act in issue0 or be circumstantially relevant as to t$e
e<istence o suc$ a act%
D!ING DECLARATIONS
PEOPLE V# PRECIADOS
349 SC34 1 6Jan% 20017
Fa%ts& +$e prosecution called E to testiy on :'s @dyin! declaration%A :0 $o#ever0 #as
alive and later even testiied in court%
Iss'e& (s E's testimony admissible as dyin! declaration)
(el"& *o% ?ne o t$e re&uisitesNt$at t$e declarant diesNis missin!%
PEOPLE V# MACANDOG et# al#
5 June 2001
Fa%ts& F0 t$e victim0 #as able to tell E t$e names o $is assailants beore $e died% 40 t$e
accused0 &uestioned t$e admissibility o F's statement as a dyin! declaration%
Iss'e& 9$et$er F's statement is admissible as a dyin! declaration%
(el"& :es% For a dyin! declaration to be valid and admissible in evidence0 t$e ollo#in!
re&uisites must concur>
6a7 t$at t$e declaration must concern t$e cause and surroundin! circumstances o t$e
declarant's deat$G
6b7 t$at at t$e time t$e declaration #as made0 t$e declarant #as under a consciousness
o an impendin! deat$G
6c7 t$at t$e declarant is competent as a #itnessG and
6d7 t$at t$e declaration is oered in a criminal case in #$ic$ t$e declarant is t$e victim%
+$e positive declaration o t$e deceased as to t$e identity o $is assailants0 !iven t$e
consciousness t$at deat$ is imminent is undoubtedly entitled to !reat #ei!$t considerin!
t$e seriousness o $is #ounds and $is very #ea. p$ysical condition as s$o#n by t$e act
t$at deat$ supervened 30 minutes ater $is disclosure to E%
33
RE ME DI AL L AW
CAS E DI GE S T S
RES GESTAE
PEOPLE V# MANSETO
335 SC34 812 6July 20007
Fa%ts& 4 and / #ere accused o .illin! F% +$e prosecution presented 90 t$e dau!$ter o
F0 durin! trial% 9 identiied 4 as t$e culprit% 4 attempted to impeac$ 9's credibility% 4
ar!ued t$at 9's ailure to mention 4 as t$e driver o t$e !eta#ay ve$icle #$en s$e
reported t$e s$ootin! incident to t$e police immediately ater it occurred s$ould orm part
o t$e res !estae% 4 contended t$at t$e omission0 as part o t$e res !estae0 s$ould $ave
been aorded evidentiary #ei!$t%
Iss'e& 9$et$er res !estae applies%
(el"& *o% Since 9 $ersel testiied0 t$ere is absolutely no room or t$e application o
t$e rule on res !estae% 4lso0 sub1ect matters not mentioned or are outside t$e
statements or e<planations !iven by t$e declarant do not orm part o t$e res !estae%
PEOPLE V# PALMONES
335 SC34 B0 6July 20007
Fa%ts& 4 #as c$ar!ed #it$ t$e crime o murder% /eore t$e victim died0 $e #as able to
tal. #it$ $is nep$e# 9% He told 9 t$e names o t$e assailants% 4 contended t$at t$e
declaration #as $earsayNit #as not a dyin! declaration or a statement constitutin! part
o t$e res !estae%
Iss'e& 9$et$er t$e declaration is admissible%
(el"& *o% 4 #as correct% +$e ollo#in! actors $ave !enerally been considered in
determinin! #$et$er statements oered in evidence as part o t$e res !estae $ave been
made spontaneously> 617 t$e time t$at lapsed bet#een t$e occurrence o t$e act or
transaction and t$e ma.in! o t$e statementG 627 t$e place #$ere t$e statement #as
madeG 637 t$e condition o t$e declarant #$en $e made t$e statementG 647 t$e presence
or absence o intervenin! events bet#een t$e occurrence and t$e statement relative
t$eretoG and 627 t$e nature and circumstances o t$e statement itsel% (n t$is case0 t$e
declaration did not meet t$e test o spontaneity because> 6a7 an appreciable amount o
time $ad elapsed beore t$e statement #as madeG 6b7 $e made t$e statement at t$e
$ospital and not at t$e scene o t$e crimeG and 6c7 t$ere #as an intervenin! event 6trip to
t$e $ospital7 t$at could $ave aorded t$e victim opportunity or deliberation%
PEOPLE V# PRECIADOS
349 SC34 1 6Jan% 20017
Fa%ts& 4 poisonin! incident occurred% E too. :'s ante-mortem statement 39 $ours ater
t$e incident%
Iss'e& (s :'s statement admissible as part o t$e res !estae)
(el"& *o% +$e element o spontaneity is lac.in! in t$e alle!ed ante-mortem statement%
39 $ours is too lon! a time to be considered @subse&uent immediately to t$e startlin!
