Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 8



G.R. No. 187104

August 3, 2010


Respondent is an associate professor of Saint Louis University (SLU) and

also an active member member of the union of faculty and employees. The
Collection Bargaining Agreement contained the following provisions that for
teaching employees in college who fails the yearly evaluation, retained for
three (3) cumulative years in five (5) years, shall be on forced leave for one
(1) regular semester during which all benefits due are suspended.

SLU placed the respondent on forced leave for failing to achieve the
required rating points. Respondent then sought recourse from the CBAs
grievance machinery, but to no avail. Respondent filed a case with DOLE,
however, circulation and mediation failed. The parties then submitted the
issues to voluntary arbitration (VA) before a voluntary arbitrator.

The respondent argued that the Court of Appeals (CA) already resolved the
forced leave issue in a prior case between the parties, ruling that the forced
leave for teachers who fails the rating three (3) times within a five-year
period shall be coterminous with the CBA in force during the same five0year
period. SLU then argued that CA decision is no final considering that the VA
dismissed the complaint.

Respondent filed a Petition for review under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court
but failed to pay the filing fees and to attach the material portion of the
records. A Motion for Reconsideration was filed, complying with the
procedural lapses and CA reinstated the petition.

Whether or not CA erred in reinstating the Petition considering that the

petitioner failed to pay the required docket fee within the prescribed period.


Yes. Appeal is not a natural right but a mere statutory privilege, thus appeal
must be made strictly in accordance with the provision set by law.

Rule 43 of the Rules of Court provides that appeals from the judgment of the
VA shall be taken to the CA by filing a petition for review within fifteen
(15) days from receipt of the Notice of Judgment. Furthermore, upon filing
of the petition, the petitioner is also obligated to pay the CA clerk of court
the docketing and other lawful fees; non-compliance with the procedural
requirements shall be a sufficient ground for dismissal of petition.

Full payment of docket fee is not only mandatory but is also jurisdictional. It
is an essential requirement and failure to settle such docket fee shall render
the decision appealed from final and executor.
HON. REINATO G. QUILALA in his capacity as pairing judge of
Branch 150, RTC-Makati City, and ALL SEASON FARM, CORP.,

G.R. No. 168723

July 9, 2008


All Seasons Farm, Corp. filed a complaint for recovery of sum of money and
damages against Dole Philippines, Inc. Tropifresh Division and several of its

According to Dole, an alias summons was served upon it through a certain

Marifa dela Cruz, a legal assistant and employed by Dole Pacific General
Services, an entity separate from Dole.

Petitioner filed for motion to dismiss based on, among others, lack of
jurisdiction for improper service of summons.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) denied the motion and also denied the
Motion for Reconsideration. Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari with the
Court of Appeals (CA) alleging that the President of DOLE has knowledge
of the service of summons but did not personally received it. The CA denied
the petition as well as the MR.


Whether or not there was a valid service of Summons.


No, There was no valid service of summons. The list enumerated in the
Rules of Court is restrictive, limited and exclusive. The service was made
through a legal assistant, which is improper. Considering that the service of
summons was made to a legal assistant who is not one of the persons
enumerated under Section 11, Rule 17 of the Rules of Court.

There was no evidence that there was vested authority on her to accept the
summons. The RTC never acquired jurisdiction over the person of Dole

G.R. No. 166330

September 11, 2013


Petitioner is a domestic corporation engaged in the telecommunications business.

A contract of lease was forged between the petitioner and Florentino Sebastian . Due to
the contract, Allarilla Construction immediately constructed and installed a cellular base

Inside the cellular base station is a communications tower, rising as high as150 feet,
with antennas and transmitters; as well as a power house open on three (3) sides
containing a 25KVA diesel power generator. Around and close to the cellular base
station are houses, hospitals, clinics, and establishments, including the properties of

Respondents filed a Complaint against petitioner for abatement of nuisance and

injunction with prayer for temporary restraining order and writ of preliminary injunction
alleging that the base stations are susceptible to collapse, emits noxious and deterious
fuems, radiates ultra high frequency (UHF) radio wave emissions and is a violation to
law by constructing the stations without the necessary public hearing, permit from the
barangay and municipality, environmental compliance certificate of the DENR and
construction permit from the National Telecommunications Commission (NTC).

The respondents averred that the petitioners claim that it sought the consent of
the majority of the respondents surrounding the tower site as there where only
a handful of residents who signed the document prepared by petitioner and the contents
of which were misrepresented by a Sangguniang Bayan Member in the person of Nick
Sebastian who is an interested party being the owner of the land where the tower is

Petitioner then filed a Motion for Summary judgment alleging that no full-
blown trial is needed as the causes of action and issues have already been
identified in all the pleadings submitted, there is clearly no genuine issue as
to any material fact or cause in the action, and that no extreme urgency to
issue a Preliminary Mandatory Injunction as stated in an affidavit executed
by SMART Senior Supervisor Andres V. Romero.

The RTC dismissed the case on the ground that the allegations therein are
purely speculative and hence no basis in fact to warrant further proceedings.

The Court of Appeals then reversed and set aside the decision of the RTC
considering that the validity of a locational clearance when it declared,
contrary to the administrative findings of the Housing Land Use and
Regulatory Board ("HLURB"), that the locational clearance of Petitioner
was void and that the base station was reportedly producing unacceptable
levels of noise which is considered a nuisance.


Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the and setting aside
the Decision of the RTC.


Yes. The Court held that the petition is partly meritorious.

On the finding of the Court of Appeals that petitioners locational clearance

for its cellular base station is a nullity.

Based on the principle of exhaustion of administrative remedies and its

corollary doctrine of primary jurisdiction, it was premature for the Court of
Appeals to take cognizance of and rule upon the issue of the validity or
nullity of petitioners locational clearance for its cellular base station.

The general rule is that before a party may seek the intervention of the court,
he should first avail of all the means afforded him by administrative
On the declaration of the Court of Appeals that petitioners cellular base
station is a nuisance that must be abated

The term "nuisance" is so comprehensive that it has been applied to almost

all ways which have interfered with the rights of the citizens, either in
person, property, the enjoyment of his property, or his comfort.

The court also ruled that the case be remanded to RTC which is directed to
reinstated the Civil Case and proceed with the trial and adjudication
considering that giving equal importance on the interest of the parties in this
case which involves respondents health safety, and property and petitioners
business interest and the publics need for accessible and better cellular
mobile telephone services, it is wise and prudent to give the parties the
opportunity to prove their respective factual claims.


Submitted by: