Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
People of the
Philippines
G.R. No. 193217 February 26, 2014
Roz Camacho
FACTS:
On November 25, 2008, the RTC rendered a decision
finding Petitioner Corazon Macapagal guilty of the
crime of Estafa for misappropriating for her own
benefit 800,000 Php, the value of unreturned and
unsold jewelry. Petitioner received the decision on
January 13, 2009 then timely moved for
reconsideration but was denied in an Order dated
May 20, 2009 which the petitioner allegedly received
on July 31, 2009. She supposedly filed a notice of
Appeal on August 3, 2009 but the same was denied
on June 29, 2010 for having been filed out of time.
Thus, this petition for review on certiorari under
Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
ISSUES:
(1) WON the RTC of Manila gravely erred in
denying the Notice of Appeal filed by
petitioner-appellant
(2) WON the RTC erred in denying the motion
for reconsideration filed by petitionerappellant
HELD:
Petition is DENIED for lack of merit.
(1) NO. Petitioner availed of the wrong mode of
assailing the trial courts denial of her notice of
appeal. Rule 122 of the Revised Rules of Criminal
Procedure lay down the rules on where, how and
when appeal is taken. The disallowance of the notice
of appeal disallows the appeal itself. A petition for
review under Rule 45 is a mode of appeal of a lower
courts decision or final order direct to the Supreme
Court. However the questioned order denying the
notice of appeal is not a decision or final order from
which an appeal may be taken. The petitioner should
have availed of a special civil action under Rule 65.
Thus, in availing the wrong mode of appeal under
Rule 45 instead of Rule 65, the petition merits an
outward dismissal.
Even if the petition was treated as one for Certiorari
under Rule 65, it is still dismissible for violation of
the hierarchy of courts. Although the Supreme Court
has concurrent jurisdiction with the RTC and CA to
issue writs of certiorari, the petitioner has no
absolute freedom of choice of court to which the
application is directed. Direct Resort to the Supreme
Court is allowed only if there are special, important
and compelling reasons clearly and specifically
spelled out in the petition, which are not present in
this case.
Petitioners
filed
a
Second
Motion
for
Reconsideration (with Leave of Court) dated 19 June
2006, which was likewise denied by the RTC in the
assailed Order dated 26 February 2007.
HELD:
The Petition is without merit.
Carl Deita
Monz Gestoso
FACTS:
Petitioner was employed by respondent, a manning
agency for seafarers. His last contract was for a
period of nine months from January 29, 2000 to
October 25, 2000. However, since the vessel was still
at sea, Petitioner was only repatriated on November
14, 2000 which is twenty days after the expiration of
his contract. Petitioner assumed that the twenty day
extension was an implied renewal of his contract. On
November 14, 2000, after repatriation, he was
dismissed without a valid cause.
An illegal dismissal case was then filed by the
Petitioner.
Labor Arbiter ruled in favour of the Petitioner. It
ruled that there was implied renewal when the
Petitioner was not repatriated after the expiration of
his contract. It directed Respondent to pay
Petitioner his salary for unexpired portion of his
impliedly renewed contract, medical benefits and
attorneys fees.
Respondent appealed to NLRC but it affirmed the
decision of the Labor Arbiter with modification.
NLRC deleted medical benefits and reduced the
amount of attorneys fees.
Aggrieved by the decision, Respondent filed a
Petition for Certiorari with the CA where it annulled
and set aside the decision of NLRC. CA ruled that
there was no implied renewal of contract, it was due
to the mere fact that it cannot be done because the
ship was still at sea.
FACTS:
September 23,2011 Shang KoVingson Yu (Shang Ko)
run away from their home as alleged by her mother
ShirlyVingdon (Shirly). November 2, 2011 Shirly went
to the police station in Bacolod City upon receipt of
information that Shang Ko was in the custody of
respondent JovyCabcaban (Cabcaban), a police
officer in that station.Shang Ko was no longer with
Cabcaban. Pura an NBI agent told Shirly that Shang
Ko was staying with a private organization called
Calvary Kids.
This prompted petitioner Shirly to file a petition for
habeas corpus against respondent Cabcaban and the
unnamed officers of Calvary Kids before the Court of
Appeals (CA) rather than the Regional Trial Court of
Bacolod City citing as reason several threats against
her life in that city.
December 18, 2012,the CA denies the petition for its
failure to clearly allege who has custody of Shang Ko.