occurrence%A
TESTIMON! OR DEPOSITION AT A FORMER PROCEEDING
CARIAGA V# CA et# al#
5 June 2001
Fa%ts& Prosecution subpoenaed #itness 9 but $e ailed to appear% +$us0 t$e
prosecution oered 9's testimony !iven out o court and t$is #as admitted% 4 ar!ued
t$at $is ri!$t to meet t$e #itness a!ainst $im ace to ace #as violated%
34
RE ME DI AL L AW
CAS E DI GE S T S
Iss'e& 9as 4's constitutional ri!$t violated #$en t$e court admitted 9's out-o-court
testimony)
(el"& :es% +$e preconditions set ort$ in ; 48 3ule 130 or t$e admission o testimony
!iven by a #itness out o court must be strictly complied #it$ and t$ere is more reason to
adopt suc$ a strict rule in t$e case o ; 167 o 3ule 1120 or apart rom bein! a rule o
evidence #it$ additional speciic re&uisites to t$ose prescribed by ; 480 more
importantly0 said provision is an implementin! translation o t$e constitutional ri!$t o an
accused person @to meet t$e #itnesses 6a!ainst $im7 ace to aceA 6"oledo, (r. v.
People7 (n "an v. CA0 it #as ruled t$at 'unable to testiy' or or t$at matter Ounavailability'0
does not cover t$e case o #itnesses #$o #ere subpoenaed but did not appear% +$is
rule is strictly complied #it$ in criminal cases0 $ence0 @mere sendin! o subpoena and
ailure to appear is not suicient to prove inability to testiy% +$e Court must e<ercise its
coercive po#er to arrest%A (n t$is case0 no eorts #ere e<erted to $ave t$e #itness
arrested #$ic$ is a remedy available to a party-liti!ant in instances #$ere #itnesses #$o
are duly subpoenaed ail to appear% +$e s#orn statement o 9 s$ould not $ave been
admitted as evidence or t$e prosecution%
PBLIC DOCMENTS
LADIGNON V# CA
335 SC34 42 6July 20007
Fa%ts& P iled a complaint a!ainst " or recovery o possession o real property% P
claimed t$at $er si!nature on t$e "eed o 4bsolute Sale #as or!ed% " invo.ed t$e
presumption o re!ularity o public documents%
Iss'e& 9$et$er P #as able to present suicient evidence to overcome t$e presumption
o re!ularity o public documents%
(el"& *o% 4s a public document0 t$e "eed o 4bsolute Sale $ad in its avor t$e
presumption o re!ularity0 and to contradict t$e same0 t$ere must be evidence t$at is
clear0 convincin!0 and more t$an merely preponderantG ot$er#ise t$e document s$ould
be up$eld% P's mere denial #ill not suice to overcome t$e positive value o a notariDed
document%
AT(ENTICATION
PROPLE V# BAN.ALES
335 SC34 54 6July 20007
Fa%ts& 4 #as c$ar!ed #it$ ille!al recruitment% +$e P?E4 issued a certiicate statin! t$at
4 #as an unlicensed ille!al recruiter% 4 ar!ued t$at t$e prosecution iled to establis$ 1
element o t$e oense considerin! t$at no representative o t$e P?E4 #as presented in
court to testiy as to t$e aut$enticity o t$e certiicate%
Iss'e& 9$et$er aut$enticity o t$e certiicate needs to be proved%
(el"& *o% 4 P?E4 certiication is a public document issued by a public oicer in t$e
perormance o an oicial dutyG $ence it is prima acie evidence o t$e acts t$erein
stated 63ule 132 ; 237% Public documents are entitled to a presumption o re!ularityG
conse&uently0 t$e burden o proo rests upon $im #$o alle!es t$e contrary%
ESTRADA V# ANIANO DESIERTO
03 4pr% 2001
Fa%ts> +$e Court0 in a previous decision0 relied not upon t$e ori!inal but only a copy o
t$e 4n!ara "iary as publis$ed in t$e P$ilippine "aily (n&uirer%
Iss'e> "oes t$e use o t$e 4" violate t$e rule on aut$entication o private #ritin!s and
best evidence)
32
RE ME DI AL L AW
CAS E DI GE S T S
(el"> *o%
1% +$e Supreme Court0 citin! 9i!more0 stated t$at> @ Production o t$e ori!inal may be
dispensed #it$0 in t$e trial court's discretion0 #$enever in t$e case in $and t$e opponent
does not bona ide dispute t$e contents o t$e document and no ot$er useul purpose
#ill be served by re&uirin! publication%
2% Estrada $ad an opportunity to ob1ect to t$e admissibility o t$e 4" #$en $e iled $is
=emorandum0 Supplemental =emorandum and Second Supplemental =emorandum0
but $e did not ob1ect to its admissibility% He #as not t$ereore denied due process%
CROSS6EXAMINATION
PEOPLE V# GIVERA
349 SC34 283 6Jan% 20017
Fa%ts& 4 #as c$ar!ed #it$ murder% +$e prosecution ormally oered t$e testimony o
t$e medico-le!al oicer ta.en in t$e irst case involvin! 3 ot$er accused or t$e deat$ o
t$e same victim%
Iss'e& 9$et$er t$e said testimony is admissible%
(el"& *o% +$e deense did not $ave t$e opportunity to cross-e<amine t$e medico-le!al
oicer so $is testimony cannot be used in evidence a!ainst t$e accused%
FORMAL OFFER
PEOPLE V# ROBLES
349 SC34 259 6Jan% 20017
Fa%ts& 4 #as c$ar!ed #it$ t$e murder o F% 4t t$e preliminary investi!ation sta!e0 1
eye#itness e<ecuted an aidavit corroboratin! t$e testimony o anot$er #itness% /ut t$is
aidavit #as not oered in evidence nor #as t$e eye#itness presented durin! t$e trial% (t
#as ar!ued t$at t$e aidavit mi!$t be treated as evidence since it ormed part o t$e
records o t$e preliminary investi!ation%
Iss'e& 9$et$er t$e aidavit is admissible%
(el"& *o% (t is merely $earsay% +$at t$e aidavit ormed part o t$e record o t$e
preliminary investi!ation does not 1ustiy its bein! treated as evidence because t$e
record o t$e preliminary investi!ation does not orm part o t$e records o t$e case in
t$e 3+C% +o be considered part o t$e records o t$e case0 t$e record o t$e preliminary
investi!ation must be introduced as evidence durin! trial%
EXTRAJDICIAL CONFESSION
GTANG V# PEOPLE
332 SC34 489 6July 20007
Fa%ts& 40 /0 C0 and " #ere arrested in connection #it$ t$e enorcement o a searc$
#arrant% +$e accused ar!ued t$at t$e 3eceipts o Property SeiDed s$ould not $ave been
admitted in evidence because t$ese #ere obtained in violation o t$eir constitutional
ri!$ts% +$e accused #ere made to si!n t$e receipts #it$out t$e assistance o a la#yer%
Iss'e& 9$et$er t$e 3eceipts o Property SeiDed are admissible%
(el"& *o% +$e si!nature o t$e accused in t$e 3eceipts o Property SeiDed is
inadmissible in evidence because it #as obtained #it$out t$e assistance o counsel% +$e
si!nature o t$e accused on suc$ a receipt is a declaration a!ainst $is interest and a
tacit admission o t$e crime c$ar!ed or t$e reason t$at0 in t$is case0 mere une<plained
possession o pro$ibited dru!s is punis$able by la#% +$ereore0 t$e si!natures o t$e
35
RE ME DI AL L AW
CAS E DI GE S T S
accused on t$e receipts are not admissible0 bein! tantamount to an uncounselled e<tra-
1udicial conession%
PEOPLE V# RA!OS
8 Feb% 2001
Fa%ts& 4 #as c$ar!ed and convicted o t$e rape-slay o a 9-year old mental retardate%
He e<ecuted an e<tra1udicial conession but claimed $e #as only orced to do so by t$e
policemen%
Iss'e& 9$en is an e<tra1udicial conession admissible)
(el"& +$ere are our undamental conditions needed or admissibility o a conession>
a% must be voluntary
b% must be made #it$ t$e assistance o a competent and independent counsel
c% must be e<press
d% must be in #ritin!
