REMinisce Flashcards
Petitioners filed a complaint for quieting of title against Concepcion. The complaint is grounded upon their claims of ownership over the disputed properties and insistence that the latter’s acts of instituting tenants and receiving a share from the produce of the land cloud their title. The averments show that the remedy sought constitutes an accion reivindicatoria. Can the court determine the ownership over the disputed properties in an action for quieting of title where such is not included in the reliefs prayed for?
Yes. The true nature of the action is not determined by the caption of the pleading, but by the allegations it contains. The court should grant the relief warranted by the allegations, substantiated by proof, even if no such relief or a different relief is prayed for. As the allegations in this case constitute an accion reivindicatoria, the court should determine ownership of the properties and award possession to the lawful owner, even if the complaint prayed for the quieting of title. (Spouses Velarde v. Heir of Candari, G.R. No. 190057, October 17, 2022)
Is the CIR guilty of forum shopping when it posted for a motion for extension of time to file a petition for review with the Supreme Court under Rule 45, while having sought reconsideration before the CTA En Banc for the decision rendered by the BIR’s Litigation Division?
No. There is forum shopping when there exist: (a) the identity of parties, or at least such parties as representing the same interests in both actions; (b) the identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for, the relief being founded on the same facts; and (c) the identity of the two preceding particulars is such that any judgment rendered in the pending case, regardless of which party is successful would amount to res judicata in the other case. Here, there is an identity of parties in both cases. However, there is no identity of rights asserted. The first is a request for more time to file a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, while the other is a motion filed with the CTA En Banc for reconsideration of the Decision. Moreover, a “judgment” rendered in first will not amount to res judicata as the Resolution will be limited to the granting or denying the motion for time. (Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. East Asia Utilities Corporation, G.R. No. 225266, November 16, 2020)
Vitarich Corporation filed an action for sum of money against Femina before the RTC Branch 11 of Malolos City. Upon receipt of summons, Femina’s counsel, Atty. Solilapsi, moved to dismiss the case on ground of improper venue. On August 17, 2010, the RTC denied the motion and directed Femina to answer the complaint. Atty. Solilapsi received the Order on November 3, 2010 but Femina did not submit any responsive pleading. On January 5, 2011, Vitarich sought to declare Femina in default. Meantime, Femina’s new counsel, Atty. Emilio Quianzon, Jr, entered his appearance and filed on January 31, 2011 a motion to admit answer. On February 8, 2011, RTC declared Fermina in default thereby allowing Vitarich to present its evidence ex parte and ruled in favor of Vitarich. Was the RTC correct in declaring Fermina in default?
No, the RTC should have considered Femina’s answer since it was filed before the declaration of default. The rule is that the defendant’s answer should be admitted where it is filed before a declaration of default and no prejudice is caused to the plaintiff. Where the answer is filed beyond the reglementary period but before the defendant is declared in default and there is no showing that defendant intends to delay the case, the answer should be admitted. Femina moved to admit her answer before she was declared in default. Femina filed her motion through registered mail on January 31, 2011 while the order of default was issued on February 8, 2011.
Also, there is no showing that Femina intended to delay the proceedings. Thus, this circumstance must be fully appreciated in favor of Femina. The RTC should have considered Femina’s answer since it was filed before the declaration of default. (Vitarich Corporation v. Femina R. Dagmil, G.R. No. 217138, August 27, 2020)
Myrna initiated a Complaint for Quieting of Title against respondents, asserting that their father had sold the disputed parcel of land to a beach resort and subsequently to her. Respondents countered with an answer seeking dismissal, alleging that the deeds of sale were falsified due to forged signatures. The case was initially scheduled for pre-trial on September 28, 2016, but was postponed several times, eventually happening on June 28, 2017. RTC set the trial to commence on October 25, 2017, but it was repeatedly postponed at the instance of Myrna or her counsel. Instead of proceeding to trial, the RTC ordered the case to undergo mediation on June 27, 2018, leading respondents to file a Motion for Leave for an Amended Answer. RTC denied the motion, citing that the case had already undergone preliminary and pre-trial conferences. Is the RTC correct?
No. Bona fide amendments to pleadings are allowed at any stage of the proceedings so that every case may, as much as possible, be determined on its real facts, affording complete relief to all the parties involved in the case. The Motion for Leave and the Amended Answer should be examined with circumspection, keeping in mind the purpose of the rules in allowing amendments to pleadings, and the general policy that rules of procedure are mere tools designed to facilitate the attainment of justice. The only limitation under the rules was that the leave to amend the pleading may be refused if it appears to the court that the motion was made with intent to delay. Here, the RTC denied the Motion for Leave essentially because the case had already gone through pre-trial conference, and a Pre-Trial Order had already been issued. This constitutes grave abuse of discretion as the facts show that the delay is attributable to several postponements of trial at the instance of the complainant. (Heirs of Pio Tejada v. Hay, in substitution of Myrna L. Hay, G.R. No. 250542, October 10, 2022)
Antonio and Remedios formed Metro Isuzu Corporation (MIC) and secured loans from Westmont Bank through signed promissory notes. Remedios later filed a complaint alleging forgery of her signatures on loan documents, seeking to nullify the Real Estate Mortgage (REM) and amendment. At the trial, Westmont Bank presented witnesses and documentary evidence, and during rebuttal, Remedios identified checks and receipts as proof of her genuine signature. She also resubmitted the previously expunged NBI QDR and PNP Crime Laboratory Report as part of her rebuttal evidence, which the trial court admitted despite objections from Westmont Bank. Is the admission in evidence of the BPI checks showing Remedios’ sample signatures, and the various promissory notes containing her forged signatures during the rebuttal stage proper?
No. The admission in evidence of the BPI checks and various promissory notes during the rebuttal stage is not justified. Section 5, Rule 30 of the Rules of Court provides that the parties may respectively adduce rebutting evidence only, unless the court, for good reasons and in the furtherance of justice, permits them to adduce evidence upon their original case. Thus, a plaintiff is bound to introduce all evidence that supports his case during the presentation of his evidence in chief before the close of the proof, and may not add to it by the device of rebuttal. The circumstances in which additional evidence may be allowed at the rebuttal stage are: a) when it is newly discovered; b) where it has been omitted through inadvertence or mistake; or c) where the purpose of the evidence is to correct evidence previously offered. Here, Remedios failed to justify the presentation of the promissory notes and the BPI checks containing her forged and genuine signatures as rebuttal evidence. These documents constitute direct proof of forgery, which is the main issue of the case, hence, these should have been presented as evidence in chief. It was an error on the part of the trial court to allow these evidence on rebuttal. (Strong Fort Warehousing Corporation vs. Banta, G.R. Nos. 222369 and 222502, November 16, 2020)
What is the doctrine of immutability of judgments?
Under the doctrine, all the issues between the parties are deemed resolved and laid to rest once a judgment becomes final. No other action can be taken on the decision except to order its execution. The decision becomes immutable and unalterable and may no longer be modified in any respect even if the modification is meant to correct erroneous conclusions of fact or law and whether it will be made by the court that rendered it or by the highest court of the land. (U R Employed International Corporation et al vs. Pinmiliw et al.,, G.R. No. 225263, March 16, 2022)
What are the exceptions of immutability of judgments?
The principle of immutability of judgment admits several exceptions: (1) the correction of clerical errors; (2) the so-called nunc pro tunc entries which cause no prejudice to any party; (3) void judgments; and (4) whenever circumstances transpire after the finality of the decision rendering its execution unjust and inequitable. The Court has further allowed the relaxation of the rule on finality of judgments in order to serve substantial justice, taking into account: (1) matters of life, liberty, honor, or property; (2) the existence of special or compelling circumstances; (3) the merits of the case; (4) a cause not entirely attributable to the fault or negligence of the party favored by the suspension of the rules; (5) a lack of any showing that the review sought is merely frivolous and dilatory; and (6) the other party will not be unjustly prejudiced thereby. (Estrella et al vs. COA, G.R. No. 252079, September 14, 2021)
LCL Capital, Inc. obtained a loan from Bank of Philippine Islands secured by a Real Estate Mortgage over its two condominium units. Due to LCL’s failure to pay, BPI applied for extrajudicial foreclosure. LCL filed an action against BPI for the annulment of the certificates of title alleging that the consolidation of ownership is premature having been made before the lapse of the redemption period. The RTC, in its November 14, 2008 decision, declared the consolidation void and directed the Register of Deeds of Pasig City to reinstate the certificates of title of LCL subject to the exercise of its right of redemption, but did not mention the actual amount of the redemption price. CA considered the RTC Decision is already final and executory. Later, LCL asked the RTC to determine the cost of redemption. The RTC ruled the total amount due with legal interest of 6%. BPI sought reconsideration then elevated the case to the CA through a petition for certiorari. Did the recomputation of the redemption price violate the doctrine of immutability of judgment in light of the November 14, 2008 decision of the RTC?
No. It is undisputed that the RTC Decision dated November 14, 2008 declaring void the consolidation of the condominium certificates of title in BPI’s name and directing the Register of Deeds of Pasig City to reinstate the certificates of title of LCL subject to the exercise of its right of redemption, already lapsed into finality. The recomputation of the redemption price will not violate the doctrine of immutability of a final judgment. The RTC Decision dated November 14, 2008, did not mention the actual amount of the redemption price. The CA and the RTC have conflicting findings as to the applicable interest rate. Thus, there is no final determination yet on the correct computation of the redemption price. (Bank of the Philippine Islands vs. LCL Capital, Inc., G.R. No. 243396, September 14, 2021)
What are the three modes of appeal from decisions of the Regional Trial Court?
The first mode is through an ordinary appeal before the Court of Appeals under Rule 41 where the decision assailed was rendered in the exercise of the RTC’s original jurisdiction. In ordinary appeals, questions of fact or mixed questions of fact and law may be raised. The second mode is through a petition for review before the CA under Rule 42 where the decision assailed was rendered by the RTC in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction. In petitions for review, questions of fact, law, or mixed questions of fact and law may be raised. The third mode is through an appeal by certiorari before the Supreme Court under Rule 45 where only questions of law shall be raised. (Sugar Regulatory Administration vs. Central Azucarera de Bais, G.R. No. 253821, March 6, 2023)xxx
May the Supreme Court review the factual findings made by NLRC?
Yes, but it is only when the factual findings of the NLRC and the appellate court are in conflict that this Court will review the records to determine which finding should be upheld as being more in conformity with the evidentiary facts. Where the CA affirms the findings of the labor agencies and there is no showing whatsoever that said findings are patently erroneous, this Court is bound by those findings. (U R Employed International Corporation et al vs. Pinmiliw, et al., G.R. No. 225263, March 16, 2022)
Is a motion for reconsideration required when filing a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45?
No. Rule 45 of the Rules of Court does not require the filing of a motion for reconsideration for this Court to take cognizance of appeals through petitions for review on certiorari. The use of the word “or” in Section 2 indicates an alternative or choice, as opposed to being mandatory. Verily, the petitioner has an option to file a motion for reconsideration of the judgment or final order or resolution appealed from, or directly file an appeal or a petition for review to the appellate court without filing a motion for reconsideration. (Zonio v. 1st Quantum Leap Security Agency, G.R. No. 224944, May 5, 2021)
After a robbery incident, the Adjudication and Settlement Board found Estelita’s estate liable to pay P1,300,000.00 payroll money. Estelita elevated the case to the COA through a petition for review but COA denied Estelita’s petition on April 13, 2015. Estelita sought reconsideration, however, on June 6, 2016, COA denied the motion for being filed out of time and for lack of merit. Estrelita averred that she received the decision on August 18, 2016. Hence, on September 19, 2016, she filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 64 of the Rules of Court. Was the petition for certiorari timely filed?
No. Under Section 3, Rule 64 of the Rules of Court, an aggrieved party may file a petition for review on certiorari within 30 days from notice of the COA’s judgment. The reglementary period includes the time taken to file the motion for reconsideration, and is only interrupted once the motion is filed. If the motion is denied, the party may file the petition only within the period remaining from the notice of judgment. The aggrieved party is not granted a fresh period of 30 days. In this case, Estelita’s Petition for Certiorari was filed beyond the reglementary period.
Estelita sought for a reconsideration before the COA, which would no longer entitle her to the full 30-day period to file a petition for certiorari unless such motion was filed on the same day that she received the decision denying her appeal, which did not happen in this case. To be sure, COA denied Estelita’s motion for reconsideration because it was belatedly filed and has no merit. (Estelita A. Angeles v. Commission on Audit , G.R. No. 228795, December 01, 2020)
In their petition for review before the Court of Appeals, Spouses Cordero only attached copies of the judgments and orders of the trial courts. CA dismissed Spouses Cordero’s petition because the Spouses Cordero failed to append to the petition a legible duplicate original or true copy of the assailed decision, as well as other pertinent portions of the records necessary for a thorough evaluation of the case. Was the dismissal of CA proper?
No. Spouses Cordero complied with the requirement of attaching copies of the judgments and orders of the trial courts. These attachments are already sufficient to enable the CA to pass upon the assigned errors and to resolve the appeal even without the pleadings and other portions of the records since the assailed decisions of the trial courts substantially summarized the contents of the omitted records. Likewise, the CA can resolve the issues by relying on the principle that the factual findings of the lower courts are entitled to great weight. It can also direct Spouses Cordero to submit additional documents or the clerk of court of the RTC and MCTC to elevate the original records of the case. Thus, the subsequent and substantial compliance of a party may call for the relaxation of the rules of procedure. (Spouses Cordero v. Octaviano, G.R. No. 241385, July 7, 2020)
Is denial of due process of law a ground for annulment of judgment under Rule 47?
Yes. A petition for annulment of judgment is a remedy in equity so exceptional in nature that it may be availed of only when other remedies are wanting. Under Section 2, Rule 47 of the Rules of Court, the grounds for annulment of judgment are: extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction. Jurisprudence, however, recognizes a third ground – denial of due process of law. Thus, a decision which is patently void may be set aside on grounds of want of jurisdiction or non compliance with due process of law, where mere inspection of assailed judgment is enough to demonstrate its nullity. (Charnnel Shane Thomas v. Rachel Trono, G.R. No. 241032, March 15, 2021)
What must be established for the court to issue a Writ of Preliminary Injunction?
Section 3, Rule 58 of the Rules provides that a preliminary injunction may be granted when it is established: 1) That the applicant is entitled to the relief demanded, and the whole or part of such relief consists in restraining the commission or continuance of the act or acts complained of, or in requiring the performance of an act or acts either for a limited period or perpetually; 2) That the commission, continuance or non-performance of the act or acts complained of during the litigation would probably work injustice to the applicant; or 3) That a party, court, agency or a person is doing, threatening, or is attempting to do, or is procuring or suffering to be done some act or acts probably in violation of the rights of the applicant respecting the subject of the action or proceeding, and tending to render the judgment ineffectual. (De Lima v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 199972, August 15, 2022)
What is the nature of an action to quiet title?
An action to quiet title or remove clouds over the title is a special civil action specifically governed by Rule 63 of the Rules on declaratory relief and similar remedies.
Distinguished from ordinary civil actions, the subject matter. In special civil actions under Rule 63 is a deed, will, contract or other written instrument, statute, executive order or regulation, or ordinance. The issue is the validity or construction of documents; and the relief sought is the declaration of the parties’ rights or duties vis-à-vis, the questioned documents.
Two indispensable requisites must concur for an action for quieting of title to prosper, namely: (1) the plaintiff has a legal or an equitable title to or interest in the real property subject of the action; and (2) the deed, claim, encumbrance, or proceeding claimed to be casting cloud on their title must be shown to be in fact invalid or inoperative despite its prima facie appearance of validity or legal efficacy.
What are the rules that should be observed with respect to the legal standing of private complainants in assailing judgments or orders in criminal proceedings before the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals?
The private complainant has the legal personality to appeal the civil liability of the accused or file a petition for certiorari to preserve his or her interest in the civil aspect of the criminal case. The appeal or petition for certiorari must allege the specific pecuniary interest of the private offended party. The failure to comply with this requirement may result in the denial or dismissal of the remedy. The reviewing court shall require the OSG to file comment within a non-extendible period of thirty (30) days from notice if it appears that the resolution of the private complainant’s appeal or petition for certiorari will necessarily affect the criminal aspect of the case or the right to prosecute. The comment of the OSG must state whether it conforms or concurs with the remedy of the private offended party. The judgment or order of the reviewing court granting the private complainant’s relief may be set aside if rendered without affording the People, through the OSG, the opportunity to file a comment.
In a complaint for illegal dismissal filed by Renato against Puregold, the Labor Arbiter (LA) ruled in Renato’s favor. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) remanded the case due to LA’s failure to acquire jurisdiction over Puregold for improper service of summons. Despite denial of Renato’s Motion for Reconsideration on October 28, 2016 which resolution was received by his counsel on December 29, 2016 and Renato himself on February 12, 2017, Renato filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA). Puregold claimed that Renato filed beyond the 60-day reglementary period. Renato argued that the reglementary period should be reckoned on February 12, 2017 when he received the assailed resolution. Is Puregold’s contention meritorious?
Yes. Petitions for certiorari must be filed strictly within 60 days from notice of judgment or from the order denying a motion for reconsideration. There can no longer be any extension of the 60-day period within which to file a petition for certiorari save in exceptional or meritorious cases anchored on special or compelling reasons. Contrary to Renato’s contention, the reglementary period to avail the remedy of certiorari must be reckoned on December 29, 2016 or the date his counsel received the NLRC Resolution denying the motion for reconsideration, and not on February 12, 2017 when he received the assailed resolution. When a party is represented by counsel of record, service of orders and notices must be made upon such counsel. Notice to the client or to any other lawyer other than the counsel of record, is not notice in law. Moreover, while decisions, resolutions, or orders are served on both parties and their counsel/representative, for purposes of appeal, the period shall be counted from receipt of such decisions, resolutions, or orders by the counsel representative of record. Thus, Renato had 60 days counted from the date his counsel received the NLRC resolution denying the motion for reconsideration, or until February 27, 2017, within which to avail of a petition for certiorari. (Puregold Price Club, Inc v. Court of Appeals and Renato M. Cruz, G.R. No. 244374, February 15, 2022)
What is grave abuse of discretion?
Grave abuse of discretion is defined as the capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment on the part of the public officer concerned, which is equivalent to an excess or lack of jurisdiction. The abuse of discretion must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law, or to act at all in contemplation of law as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of passion or hostility.
Gloria died testate and named Salvio as executor. Salvio then filed a petition for the probate of the will and the issuance of letters testamentary to himself. Norma, the legitimate child of Gloria, filed an opposition. The lower court initially ruled in favor of Salvio due to Norma’s American citizenship. For the failure of Salvio to comply with his duties, the lower court finds that Norma is the most suitable person to replace Salvio. Salvio moved for reconsideration but the RTC denied. Norma then filed an omnibus motion against Salvio and Diana (who claimed to be a legitimate child), to revoke the letters of special administration issued to Salvio for Gloria’s estate, to issue new letters of special administration to her. Does Diana have legal standing to file a petition for certiorari assailing the order?