According to the CA, habeas corpus may not be used
as a means of obtaining evidence on the
whereabouts of a person or as a means of finding
out who has specifically abducted or caused the
3
disappearance of such person. The CA denied
petitioner Shirlys motion for reconsideration on
January 8, 2013, hence, this petition for review.
ISSUES:
ISSUE:
HELD:
No
Under Section 1, Rule 102 of the Rules of Court, the
writ of habeas corpus is available, not only in cases
of illegal confinement or detention by which any
person is deprived of his liberty, but also in cases
involving the rightful custody over a minor. The
general rule is that parents should have custody over
their minor children. But the State has the right to
intervene where the parents, rather than care for
such children, treat them cruelly and abusively,
impairing their growth and well-being and leaving
them emotional scars that they carry throughout
their lives unless they are liberated from such
parents and properly counseled.
No.
Since this case presents factual issues and since the
parties are all residents of Bacolod City, it would be
best that such issues be resolved by a Family Court in
that city.
WHEREFORE, thedecision of Court of Appeals was
set and the case forwarded to the Family Court of
Bacolod City for hearing and adjudication as the
evidence warrants. Meantime the minor Shang
KoVingson remain in the custody of Calvary Kids of
Bacolod City.
Further
the
Court
ORDERS
petitioner
ShirlyVingsonShirlyVingsonDemaisip to pay the
balance of the docket and other legal fees within 10
days from receipt of this Resolution.
SO ORDERED.
2.
HELD:
FACTS:
Alfonso de Leon, married to Rosario,
mortgaged a real property in favor of Union Bank of
the Philippines in 1984. the given land is located in
Esteban Abada, Loyola Heights, Quezon City which
was later foreclosed and sold at the auction to Union
Bank. On the other hand, Rosario filed a case in 1988
Kiefer Arguelles
1.
FACTS:
This case sprung from the case initiated before the
Regional Trial Court of Davao City captioned as
Danilo G. Baric, Petitioner versus James S. Palado
and Network Rural Bank, Inc., Respondents which
was the subject of a Petition for Review on Certiorari
seeking to set aside the January 29, 2009 Decision of
the Court of Appeals.
Jaime Palado (PALADO, hereafter) was the registered
owner of a real property with a building containing
commercial spaces for lease located at Barangay
Piapi, Davao City and covered by TCT No. 231531.
Respondent Danilo G. Baric (BARIC, hereafter) was a
lessee therein, operating a barber shop on one of
the commercial spaces. The lease was governed by a
written agreement, or Kasabutan.
In December 2000, BARIC demanded the return of
the leased commercial space. BARIC proceeded to
the Barangay for Conciliation and eventually got a
Certificate to Bar Action.
In February 2001, BARIC filed a case for Forcible
Entry against PALADO with paryer for Injunctive
Relief and One Network Rural Bank, Inc., (NETWORK
BANK, hereafter) before the MTCC of Davao City.
BARIC alleged that despite the agreement and
renovation of the property with the approval of
PALADO, the latter still fenced and enclosed the
premises, thereby denying BARIC access of the
property subject of lease. Network Bank purchased
the subject property on April 25, 2001 thats why he
was impleaded as one of the respondents. The
latter bank alleged good faith when it purchased the
property subject matter of this case, and therefore
according to the same bank, they should not be held
liable.
2.
DECISION:
PETITION FOR CERTIORARI IS GRANTED.
While the Petition does not squarely address the
true issue involved, it is nonetheless evident that the
CA gravely erred in holding NETWORK ABNK
solidarily Liable with PALADO for the payment of
Nominal Damages.
NETWORK BANK did not violate any of BARICs
rights; it was merely a purchaser or transferee of the
property. Surely, it is not prohibited from acquiring
the property even while the forcible entry case was
pending, because as the registered owner of the
subject property, PALADO may transfer his title at
any time and the lease merely follows the property
as lien or encumbrance. Any invasion or violation of
BARICs rights as lessee was committed solely by
PALADO and NETWORK BANK may not be implicated
or found guilty unless it took part in the commission
of illegal acts, which does not appear to be so from
the evidence on record. On the contrary, it appears
that BARIC was ousted through PALADOs acts even
before NETWORK BANK acquired the property or
came into the picture. THUS IT WAS ERROR TO HOLD
THE BANK LIABLE FOR NOMINAL DAMAGES.
Resolution of Court of Appeals was MODIFIED.
NETWORK BANK is ABSOLVED from Liability.