PROVING MOTIVE
PEOPLE V# GIGANTO
335 SC34 294 6July 20007
Fa%ts& 40 /0 C0 and " #ere convicted o murder% +$e accused ar!ued t$at t$e
prosecution #as not able to prove t$eir !uilt beyond reasonable doubt% +$e motive or
.illin! t$e victim #as also not ade&uately s$o#n%
Iss'e& 9$et$er it #as necessary to prove motive%
(el"& :es% (n t$is case0 t$ere #as no evidence o t$e prosecution on #$ic$ a 1ud!ment
o conviction can be based% 9$en t$e evidence o t$e prosecution is #ea.0 it is
necessary to prove motiveG ot$er#ise0 t$e !uilt o t$e accused becomes open to
reasonable doubt0 and t$e accused must be ac&uitted%
CIRCMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
PEOPLE V# PEDIGERO
338 SC34 284 64u!% 20007
Fa%ts& 4 #as convicted o robbery #it$ $omicide% 4 claimed t$at t$e court erred in
$oldin! t$at t$e circumstantial evidence presented by t$e prosecution suiciently
establis$ed $is !uilt%
Iss'e& 9$en is circumstantial evidence suicient to convict)
(el"& 3ule 133 ; 4 enumerates t$e 3 elements t$at s$ould be present in order or
circumstantial evidence to be suicient or conviction% 4 1ud!ment o conviction based on
circumstantial evidence can be sustained only #$en t$e circumstances proved orm an
unbro.en c$ain t$at leads to a air and reasonable conclusion pointin! to t$e accused0 to
t$e e<clusion o all ot$ers0 as t$e culprit% +$e circumstances proved must be consistent
#it$ eac$ ot$er0 consistent #it$ t$e $ypot$esis t$at t$e accused is !uilty0 and at t$e
same time inconsistent #it$ any ot$er $ypot$esis e<cept t$at o !uilt%
PEOPLE V# RA!OS
8 Feb% 2001
Fa%ts& 4 #as c$ar!ed and convicted o t$e rape-slay o a 9-year old mental retardate%
He ar!ued t$at t$e circumstantial evidence presented by t$e prosecution #as not
suicient to establis$ $is !uilt beyond reasonable doubt%
Iss'e& 9$en is circumstantial evidence suicient to convict)
38
RE ME DI AL L AW
CAS E DI GE S T S
(el"& 9$en t$ere are no eye#itnesses to a crime0 resort to circumstantial evidence
becomes almost certainly unavoidable% (n rape #it$ $omicide0 t$e evidence a!ainst t$e
accused is basically circumstantial because o t$e nature o t$e crime% +$e
circumstances must be consistent #it$ eac$ ot$er rom #$ic$ t$e only rational
$ypot$esis t$at can be dra#n t$ererom #ould be t$at t$e accused is !uilty% +$e
circumstances must create a solid c$ain o events0 co$erent and intrinsically believable0
t$at pinpoints t$e accused0 to t$e e<clusion o ot$ers0 as bein! t$e perpetrator o t$e
crime and t$ereby suiciently overcome t$e presumption o innocence in $is avor% +$e
circumstantial pieces o evidence in t$is case0 ta.en in t$eir entirety0 unmista.ably point
to t$e !uilt o 4%
PROVING AGE
PEOPLE V# GERABAN
24 =ay 2001
Fa%ts> (n a &ualiied rape case0 t$e prosecution relied on t$e testimony o t$e rape victim
and $er mot$er to prove t$e minority o t$e victim or t$e purpose o imposin! t$e deat$
penalty%
Iss'e> =ay t$e corroborative testimony o t$e victim's mot$er suice to establis$ t$e
minority o t$e victim in lieu o independent documentary evidence)
(el"> :es% +$e same must0 $o#ever0 be received #it$ caution% (n t$is case0 t$e mot$er
is &uite uncertain as to $er dau!$ter's a!e% 4s a mot$er0 s$e s$ould $ave personal
.no#led!e o t$e a!es and birt$ o $er c$ildren% S$e could $ave stated t$e e<act a!e o
$er dau!$ter or t$e date o $er birt$% +$us0 t$e prosecution ailed to prove #it$ certainty
t$e minority o t$e victim%
RECANTATION
PEOPLE V# NARDO
1 =ar% 2001
Fa%ts& 4 #as c$ar!ed #it$ rape by $is 14-year old dau!$ter% He #as convicted by t$e
+C and sentenced to deat$% 4 raised t$e deense t$at t$e victim desisted in pursuin!
