2. Banaag vs.

Espeleta, 661 SCRA 513, November 29, 2011

Syllabi Class :Administrative Law|Court Personnel|Evidence
1. Administrative Law; Court Personnel; Disgraceful and Immoral Conduct; Immorality; Definition
of Disgraceful and Immoral Conduct.-
—After a careful evaluation of the records of the instant case, the Court finds respondent Olivia C.
Espeleta guilty of Disgraceful and Immoral Conduct under Section 46(b)(5), Chapter 7, Subtitle A, Title
I, Book V of the Administrative Code of 1987 which, as defined in Section 1 of CSC Resolution No.
100912 dated May 17, 2010 (Revised Rules on the Administrative Offense of Disgraceful and Immoral
Conduct), is “an act which violates the basic norm of decency, morality and decorum abhorred and
condemned by the society” and “conduct which is willful, flagrant or shameless, and which shows a
moral indifference to the opinions of the good and respectable members of the community.”
2. Same; Same; Court employees have been enjoined to adhere to the exacting standards of morality
and decency in their professional and private conduct in order to preserve the good name and
integrity of courts of justice; Resignation should not be used either as an escape or as an easy way out
to evade an administrative liability or an administrative sanction.-
—It cannot be overstressed that the image of a court of justice is mirrored in the conduct, official and
otherwise, of the personnel who work thereat, from the judge to the lowest of its personnel. Court
employees have been enjoined to adhere to the exacting standards of morality and decency in their
professional and private conduct in order to preserve the good name and integrity of courts of justice.”
This Court has thus consistently penalized court personnel who had been found wanting of such
standards, even if they have precipitately resigned from their positions. Resignation should not be used
either as an escape or as an easy way out to evade an administrative liability or an administrative
sanction.
3. Same; Same; Evidence; In administrative proceedings, only substantial evidence, i.e., that amount
of relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion is
required.-
—In administrative proceedings, only substantial evidence, i.e., that amount of relevant evidence that
a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion, is required. The standard of
substantial evidence is satisfied when there is reasonable ground to believe that respondent is
responsible for the misconduct complained of, even if such evidence might not be overwhelming or even
preponderant.
4. Same; Same; Same; Respondent’s act of maintaining an illicit relationship with a married man
comes within the purview of disgraceful and immoral conduct.-
—Respondent’s act of maintaining an illicit relationship with a married man comes within the purview
of disgraceful and immoral conduct, which is classified as a grave offense punishable with suspension
from the service for six (6) months and one (1) day to one (1) year for the first offense, and dismissal
for the second offense.

****

2
Bar2019Perlas-Bernabe ToGODbetheGLORY. -anne.quito1214-
3. Tiong vs. Florendo, 662 SCRA 1, December 12, 2011
Syllabi Class :Administrative Law|Attorneys|Disbarment
1. Administrative Law; Attorneys; Disbarment; It has been consistently held by the Court that
possession of good moral character is not only a condition for admission to the Bar but is a continuing
requirement to maintain one’s good standing in the legal profession. It is the bounden duty of law
practitioners to observe the highest degree of morality in order to safeguard the integrity of the Bar.
Consequently, any errant behaviour on the part of a lawyer, be it in his public or private activities,
which tends to show him deficient in moral character, honesty, probity or good demeanor, is sufficient
to warrant his suspension or disbarment.
2. Same; Same; Same.- It bears to stress that a case of suspension or disbarment is sui generis and not
meant to grant relief to a complainant as in a civil case but is intended to cleanse the ranks of the legal
profession of its undesirable members in order to protect the public and the courts. It is not an
investigation into the acts of respondent as a husband but on his conduct as an officer of the Court and
his fitness to continue as a member of the Bar. Hence, the Affidavit dated March 15, 1995, which is akin
to an affidavit of desistance, cannot have the effect of abating the instant proceedings.
3. Same; Same; Same; Respondent’s act of having an affair with his client’s wife manifested his
disrespect for the laws on the sanctity of marriage and his own marital vow of fidelity.-
—Respondent’s act of having an affair with his client’s wife manifested his disrespect for the laws on
the sanctity of marriage and his own marital vow of fidelity. It showed his utmost moral depravity and
low regard for the ethics of his profession. Likewise, he violated the trust and confidence reposed on
him by complainant which in itself is prohibited under Canon 17 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. Undeniably, therefore, his illicit relationship with Ma. Elena amounts to a disgraceful
and grossly immoral conduct warranting disciplinary action from the Court. Section 27, Rule 138 of
the Rules of Court provides that an attorney may be disbarred or suspended from his office by the Court
for any deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct in office, grossly immoral conduct, among others.