Yes. Diana may be considered a person aggrieved, permitted to initiate the special civil action for certiorari against the assailed RTC Orders. A person aggrieved refers to one who was a party in the proceedings before the lower court. To have the legal standing to avail of the remedy of certiorari, he must have a personal and substantial interest in the case such that he has sustained or will sustain direct injury as a result of the assailed act. She is an heir of the decedent and has a material interest to the administration of their estate. Thus, it cannot be denied that she would suffer or sustain direct injury in the event the estate is dissipated. (In the Matter of the Petition to Approve the Will of Gloria Novelo Vda. De Cea, G.R. No. 197147, February 03, 2021)
When can a petition for mandamus be availed?
It is available when a 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. The remedy lies to compel the performance of a ministerial duty. It cannot direct the exercise of judgment unless there is grave abuse of discretion. The following requirements must be present to warrant the issuance of a writ of mandamus, to wit: (1) the petitioner has a clear and unmistakable legal right to the act demanded; (2) it is the duty of the respondent to perform the act because it is required by law; (3) the respondent unlawfully neglects the duty enjoined by law or unlawfully excludes the petitioner from the use or enjoyment of the right or office; (4) the act to be performed is ministerial; and (5) there is no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.
What must be alleged in a complaint for unlawful detainer?
A complaint for unlawful detainer must sufficiently allege and prove (1) initially, the possession of property by the defendant was by contract with or by tolerance of the plaintiff; (2) eventually, such possession became illegal upon notice by plaintiff to defendant of the termination of the latter’s right of possession; (3) thereafter, the defendant remained in possession of the property and deprived the plaintiff of the enjoyment thereof; and (4) within one year from the last demand on defendant to vacate the property, the plaintiff instituted the complaint for ejectment. (Galacgac v. Bautista, G.R. No. 221384, November 09, 2020)
Merly Maligaya filed a petition for correction of entries in her birth certificate under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court before the RTC. In her petition, Merly prayed to change her first name from “MERLE” to “MERLY.” As supporting evidence, Merly presented the original and certified original copies of her SSS Member’s Data E-4 Form, Voter’s Registration Record, Voter’s Certification, Voter’s Identification Card, Police Clearance and NBI Clearance. After finding the petition sufficient in form and substance, the RTC ordered the publication of the petition in a newspaper of general circulation once a week for three consecutive weeks. After trial, RTC granted the petition to reflect Merly’s accurate personal circumstances and to avoid confusion on her public and private documents. The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) moved for a reconsideration and argued that the mistake is clerical that must be corrected through administrative proceedings under RA No. 9048, as amended by RA No. 10172. Is the error in Merly’s first name a clerical error under R.A. No. 9048?
Yes. RA No. 9048 amended Rule 108 and authorized the local civil registrars, or the Consul General, as the case may be, to correct clerical or typographical errors in the civil registry, or make changes in the first name or nickname, without need of a judicial order. The law provided an administrative recourse for the correction of clerical or typographical errors, essentially leaving substantial corrections to Rule 108. The correction of Merly’s first name from “MERLE” to “MERLY” refers to a clerical or typographical error. It merely rectified the erroneous spelling through the substitution of the second letter “E” in “MERLE” with the letter “Y,” so it will read as “MERLY.” The correction will neither affect nor prejudice any substantial rights. The innocuous errors in Merly’s first name may be corrected or changed under RA No. 9048 by referring to related documents. (Republic of the Philippines v. Merle M. Maligaya, G.R. No. 233068, November 9, 2020)
Sandiganbayan convicted petitioners Ismael and Ajijon for violating Section 3 (e) of RA No. 3019 or Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act and Section 3.3.1 of the IRR of RA No. 8291 or Government Service Insurance System Act of 1997. The petitioners filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari seeking the dismissal of the cases by attacking the validity of the Information filed against them. While the the two Informations against petitioners charged them for their failure to perform their duties as mayor and treasurer to ensure full and timely remittance of the municipality’s GSIS contributions, they claim that the information was insufficient as they alleged conspiracy but some conspirators were not impleaded nor their participation in the alleged conspiracy stated. Petitioners argued that their constitutional right to be informed of the nature of the accusations against them was violated. Are the petitioners correct?
No. Section 6, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court provides the necessary allegations to a criminal information, namely: (1) the accused’s name; (2) the stature’s designation of the offense; (3) the acts or omissions complained of that constitute the offense; (4) the offended party’s name; (5) the approximate date of the offense’s commission; and (6) the place where the offense was committed. The two Informations against petitioners clearly and sufficiently stated that they were being charged for their failure to perform their duties as mayor and treasurer to ensure full and timely remittance of the municipality’s GSIS contributions. The indictment of the purported conspirators, as well as a statement of their part in the alleged conspiracy, is not necessary to sustain the sufficiency of the Informations. So long as the criminal information clearly alleges the acts constituting the offense specifically imputed against the accused for them to properly prepare their defense, the constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of accusations is not transgressed. (Ismael v. People, G.R. Nos. 234435-36. February 06, 2023)
May a person be held civilly liable despite acquittal for failure to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt?
Yes. Every person criminally liable for a felony is also civilly liable. The dismissal of the criminal action does not carry with it the extinction of the civil liability where: (a) the acquittal is based on reasonable doubt as only preponderance of evidence is required; (b) the court declares that the liability of the accused is only civil; and (c) the civil liability of the accused does not arise from or is not based upon the crime of which the accused is acquitted. (Matobato, Sr. vs. People, G.R. No. 229265, February 15, 2022)
In a case for robbery with homicide, Ronald, the accused,pleaded not guilty and afterwards questioned the warrantless arrest. Can he still raise the question of the validity of warrantless arrest after he pleaded not guilty?
No. it is too late for Ronald to question the legality of his warrantless arrest in view of his arraignment and active participation at the trial. Neither did he move to quash the information, hence, any supposed defect in his arrest was deemed waived. It is settled that the legality of an arrest affects only the jurisdiction of the court over the person of the accused. Any objection must be made before the accused enters his plea. Otherwise, the defect is deemed cured. (People v. Laguda, G.R. No. 244843, October 07, 2020)
Jasper was charged with illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs after a buy-bust operation. During the trial the prosecution presented PO2 Jose, the police officer who conducted surveillance and buy-bust operation. He merely testified that after securing a search warrant, the police officer gave a marked money to the poseur-buyer who transacted with Jasper at the gate of the latter’s house. The police officers were observing the transaction. The buy-bust operation was successful so they served him a search warrant which led them to search Jasper’s room in the presence of Barangay Captain. Recovered were the marked money drug paraphernalia, and white crystalline substance found on a table and on top of a cabinet inside Jasper’s room. Is the search valid?
Section 8, Rule 126 - No search of a house, room, or any other premise shall be made except in the presence of the lawful occupant thereof or any member of his family or in the absence of the latter, two witnesses of sufficient age and discretion residing in the same locality.
When is bail a matter of discretion insofar as the imposable penalty is concerned?
Under the Rules of Court, upon the accused’s conviction by the Regional Trial Court of a non-capital offense, admission to bail is discretionary. However, when the penalty imposed on the accused exceeds six years, and any of the bail-negating circumstances exists, the accused’s application for bail must be denied or cancelled. If an accused who is charged with a crime punishable by reclusion perpetua is convicted by the trial court and sentenced to suffer such a penalty, bail is neither a matter of right on the part of the accused nor of discretion on the part of the court. Bail must not then be granted to the accused during the pendency of his appeal from the judgment of conviction. (People vs. Revillar, Jr., et al., G.R. No. 247611, January 13, 2021)
Napoles was convicted of Plunder on December 7, 2018. She filed a Motion before the Supreme Court alleging that she is at risk of contracting COVID-19 inside the prison due to her Diabetes, an underlying COVID-19 health condition. She contends that she is entitled to be provisionally released on humanitarian grounds. Is the allegation of Janet Napoles citing humanitarian grounds meritorious to grant her prayer of provisional release?
No. Napoles’ allegation is a question of fact which is not within the province of the Supreme Court to determine. Neither can the Court take judicial notice of her medical condition. However, even assuming that she is indeed suffering from diabetes, that, in itself, is not sufficient to grant her provisional liberty, post-conviction. Unless there is clear showing that Napoles is actually suffering from a medical condition that requires immediate and specialized attention outside of their current confinement — as, for instance, an actual and proven exposure to or infection with the novel coronavirus — she must remain in custody and isolation incidental to the crimes with which they were charged, or for which they are being tried or serving sentence. Only then can there be an actual controversy and a proper invocation of humanitarian and equity considerations that is ripe for this Court to determine. (People vs. Revillar, Jr., et al., G.R. No. 247611, January 13, 2021)
Mangali was charged with robbery committed against JCLV Realty before the RTC. Allegedly, Mangali removed JCLV Realty’s electric facilities with intent to gain and intimidation against persons. After the prosecution rested its case, Mangali filed a demurrer to evidence claiming that the prosecution failed to establish intent to gain and that the metering instruments belonged to JCLV Realty. RTC granted the demurrer and dismissed the criminal case for lack of evidence that Mangali perpetrated the robbery. Unsuccessful at a reconsideration, JCLV Realty elevated the case to the CA through a special civil action for certiorari. Has double jeopardy set in?
Yes. Double jeopardy attaches when the following elements concur: (1) the accused is charged under a complaint or information sufficient in form and substance to sustain their conviction; (2) the court has jurisdiction; (3) the accused has been arraigned and has pleaded; and (4) the accused is convicted or acquitted, or the case is dismissed without his/her consent. In this case, all the elements are present. A valid Information for the crime of robbery was filed against Mangali before the RTC. Also, Mangali had pleaded not guilty to the charge, and after the prosecution rested, the criminal case was dismissed upon a demurrer to evidence. (JCLV Realty & Dev’t. Corp. v. Mangali, G.R. No. 236618, August 27, 2020)
Mercado, a fuel retailer, delivered fuel to Byron Express Bus Company. The fuel was received by the company’s clerk, Juson, under a trust receipt. Juson failed to remit the proceeds, prompting Mercado to file estafa charges against both Juson and Cacdac, the alleged owner of Byron Express. The prosecution presented evidence including the Trust Receipt Agreement, demand letter, and sworn statements. However, Cacdac moved for a demurrer to evidence without leave of court, arguing he was not party to the trust receipt, the transaction was a sale, and the demand letter was addressed solely to Juson. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) dismissed the criminal charge against Cacdac but affirmed his civil liability to pay the amount with interest. Did the trial court violate Cacdac’s right to due process when it held him civilly liable?
No. The demurrer to evidence in criminal cases is governed by Rule 119, Section 23 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. If the court denies the demurrer to evidence filed with leave of court, the accused may adduce evidence in his defense. When the demurrer to evidence is filed without leave of court, the accused waives the right to present evidence and submits the case for judgment on the basis of the evidence for the prosecution. Here, Cacdac filed a demurrer to evidence, which partakes of the nature of a motion to dismiss the case for failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. As such, Cacdac was not deprived of due process when the trial court rendered judgment on his civil liability. He is deemed to have waived the right to present evidence when he filed a demurrer without leave of court. (Cacdac v. Mercado, G.R. No. 242731, June 14, 2021)
What are the requisites for a newly discovered evidence to be admitted?
Newly-discovered evidence may be admissible in evidence if the following requisites are present: (1) that the evidence was discovered after trial; (2) that the evidence could not have been discovered and produced at the trial even with the exercise of reasonable diligence; (3) that it is material, not merely cumulative, corroborative or impeaching; and (4) that the evidence is of such weight that, if admitted, would probably change the judgment.
AAA, a 12-year old girl went missing after her parents instructed her and siblings to collect the payment of rice cakes from their neighbor, Milo. Her lifeless body was found the following day underneath Milo’s wooden bed. She was lying flat on her back with a cloth wrapped around her mouth and nose, and with both hands tied and twisted at her back. The Autopsy report found that AAA died due to asphyxia by suffocation. The medical examination also revealed that AAA sustained hymenal lacerations due to the insertion of a blunt object like a human penis or any hard item and suffered multiple injuries and abrasions on different parts of her body. Accordingly, Milo was charged with the complex crime of rape with homicide. The RTC found adequate circumstantial evidence that Milo was guilty of the crime. Can Milo be convicted based only on Circumstantial Evidence?
Yes. The Rules of Court allows resort to circumstantial evidence provided the following conditions are satisfied: (a) there is more than one circumstance; (b) the facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and (c) the combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. A judgment of conviction based on circumstantial evidence can be upheld only if the circumstances proved constitute an unbroken chain which leads to one fair and reasonable conclusion which points to the accused, to the exclusion of all others, as the guilty person. All the circumstances must be consistent with each other, compatible with the hypothesis that the accused is guilty and in conflict with the notion that he is innocent. In this case, the corpus of circumstantial evidence constitutes an unbroken chain of events pointing to Milo’s guilt. AAA went to Milo’s house and remained missing until the discovery of her lifeless body the following day in the same place. The medical examination revealed that AAA sustained hymenal lacerations. The most incriminating evidence against Milo is when AAA’s body was found underneath his bed. These proven facts, when weaved together, lead to no other conclusion but of Milo’s culpability for the crime. (People vs. Leocadio, G.R. No. 227396, February 22, 2023)
In determining the admissibility and reliability of an out-of-court identification, what are the factors that a court has to look into considering the totality of circumstances?
In determining the admissibility and reliability of an out-of-court identification, the Court must look at the totality of the circumstances and consider the following factors, namely: (1) the witness’ opportunity to view the criminal at the time of the crime; (2) the witness’ degree of attention at that time; (3) the accuracy of any prior description given by the witness; (4) the length of time between the crime and the identification; (5) the level of certainty demonstrated by the witness at the identification; and (6) the suggestiveness of the identification procedure.
These rules assure fairness as well as compliance with the constitutional requirements of due process in regard to out-of-court identification, and prevent the contamination of the integrity of in-court identification. (People v. Campos, G.R. No. 252212, July 14, 2021)
Napoleon engaged Atty. Capela for legal services in a civil case regarding breach of contract and damages. The retainer agreement included provision of Napoleon’s Toyota Corolla GLI model, official receipt, and certificate of registration as an acceptance fee. Although Atty. Capela filed an appearance and answer before the RTC, the draft retainer agreement remained unsigned. Atty. Capela’s absence during the preliminary conference and subsequent hearings led to Napoleon agreeing to a Compromise Agreement approved by RTC, without legal representation. Atty. Capela later denied being engaged as counsel, citing lack of a signed retainer agreement and absence of compensation in the form of a motor vehicle. Are the contentions of Atty. Capela tenable?
No. A written contract or retainer agreement is not an essential element in the employment of an attorney; a contract may be express or implied. To establish a lawyer-client relationship, it is sufficient that the advice and assistance of an attorney are sought and received in any matter pertinent to his profession, as in this case. Neither does the claim that no payment was received defeat the existence of the relationship. It is not necessary that any retainer should have been paid, promised, or charged for, to constitute professional employment. (Quitazol v. Atty. Capela, A.C. No. 12072, December 9, 2020)
What are the tests to determine the existence of conflict of interest?
The three tests developed by jurisprudence to determine the existence of conflict of interest are: first, whether a lawyer is duty-bound to fight for an issue, or claim on behalf of one client and, at the same time, to oppose that claim for the other client; second, whether acceptance of a new relation would prevent the full discharge of the lawyer’s duty of undivided fidelity and loyalty to the client, or invite suspicion of unfaithfulness or double-dealing in the performance of that duty; and third, whether the lawyer would be called upon in the new relation to use against a former client any confidential information acquired through their connection or previous employment.
(Pilar v. Atty. Ballicud, A.C. No. 12792, November 16, 2020)
KWP is a corporation registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). KWP engaged the services of Atty. Ballicud to draft legal documents, such as policy on retirement benefits, voluntary resignation, and shareholder’s agreement, from 2010 to 2013. Allegedly, KWP had previously lost several project bids to Engel Anlagen Technik Phils., Inc. (EAT) that resulted in the loss of clients and business opportunities on their part. KWP found out that EAT was registered with the SEC on March 27, 2013, with Atty. Ballicud as its President and one of the incorporators. The other incorporators are the nephews of KWP’s former President who resigned in 2014. KWP’s Vice President AND KWP filed a disbarment complaint against Atty. Ballicud due to conflict of interests. Atty. Ballicud contends that he never handled a case for, or against KWP and that he has no knowledge of any confidential information relating to KWP’s business operations. Are his contentions valid?
No. Actual case or controversy is not required for the proscription against representation of conflicting interests to apply. The important criterion is the probability, and not the certainty, of conflict. The proscription against representation of conflicting interests finds application where the conflicting interests arise with respect to the same general matter however slight the adverse interest may be, even if the conflict pertains to the lawyer’s private activity or in the performance of a function in a non-professional capacity. In this case, Atty. Ballicud caused the registration of EAT with the SEC on March 27, 2013. He occupied the highest position as EAT’s President. Atty. Ballicud’s new relation with EAT would prevent the full discharge of his duty of undivided fidelity and loyalty to KWP and would invite suspicion of unfaithfulness or double-dealing in the performance of his duty. (Pilar v. Atty. Ballicud, A.C. No. 12792, November 16, 2020)
What is the nature of a disbarment proceeding?
Disbarment of lawyers is a proceeding that aims to purge the law profession of unworthy members of the bar. It is intended to preserve the nobility and honor of the legal profession. In disbarment proceedings, the burden of proof rests upon the complainant. Disciplinary proceedings against lawyers are sui generis; neither purely civil nor purely criminal, they do not involve a trial of an action or a suit, but rather an investigation by the Court into the conduct of one of its officers. Not being intended to inflict punishment, it is in no sense a criminal prosecution. Accordingly, there is neither a plaintiff nor a prosecutor therein. It may be initiated by the Court motu proprio. Public interest is its primary objective, and the real question for determination is whether or not the attorney is still a fit person to be allowed the privileges as such. (Capinpin v. Atty. Espiritu, A.C. No. 12537, September 03, 2020)
Substantive law vs. Procedural law
Substantive law is that part of the law which creates, defines, and regulates rights, or which regulates the rights and duties which give rise to a cause of action; Substantive enacted by Congress
Procedural law refers to the adjective law, which prescribes rules and forms of procedure in order that courts may be able to administer justice. It ensures the effective enforcement of
substantive rights by providing for a system that obviates arbitrariness, caprice, despotism, or whimsicality in the settlement of disputes; Remedial promulgated by SC (Art. 8)
In case of conflict, SUBSTANTIVE PREVAILS (Separation of Powers)
XPNS:
- Violation of due process
- Issue involved is purely legal question
- Administrative action is patently illegal
- Estoppel
- Irreparable injury
Test for determining whether a rule is procedural or substantive
If the rule takes away a vested right, it is not procedural. If the rule creates a right such as the right to appeal, it may be classified as a substantive matter; but if it operates as a means of implementing an existing right then the rule deals merely with procedure.
Can the Congress pass a law deciding that an offense can be subject to plea bargaining?
No. It is already well-settled, as stated in the case of Estipona vs. Lobrigo that plea bargaining in criminal cases, by nature and tradition, is squarely a rule of procedure which falls within the
Court’s exclusive rule-making power as provided under Section 5(5), Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution.
Exceptions to the doctrine of hierarchy of courts
- there are genuine issues of constitutionality that must be addressed at the most immediate time;
- the issues involved are of transcendental importance. such that the imminence and clarity of the threat to fundamental constitutional rights outweigh the necessity for prudence;
- in cases of first impression;
- the constitutional issues raised are better decided by the [Supreme] Court;
- the time element presented in the case cannot be ignored;
- when the subject of review is an act of a constitutional organ;
- when petitioners rightly claim that they had no other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law; and
- when the petition includes questions that are dictated by public welfare and the advancement of public policy, or demanded by the broader interest of justice, or the orders complained of were found to be patent nullities, or the appeal was considered as clearly an inappropriate remedy
Reasons that may provide justification for a court to suspend strict adherence to procedural rules
a) matters of life, liberty, honor, or property; (b) the existence of special or compelling circumstances; (c) the merits of the case; (d) a cause not entirely attributable to the fault or negligence of the party favored by the suspension of the rules; (e) a lack of any showing that the review sought is merely frivolous and dilatory; and (f) the fact that the other party will not be unjustly prejudiced thereby.
X filed a case with the RTC questioning the validity of a statute. RTC dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction. Was the dismissal proper?
No. The Supreme Court is the final arbiter of the constitutionality of any law-but they are not the sole and exclusive forum before which constitutional questions may be posed. Regional trial courts, including the one before which Criminal Case No. 2008-895 is pending, are vested with judicial power, which embraces the power to determine if a law breaches the Constitution. In Garcia vs. Drilon: “It is settled that [Regional Trial Courts] have jurisdiction to resolve the constitutionality of a statute, ‘this authority being embraced in the general definition of the judicial power to determine what are the valid and binding laws by the criterion of their conformity to the fundamental law.’ The Constitution vests the power of judicial review or the power to declare the constitutionality or validity of a law, treaty, international or executive agreement, presidential decree, order, instruction, ordinance, or regulation not only in this Court, but in all RTCs.
Cases exempted from mandatory barangay conciliation
1) Where one party is the government, or any subdivision or instrumentality thereof;
2) Where one party is a public officer or employee, and the dispute relates to the performance of his official functions;
3) Where the dispute involves real properties located in different cities and municipalities, unless the parties thereto agree to submit their difference to amicable settlement by an appropriate Lupon;
4) Any complaint by or against corporations, partnership or juridical entities, since only individuals shall be parties to Barangay conciliation proceedings either as complainants
or respondents (Sec. 1, Rule VI, Katarungang Pambarangay Rules);
5) Disputes involving parties who actually reside in barangays of different cities or municipalities, except where such barangay units adjoin eachother and the parties
thereto agree to submit their differences to amicable settlement by an appropriate Lupon;
6) Offenses for which the law prescribes a maximum penalty of imprisonment exceeding one (1) year or a fine over five thousand pesos (P5,000.00);
7) Offenses where there is no private offended party;
8) Disputes where urgent legal action is necessary to prevent injustice from being committed or further continued, specifically the following:
a. Criminal cases where accused is under police custody or detention (see Sec. 412
(b) (1), Revised Katarungang Pambarangay Law);
b. Petitions for habeas corpus by a person illegally deprived of his rightful custody
over another or a person illegally deprived or on acting in his behalf;
c. Actions coupled with provisional remedies such as preliminary injunction, attachment, delivery of personal property and support during the pendency of the action; and
d. Actions which may be barred by the Statute of Limitations.
9) Any class of disputes which the President may determine in the interest of justice or upon the recommendation of the Secretary of Justice;
10) Where the dispute arises from the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL) (Sec. 46 & 47, R.A. 6657);
11) Labor disputes or controversies arising from employer-employee relations (Montoya vs. Escayo, et al., 171 SCRA 442; Art. 226, Labor Code, as amended, which grants original and
exclusive jurisdiction over conciliation and mediation of disputes, grievances or problems to certain offices of the Department of Labor and Employment);
12) Actions to annul judgment upon a compromise which may be filed directly in court (See Sanchez vs. Tupaz, 158 SCRA 459).
Residual jurisdiction
The residual jurisdiction of the trial court is available upon the perfection of the appeals by the parties or upon the approval of the records on appeal, but prior to the transmittal of the original records or the records on appeal. In either instance, the trial court still retains its so-called “residual jurisdiction” to issue protective orders, approve compromises, permit appeals of indigent litigants, order execution pending appeal, and allow the withdrawal of the appeal.
The trial court will not reach the residual jurisdiction stage if the case was dismissed without prejudice because the order of dismissal is not appealable. Without the perfection of an appeal, let alone the unavailability of the remedy of appeal, the trial court cannot acquire residual jurisdiction.
Prior to the transmittal of the original records to appellate court, trial court can still retain jurisdiction to issue protective orders, approve compromises, permit appeals of the indigent litigants, order execution pending appeal and allow the withdrawal of the appeal.
When prior exhaustion of administrative remedies may be dispensed with
a) when there is a violation of due process;
b) when the issue involved is purely a legal question;
c) when the administrative action is patently illegal amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction;
d) when there is estoppel on the part of the administrative agency concerned;
e) when there is irreparable injury;
f) when the respondent is a department secretary whose acts as an alter ego of the President bear the implied and assumed approval of the latter;
g) when to require exhaustion of administrative remedies would be unreasonable;
h) when it would amount to a nullification of a claim;
i) when the subject matter is a private land in land case proceedings;
j) when the rule does not provide a plain, speedy and adequate remedy; or
k) when there are circumstances indicating the urgency of judicial intervention
X filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65. Case was decided against Y. Y argues that since no summons had been served upon him, the Regional Trial Court failed to acquire jurisdiction over them. As a result, they insist that the Regional Trial
Court’s June 6, 2014 Decision is void. Is Y correct?
Contrary to Y’s postulation, summons need not be issued in a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. Rule 65, Section 6 of the Rules of Court states that the court, upon the filing of a petition for certiorari, shall determine if it is sufficient in form and substance. Once it finds the petition to be sufficient, it shall issue an order requiring the respondents to comment on the petition. Compared with an ordinary civil action, where summons must be issued upon the filing of the complaint, the court need only issue an order requiring the respondents to comment on the petition for certiorari. “Such order shall be served on the respondents in such manner as the court may direct, together with a copy of the petition and any annexes thereto.
X filed a collection suit against Y for nonpayment of rental fees. Simultaneously, X filed an ejectment suit against Y. Is there forum shopping?