t$e case a!ainst $er at$er by s$o#in! t#o letters% Ho#ever0 t$ese #ere not subscribed
and s#orn to by t$e victim%
Iss'e& S$ould t$e letters be admitted in order to ac&uit t$e accused)
(el"& *o% 4 recantation o a testimony is e<ceedin!ly unreliable or t$ere is al#ays t$e
probability t$at suc$ recantation may later on be itsel repudiated% Courts loo. #it$
disavor upon retractions because t$ey can easily be obtained rom #itnesses t$rou!$
intimidation or or monetary consideration% 4 retraction does not necessarily ne!ate an
earlier declaration% Especially0 recantations made ater t$e conviction o t$e accused
deserve only scant consideration% Even i s#orn to0 t$e victim's recantation could $ardly
suice to overturn t$e indin! o !uilt by t$e +C #$ic$ #as based on $er o#n clear and
convincin! testimony !iven durin! a ull-blo#n trial% 4n aidavit o recantation0 bein!
usually ta.en e< parte0 #ould be considered inerior to t$e testimony !iven in open court%
CREDIBILIT!
PEOPLE V# BENAFLOR
28 June 2001
Fa%ts& 3+C ound 4 !uilty or rapin! 14-yr% old F #$o #as asleep at t$e time o t$e
commission o t$e crime% "urin! t$e initial reception o evidence or t$e prosecution0 F
said s$e did not .no# 4 because it #as $er irst time to see $is ace at t$e time t$e
incident too. place0 but later on cross-e<amination0 s$e admitted t$at #$at s$e said #as
3B
RE ME DI AL L AW
CAS E DI GE S T S
alse because actually 4 is t$eir nei!$bor% +$e +C t$ou!$t t$at considerin! t$at t$e
oended party is a very youn! !irl o 12 years0 it is not uncommon or t$e youn! !irl to
conceal t$e assaults because o t$e rapistMs t$reats on $er lie%
Iss'e& 9$et$er F is a credible #itness%
(el"& *o% (n a prosecution or rape0 t$e complainantMs credibility becomes t$e sin!le
most important issue% (n t$is case0 t$e testimony o t$e complainant is not credible
because it is replete #it$ inconsistencies0 and narrations t$at are contrary to common
e<perience0 $uman nature and t$e natural course o t$in!s%
ALIBI
PEOPLE V# ABENDAN et# al#
2B June 2001
Fa%ts& 3+C ound 4 et% al% !uilty o murder% +$e trial court !ave credence to t$e
testimonies o t$e prosecution #itnesses t$at t$ere #as treac$ery and conspiracy in t$e
.illin! o t$e victim0 #$o #as asleep #$en $e #as atally s$ot% 4 ar!ued t$at t$e trial
court erred in i!norin! $is alibi%
Iss'e& 9$et$er t$e trial court #as correct in not !ivin! #ei!$t to 4's alibi%
(el"& :es% Positive identiication0 #$ere cate!orical and consistent and #it$out any
s$o#in! o ill motive on t$e part o t$e eye#itness testiyin! on t$e matter0 prevails over
alibi and denial #$ic$0 i not substantiated by clear and convincin! evidence0 are
ne!ative and sel-servin! evidence undeservin! o #ei!$t in la#% 4libi becomes
un#ort$y o credit #$en it is establis$ed mainly by t$e accused $imsel and $is relative0
and not by credible persons%
MEDICAL:C(EMICAL EVIDENCE
PEOPLE V# NBLA
19 June 2001
Fa%ts& 4 #as convicted or t$e rape o F0 committed by means o orce and intimidationG
in particular0 by inducin! F to drin. iced tea laced #it$ dru!s causin! t$e latter to lose
consciousness% 4 denied t$at F #as dru!!ed and pointed to t$e absence o any medical
or c$emical evidence to support $er claim%
Iss'e& 9$et$er t$e act t$at F #as dru!!ed #as suiciently proven%
(el"& :es% 9$ile no c$emical analysis #as conducted on t$e blood o t$e complainant
immediately ater t$e incident0 t$e p$ysical maniestations 6diDDiness0 bodily #ea.ness0
stron! desire to sleep7 #ere proved durin! t$e trial%
SBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
MOLLANEDA V# MACOB
5 June 2001
Fa%ts& 40 t$e Sc$ools "ivision Superintendent0 #as criminally c$ar!ed beore t$e court%
4 #as ac&uitted% Complainants iled an administrative case a!ainst 4 to dismiss $im
rom t$e service% 4 ar!ued t$at t$e dismissal o t$e criminal case a!ainst $im meant t$at
t$e administrative case cannot prosper%
Iss'e& 9$et$er 4 is correct%
(el"& *o% +$e dismissal o a criminal case on t$e !round o insuiciency o evidence
a!ainst an accused #$o is a respondent in an administrative case does not oreclose t$e
administrative proceedin! a!ainst $im or !ive $im a clean bill o $ealt$ in all respects% (n
39
RE ME DI AL L AW
CAS E DI GE S T S
dismissin! t$e case0 t$e court is simply sayin! t$at t$e prosecution #as unable to prove
t$e !uilt o t$e respondent beyond reasonable doubt% (n administrative proceedin!s0 t$e
&uantum o proo re&uired is only substantial evidence% 4's culpability $as been proven
by substantial evidence% +$e dismissal o t$e criminal case cannot bind t$is Court in t$e
disposition o t$e instant administrative case% +$ere #as 1ustiiable !round or 4's
dismissal rom t$e service%
SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS
SETTLEMENT OF ESTATE
VDA# DE MANALO V# CA
349 SC34 132 6Jan% 20017
Fa%ts& +$e survivin! c$ildren o =analo iled a petition or t$e 1udicial settlement o t$e
estate o t$eir deceased at$er% +$e oppositors iled a motion to dismiss t$e petition on
t$e !round t$at t$e case is actually an ordinary civil action involvin! members o t$e
same amily% +$ey ar!ued t$at petitioners ailed to aver t$at earnest eorts to#ard a
compromise involvin! t$e members o t$e same amily $ave been made prior to t$e ilin!