****

3
Bar2019Perlas-Bernabe ToGODbetheGLORY. -anne.quito1214-
4. Gagoomal vs. Villacorta, 663 SCRA 444, January 18, 2012
Syllabi Class :Remedial Law|Civil Procedure|Judgments
1. Remedial Law; Judgments; Levy; Writs of Possession; A writ of possession is an order by which
the sheriff is commanded to place a person in possession of a real or personal property. We clarified
in the case of Motos v. Real Bank (A Thrift Bank), Inc., 593 SCRA 216 92009), that a writ of possession
may be issued under any of the following instances: (a) land registration proceedings under Section 17
of Act No. 496; (b) judicial foreclosure, provided the debtor is in possession of the mortgaged realty
and no third person, not a party to the foreclosure suit, had intervened; and (c) extrajudicial foreclosure
of a real estate mortgage under Section 7 of Act No. 3135 as amended by Act No. 4118.
2. Same; Same; Judgments; As correctly observed by the CA, the quashal of a writ of possession does
not have the effect of modifying or abrogating the judgment of the RTC. “The settled rule is that a
judgment which has acquired finality becomes immutable and unalterable, and hence may no longer
be modified in any respect except only to correct clerical errors or mistakes—all the issues between the
parties being deemed resolved and laid to rest.” To reiterate, however, the court’s power with regard
to execution of judgments extends only to properties irrefutably belonging to the judgment debtor, which
does not obtain in this case.
3. Same; Same; Writs of Execution; Sheriffs; It bears to stress that the court issuing the writ of
execution may enforce its authority only over properties or rights of the judgment debtor, and the sheriff
acts properly only when he subjects to execution property undeniably belonging to the judgment debtor.
Should the sheriff levy upon the assets of a third person in which the judgment debtor has not even the
remotest interest, then he is acting beyond the limits of his authority. A judgment can only be executed
or issued against a party to the action, not against one who has not yet had his day in court.
4. Same; Same; Same; The doctrine of lis pendens has no application to a proceeding in which the
only object sought is the recovery of a money judgment, though the title or right of possession to
property be incidentally affected.
To be sure, in Atlantic Erectors, Inc. v. Herbal Cove Realty Corporation, 399 SCRA 409 (2003), We
have previously explained that the doctrine of lis pendens has no application to a proceeding in which
the only object sought is the recovery of a money judgment, though the title or right of possession to
property be incidentally affected. It is essential that the property be directly affected such as when the
relief sought in the action or suit includes the recovery of possession, or the enforcement of a lien, or
an adjudication between conflicting claims of title, possession, or the right of possession to specific
property, or requiring its transfer or sale. Even if a party initially avails of a notice of lis pendens upon
the filing of a case in court, such notice is rendered nugatory if the case turns out to be a purely personal
action. In such event, the notice of lis pendens becomes functus officio
5. Same; Civil Procedure; Lis Pendens; Legal Effects of Filing a Notice of Lis Pendens.-The filing of
a notice of lis pendens has a dual effect: (1) to keep the property subject matter of the litigation within
the power of the court until the entry of the final judgment in order to prevent the defeat of the final
judgment by successive alienations; and (2) to bind a purchaser, bona fide or otherwise, of the property
subject of the litigation to the judgment that the court will subsequently promulgate. Relative thereto, a
notice of lis pendens is proper in the following actions and their concomitant proceedings: “(a) an
action to recover possession of real estate; (b) an action to quiet title thereto; (c) an action to remove
clouds thereon; (d) an action for partition; and (e) any other proceedings of any kind in Court directly
affecting the title to the land or the use or occupation thereof or the buildings thereon.”
6. Same; Same; Same; Same; It is a basic principle of law that money judgments are enforceable only
against property incontrovertibly belonging to the judgment debtor, and if property belonging to any
third person is mistakenly levied upon to answer for another man’s indebtedness, such person has all
the right to challenge the levy through any of the remedies provided for under the Rules of Court.
Section 16, Rule 39 thereof specifically provides that a third person may avail himself of the remedies
of either terceria, to determine whether the sheriff has rightly or wrongly taken hold of the property not
belonging to the judgment debtor or obligor, or an independent “separate action” to vindicate their
claim of ownership and/or possession over the foreclosed property. However, “a person other than the
judgment debtor who claims ownership or right over the levied properties is not precluded from taking
other legal remedies to prosecute his claim” ****
4
Bar2019Perlas-Bernabe ToGODbetheGLORY. -anne.quito1214-
5. Gonzales vs. Bugaay, 666 SCRA 493, February 22, 2012
Syllabi Class :Remedial Law|Civil Procedure|Demurrer to Evidence
1. Remedial Law; Civil Procedure; Demurrer to Evidence; Being considered a motion to dismiss, thus,
a demurrer to evidence must clearly be filed before the court renders its judgment.-
—In passing upon the sufficiency of the evidence raised in a demurrer, the court is merely required to
ascertain whether there is competent or sufficient proof to sustain the judgment. Being considered a
motion to dismiss, thus, a demurrer to evidence must clearly be filed before the court renders its
judgment. In this case, respondents demurred to petitioners’ evidence after the RTC promulgated its
Decision. While respondents’ motion for reconsideration and/or new trial was granted, it was for the
sole purpose of receiving and offering for admission the documents not presented at the trial. As
respondents never complied with the directive but instead filed a demurrer to evidence, their motion
should be deemed abandoned. Consequently, the RTC’s original Decision stands.

****

5
Bar2019Perlas-Bernabe ToGODbetheGLORY. -anne.quito1214-
6. Layug vs. Commission on Elections, 667 SCRA 135, February 28, 2012
Syllabi Class :Remedial Law|Civil Procedure|Motions
1. Constitutional Law; Congress; House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET); Section 17,
Article VI of the 1987 Constitution provides that the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal
(HRET) shall be the sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of its
Members. Section 5 (1) of the same Article identifies who the “members” of the House are: Sec. 5. (1).
The House of Representatives shall be composed of not more than two hundred and fifty members,
unless otherwise fixed by law, who shall be elected from legislative districts apportioned among the
provinces, cities, and the Metropolitan Manila area in accordance with the number of their respective
inhabitants, and on the basis of a uniform and progressive ratio, and those who, as provided by law,
shall be elected through a party-list system of registered national, regional, and sectoral parties or
organizations. (Underscoring added).
2. Same; Civil Procedure; Motions; A motion without a notice of hearing is considered pro forma.-
—It should likewise be pointed out that the aforesaid Motion for Reconsideration was filed without the
requisite notice of hearing. We have held time and again that the failure to comply with the mandatory
requirements under Sections 4 and 5 of Rule 15 of the Rules of Court renders the motion defective. As
a rule, a motion without a notice of hearing is considered pro forma. None of the acceptable exceptions
obtain in this case.
3. Same; Special Civil Actions; Mandamus; Mandamus, as a remedy, is available to compel the doing
of an act specifically enjoined by law as a duty. It cannot compel the doing of an act involving the
exercise of discretion one way or the other. Section 3, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court clearly provides:
SEC. 3. Petition for mandamus.—When any tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person unlawfully
neglects the performance of an act which the law specifically enjoins as a duty resulting from an office,
trust, or station, or unlawfully excludes another from the use and enjoyment of a right or office to which
such other is entitled, and there is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course
of law, the person aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition in the proper court, alleging the facts
with certainty and praying that judgment be rendered commanding the respondent, immediately or at
some other time to be specified by the court, to do the act required to be done to protect the rights of
the petitioner, and to pay the damages sustained by the petitioner by reason of the wrongful acts of the
respondent.
4. Remedial Law; Civil Procedure; Pleadings and Practice; Every pleading must be signed by the
party or counsel representing him, stating in either case his address which should not be a post office
box.
—A party may sue or defend an action pro se. Under Section 3, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court, “(e)very
pleading must be signed by the party or counsel representing him, stating in either case his address
which should not be a post office box.” x x x From the fact alone that the address which Layug furnished
the COMELEC was incorrect, his pretensions regarding the validity of the proceedings and
promulgation of the Resolution dated June 15, 2010 for being in violation of his constitutional right to
due process are doomed to fail. His refusal to rectify the error despite knowledge thereof impels Us to
conclude that he deliberately stated an inexistent address with the end in view of delaying the
proceedings upon the plea of lack of due process. As the COMELEC aptly pointed out, Layug
contemptuously made a mockery of election laws and procedure by appearing before the Commission
by himself or by different counsels when he wants to, and giving a fictitious address to ensure that he
does not receive mails addressed to him. He cannot thus be allowed to profit from his own wrongdoing.
To rule otherwise, considering the circumstances in the instant case, would place the date of receipt of
pleadings, judgments and processes within Layug’s power to determine at his pleasure. This, We cannot
countenance.
5. Same; Same; Commission on Elections (COMELEC); Party-List System Act; Section 6 of said
Party-List System Act states that “the COMELEC may motu proprio or upon verified complaint of any
interested party, remove or cancel, after due notice and hearing, the registration of any national,
regional or sectoral party, organization or coalition.”-
—Neither does the HRET have jurisdiction over the qualifications of Buhay Party-List, as it is vested
by law, specifically, the Party-List System Act, upon the COMELEC. Section 6 of said Act states that
“the COMELEC may motu proprio or upon verified complaint of any interested party, remove or
6
Bar2019Perlas-Bernabe ToGODbetheGLORY. -anne.quito1214-
cancel, after due notice and hearing, the registration of any national, regional or sectoral party,
organization or coalition xxx.” Accordingly, in the case of Abayon vs. HRET, We ruled that the HRET
did not gravely abuse its discretion when it dismissed the petitions for quo warranto against Aangat
Tayo party-list and Bantay party-list insofar as they sought the disqualifications of said party-lists.
Thus, it is the Court, under its power to review decisions, orders, or resolutions of the COMELEC
provided under Section 7, Article IX-A of the 1987 Constitution and Section 1, Rule 37 of the COMELEC
Rules of Procedure that has jurisdiction to hear the instant petition.
6. Same; Same; The members of the House of Representatives are of two kinds: (1) members who
shall be elected from legislative districts; and (2) those who shall be elected through a party-list system
of registered national, regional, and sectoral parties or organizations.-
—Clearly, the members of the House of Representatives are of two kinds: (1) members who shall be
elected from legislative districts; and (2) those who shall be elected through a party-list system of
registered national, regional, and sectoral parties or organizations. In this case, Buhay Party-List was
entitled to two seats in the House that went to its first two nominees, Mariano Michael DM. Velarde,
Jr. and William Irwin C. Tieng. On the other hand, Brother Mike, being the fifth nominee, did not get a
seat and thus had not become a member of the House of Representatives. Indubitably, the HRET has no
jurisdiction over the issue of Brother Mike’s qualifications.

****

7
Bar2019Perlas-Bernabe ToGODbetheGLORY. -anne.quito1214-
7. Re:Pet. for JudicialClemency of Judge Zita V. Masamayor, 667 SCRA 467, March 06, 2012
Syllabi Class :Administrative Law|Judicial Clemency
1. Administrative Law; Appointments; Disqualifications for appointment to any judicial post or as
Ombudsman or Deputy Ombudsman.-
—Section 5, Rule 4 of the Rules of the JBC provides: “SEC. 5. Disqualification.—The following are
disqualified from being nominated for appointment to any judicial post or as Ombudsman or Deputy
Ombudsman: 1. Those with pending criminal or regular administrative cases; 2. Those with pending
criminal cases in foreign courts or tribunals; and 3. Those who have been convicted in any criminal
case; or in an administrative case, where the penalty imposed is at least a fine of more than P10,000,
unless he has been granted judicial clemency.”
2. Same; Judicial Clemency; Guidelines in Resolving Requests for Judicial Clemency.-
—In A.M. No. 07-7-17-SC (Re: Letter of Judge Augustus C. Diaz, Metropolitan Trial Court of Quezon
City, Branch 37, Appealing for Clemency), 533 SCRA 539 (2007), the Court laid down the following
guidelines in resolving requests for judicial clemency, thus: “1. There must be proof of remorse and
reformation. These shall include but should not be limited to certifications or testimonials of the
officer(s) or chapter(s) of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, judges or judges associations and
prominent members of the community with proven integrity and probity. A subsequent finding of guilt
in an administrative case for the same or similar misconduct will give rise to a strong presumption of
non-reformation. 2. Sufficient time must have lapsed from the imposition of the penalty to ensure a
period of reform; 3. The age of the person asking for clemency must show that he still has productive
years ahead of him that can be put to good use by giving him a chance to redeem himself. 4. There must
be a showing of promise (such as intellectual aptitude, learning or legal acumen or contribution to
legal scholarship and the development of the legal system or administrative and other relevant skills),
as well as potential for public service. 5. There must be other relevant factors and circumstances that
may justify clemency.”

****

8
Bar2019Perlas-Bernabe ToGODbetheGLORY. -anne.quito1214-
8. Baño vs. Bachelor Express, Inc., 667 SCRA 782, March 12, 2012
Syllabi Class :Civil Law|Damages|Exemplary Damages
1. Civil Law; Common Carriers; Gross Negligence; Words and Phrases; Gross Negligence is one that
is characterized by the want of even slight care, acting or omitting to act in a situation where there is a
duty to act, not inadvertently but willfully and intentionally with a conscious indifference to
consequences insofar as other persons may be effected.-
—In the case of Government Service Insurance System v. Pacific Airways Corporation, 629 SCRA 219
(2010), the Court has defined gross negligence as “one that is characterized by the want of even slight
care, acting or omitting to act in a situation where there is a duty to act, not inadvertently but willfully
and intentionally with a conscious indifference to consequences insofar as other persons may be
affected.”
2. Same; Damages; Exemplary Damages; Exemplary Damages are awarded to serve as a warning to
the public and as a deterrent against the repetition of similar deleterious actions.-
—The CA erred in deleting the awards of exemplary damages, which the law grants to serve as a
warning to the public and as a deterrent against the repetition of similar deleterious actions. However,
the award should be tempered as it is not intended to enrich one party or to impoverish another. Thus,
the Court reinstates the separate awards of exemplary damages to petitioners in the amount of
P50,000.00.

****

9
Bar2019Perlas-Bernabe ToGODbetheGLORY. -anne.quito1214-