o t$e petition but t$e same $ave ailed 6pursuant to 4rt% 222 o t$e Civil Code7%
Iss'e& 9$et$er t$e petition s$ould be treated as an ordinary civil action%
(el"& *o% (n t$e determination o t$e nature o an action or proceedin!0 t$e averments
and t$e c$aracter o t$e relie sou!$t in t$e complaintJpetition s$all be controllin!% (n t$is
case0 t$e petition contains suicient 1urisdictional acts re&uired in a petition or
settlement o estate% (ndeed0 t$e petition contained certain averments t$at may be typical
o an ordinary civil action and t$e oppositors too. advanta!e o t$e said deect% /ut
oppositors may not be allo#ed to deeat t$e purpose o an essentially valid petition by
raisin! matters t$at are irrelevant and immaterial to said petition% +$e 1urisdiction o a
court as #ell as t$e concomitant nature o t$e action is determined by t$e averments in
t$e complaint and not by t$e deenses contained in t$e ans#er%
EXTRAJDICIAL SETTLEMENT OF ESTATE
P(ILIPPINE ECONOMIC .ONE AT(ORIT! V# FERNANDE. et# al#
5 June 2001
Fa%ts& P's co-$eirs e<ecuted an e<tra1udicial settlement o estate #it$out notiyin! P%
+$e property #as t$en e<propriated by t$e !overnment% +itle to t$e property #as issued
to t$e !overnment in 19B2% (n 19950 P iled an action or reconveyance o property
alle!in! t$at $e #as unla#ully deprived by $is co-$eirs o $is participation in t$e
settlement o t$e estate%
Iss'e& 9$et$er P's action s$ould be allo#ed to prosper%
(el"& *o% Persons unduly deprived o t$eir la#ul participation in a settlement may
assert t$eir claim only #it$in t$e 2-year period ater t$e settlement and distribution o t$e
estate% +$is prescription period does not apply0 $o#ever0 to t$ose ho had no part in or
had no notice of the settlement% ; 40 3ule 840 is not meant to be a statute o limitations%
4n e<tra1udicial partition0 bein! merely an e' parte proceedin!0 #ould not aect t$ird
persons #$o $ad no .no#led!e t$ereo% #y its registration in the manner provided by
la, a transaction may be )non actually or constructively.
P is deemed to $ave been constructively notiied o t$e e<tra1udicial settlement
by reason o its re!istration and annotation in t$e certiicate o title over t$e sub1ect lot%
From t$e time o re!istration0 P $ad 2 years0 #it$in #$ic$ to ile t$eir ob1ections or to
demand t$e appropriate settlement o t$e estate% +$e only e<ception is #$en t$e title
remains in t$e $ands o t$e $eirs #$o $ave raudulently caused t$e partition o t$e
sub1ect property or in t$ose o t$eir transerees #$o cannot be considered innocent
purc$asers or value% +$e title to t$e property in t$e present case #as no lon!er in t$e
40
RE ME DI AL L AW
CAS E DI GE S T S
name o t$e alle!edly raudulent $eirs0 but already in t$at o an innocent purc$aser or
value P t$e !overnment% +$e !overnment is presumed to $ave acted in !ood ait$ in t$e
ac&uisition o t$e lot0 considerin! t$at title t$ereto #as obtained t$rou!$ a Compromise
4!reement 1udicially approved in proper e<propriation proceedin!s%
JRISDICTION OF T(E PROBATE CORT
(EIRS OF SANDEJAS V# LINA
02 Feb% 2001
Fa%ts> "urin! $is lietime0 "0 t$e decedent conveyed real property to E% (n t$e
proceedin! or t$e settlement o "'s estate0 E iled a motion to approve t$e deed o sale%
+$e administrator iled an opposition to t$e said motion%
Iss'e> "oes t$e probate court $ave 1urisdiction to approve t$e deed o conditional sale)
(el"> :es% Probate 1urisdiction e<tends to matters incidental and collateral to t$e
e<ercise o a probate court's reco!niDed po#ers suc$ as sellin!0 mort!a!in! or
ot$er#ise encumberin! realty belon!in! to t$e estate% (n t$is case0 t$e =otion or
4pproval #as meant to settle t$e decedent's obli!ation to EG $ence0 t$at obli!ation
clearly alls under t$e 1urisdiction o t$e settlement court% +o re&uire E to ile a separate
action #ill unnecessarily prolon! t$e settlement o t$e intestate estate o "%
RIG(T TO INTERVENE IN SETTLEMENT PROCEEDINGS
(EIRS OF SANDEJAS V# LINA
02 Feb% 2001
Fa%ts> "urin! $is lietime0 "0 t$e decedent conveyed real property to E% (n t$e
proceedin! or t$e settlement o "'s estate0 E iled a motion to approve t$e deed o sale%
+$e administrator iled an opposition to t$e said motion%
Iss'e> "oes E $ave t$e ri!$t to intervene)
(el"> :es% 3ule B90 Section B o t$e 3ules o Court0 deals #it$ t$e conveyance o real
property contracted by t$e decedent #$ile still alive% (n contrast #it$ Sections 2 and 4 o
t$e same 3ule0 t$e said provision does not limit to t$e e<ecutor or administrator t$e ri!$t
to ile t$e application or aut$ority to sell0 mort!a!e or ot$er#ise encumber realty under
administration% +$e standin! to pursue suc$ course o action beore t$e probate court
inures to any person #$o stands to be beneited or in1ured by t$e 1ud!ment or to be
entitled to t$e avails o t$e suit%
CLAIMS AGAINST T(E ESTATE
PNB V# CA$ et# al#
29 June 2001
Fa%ts& S #as t$e special administrator o t$e intestate estate o E% +$e court aut$oriDed
S to obtain a loan rom P*/ to be secured by a real estate mort!a!e over a parcel o
land% For ailure to pay t$e loan in ull0 P*/ e<tra1udicially oreclosed t$e real estate
mort!a!e% "urin! t$e auction0 P*/ #as t$e $i!$est bidder but since t$ere #as still a
deiciency0 P*/ iled an action #it$ t$e 3+C a!ainst S% 3+C dismissed P*/'s complaint%
C4 airmed%
Iss'e& 9$et$er t$e mort!a!ee can still recover t$e deiciency%
(el"& *o% 3ule B9 ; 8 67 provides t$at i t$e court !rants aut$ority to mort!a!e
property o t$e estate0 it s$all be valid as i t$e deed $ad been e<ecuted by t$e deceased
in $is lietime% +$us0 3ule B5 ; 8 also applies as to t$e remedies o t$e mort!a!ee% Case
la# no# $olds t$at t$is rule !rants to t$e mort!a!ee 3 distinct0 independent and mutually
e<clusive remedies t$at can be alternatively pursued by t$e mort!a!e creditor or t$e
41
RE ME DI AL L AW
CAS E DI GE S T S
satisaction o $is credit in case t$e mort!a!or dies0 amon! t$em>
617 to #aive t$e mort!a!e and claim t$e entire debt rom t$e estate o t$e
mort!a!or as an ordinary claimG
627 to oreclose t$e mort!a!e 1udicially and prove any deiciency as an ordinary
claimG and
637 to rely on t$e mort!a!e e<clusively0 oreclosin! t$e same at any time beore
it is barred by prescription ithout right to file a claim for any deficiency%
+$e plain result o adoptin! t$e last mode o oreclosure is t$at t$e creditor #aives $is
ri!$t to recover any deiciency rom t$e estate% +$e 3
rd
mode includes e<tra1udicial
oreclosure salesG t$e result o e<tra1udicial oreclosure is t$at t$e creditor #aives any
urt$er deiciency claim%
(ABEAS CORPS
TNG C(IN (I V# RODRIGE.
02 4pr% 2001
Fa%ts> P0 a +ai#anese national0 #as c$ar!ed and0 in due course0 ound !uilty by t$e
/(" /oard o Commissioners o possessin! a tampered passport earlier cancelled by
+ai#anese aut$orities% +$e /(" /oard o Commissioners issued a Summary "eportation
?rder% P iled beore t$e 3+C a Petition or Habeas Corpus%
Iss'e> S$ould t$e 9rit or Habeas Corpus be issued)
(el"> *o% P's coninement is in accord #it$ ; 38 6a7 o t$e P$ilippine (mmi!ration 4ct o
19400 as amended0 #$ic$ reads as ollo#s> @; 38% 6a7 +$e ollo#in! aliens s$all be
arrested upon t$e #arrant o t$e Commissioner o (mmi!ration or o anot$er oicer
desi!nated by $im or t$e purpose and deported upon t$e #arrant o t$e Commissioner
o (mmi!ration ater a determination by t$e /oard o Commissioners o t$e e<istence o
t$e !round or deportation as c$ar!ed a!ainst t$e alien> EEE 687 4ny alien #$o remains
in t$e P$ilippines in violation o any limitation or condition under #$ic$ $e #as admitted
as a non-immi!rant%A
42

Remedial Law Case Digests 2

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Remedial Law Case Digests 2

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

RE ME DI AL L AW

Вам также может понравиться