No. There is no splitting of cause of action when a collection suit is filed separately from an action for ejectment. The causes of action are not the same, the rights violated are different, and the reliefs sought are also different.
Requisites of a valid class suit
a) When the subject matter of the controversy is of common or general interest to many persons;
b) When such persons are so numerous that it is impracticable to join them all as parties; and
c) When such persons are sufficiently numerous as to represent and protect fully the interests of all concerned.
Effect of non-compliance with verification and certification against forum shopping
Verification: Non-compliance therewith or a defect therein does not necessarily render the pleading fatally defective. The court may order its submission or correction or act on the pleading if the attending circumstances are such that strict compliance with the Rule may be dispensed with in order that the ends of justice may be served thereby.
CAFS: Non-compliance therewith or a defect therein, unlike in verification, is generally not curable by its subsequent submission or correction thereof, unless there is a need to relax the Rule on the ground of “substantial compliance” or presence of “special circumstances or compelling reasons.”
Elements of forum shopping
The elements of forum shopping are: (i) identity of parties, or at least such parties representing the same interest; (ii) identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for, the latter founded, on the same facts; and (iii) any judgment rendered in one action will amount to res judicata in the other action.
Requirements to declare defendant in default
(1) the claiming party must file a motion asking the court to declare the defending party in default; (2) the defending party must be notified of the motion to declare them in default; and (3) the claiming party must prove that the defending party has failed to answer within the period provided by the Rule.
Period to file Answer to the complaint and third (fourth, etc.)-party complaint
Within 30 calendar days from service, unless a different period is fixed by the court (Secs. 1 and 5)
Period to file Answer of a foreign private juridical entity where service of summons is made on the government official designated by law
Within 60 calendar days after receipt of summons by such entity
Period to file Answer to amended complaint, amended counterclaim, amended cross-claim, amended third (fourth, etc.)-party complaint, and amended complaint-in-intervention
Within 30 calendar days from service (if filed as a matter of right)
Within 15 calendar days from notice of the order admitting the same (if filed not as a matter of right?
An answer earlier filed may serve as the answer to the amended complaint if no new answer is filed. (Sec. 3)
Period to file Answer to counterclaim or cross-claim
Within 20 calendar days from service
Period to file Answer to supplemental complaint
Within 20 calendar days from notice of the order admitting the same, unless a different period is fixed by the court.
An answer earlier filed may serve as the answer to the supplemental complaint if no new or supplemental answer is filed.
Period to file Reply to an answer with attached actionable document
Within 15 calendar days from service
Elements of res judicata
(a) the former judgment must be final; (b) the court which rendered it had jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties; (c) it must be a judgment on the merits; and (d) there must be, between the first and second actions, identity of parties, subject matter, and causes of action.
When can a complaint be dismissed due to plaintiff’s fault?
Section 3, Rule 17 of
the Rules of Court:
(1) if he or she fails to appear during a scheduled hearing, especially on the date for the presentation of his or her evidence in chief;
(2) if he or she fails to prosecute his or her action for an unreasonable length of time;
(3) if he or she fails to comply
with the rules; or
(4) if he or she fails to comply with any order of the court.
Thus, failure on the part of the plaintiff, without any justifiable cause, to comply with any order of the court may result in the dismissal of the complaint either motu proprio or on motion by the defendant.
Different modes of discovery
a. Depositions pending action (Rule 23);
b. Depositions before action or pending appeal (Rule 24);
c. Interrogatories to parties (Rule 25);
d. Admission by adverse party (Rule 26);
e. Production or inspection of documents or things (Rule 27); and
f. Physical and mental examination of persons (Rule 28);
What is the proper remedy on the grant of a demurrer to evidence?
Given the result brought about by the grant of a demurrer to evidence, that is, a dismissal of the case on its merits, an appeal would be the appropriate remedy available to an aggrieved party.
Rule 41 vs. Rule 42
An ordinary appeal is an appeal to the Court of Appeals from the judgment or final order of the Regional Trial Court in the exercise of its original jurisdiction, while a petition for review is an appeal to the Court of Appeals in cases decided by the Regional Trial Court in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction. An ordinary appeal under Rule 41 is deemed perfected upon
the filing of a notice of appeal before the Regional Trial Court. The notice of appeal must be filed within the period of 15 days from their notice of the judgment. On the other hand, an appeal under Rule 42 is deemed perfected upon the filing of the petition for review before the Court of
Appeals. Additionally, an appeal under Rule 41 is a matter of right, while an appeal under Rule 42 is a matter of discretion.
Exceptions to the doctrine of immutability of judgment
A final and executory judgment is immutable and unalterable. Nevertheless, the doctrine admits
certain exceptions, to wit: (1) correction of clerical errors; (2) nunc pro tunc entries which cause no prejudice to any party; (3) void judgments; and (4) supervening events rendered the decision unjust and inequitable. (Landbank of the Philippines vs. Garcia)
What is a petition for relief and when can you avail of such remedy?
A petition for relief from judgment, order, or other proceedings is an equitable remedy which is allowed only in exceptional circumstances. The petition is the proper remedy of a party seeking to set aside a judgment rendered against him by a court whenever he was unjustly deprived of a hearing, was prevented from taking an appeal, or a judgment or final order entered because of fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence.
A petition for relief from judgment must be filed (i) within 60 days from knowledge of the judgment, order, or other proceeding to be set aside and (ii) within six months from the entry
of such judgment, order, or other proceeding. These two (2) periods must concur.
What is a petition for annulment of jusgment and when can it be availed of?
A petition for annulment of judgment under Rule 47 of the Rules of Court is a remedy granted only under exceptional circumstances, where a party, without fault on his part, has failed to avail of the ordinary remedies of new trial, appeal, petition for relief or other appropriate remedies.
The same petition is not available as a substitute for a remedy which was lost due to the party’s own neglect in promptly availing of the same. Sec. 2, Rule 47 of the Rules of Court explicitly
provides two grounds for the annulment of judgment, namely: extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction.
The objective of the remedy of annulment of judgment or final order is to undo or set aside the judgment or final order, and thereby grant to the petitioner an opportunity to prosecute his cause or to ventilate his defense. If the ground relied upon is lack of jurisdiction, the entire proceedings are set aside without prejudice to the original action being refiled in the proper court. If the judgment or final order or resolution is set aside on the ground of extrinsic fraud, the CA may on motion order the trial court to try the case as if a timely motion for new trial had been granted therein. Chico vs. Ciudadano
Execution shall issue as a matter of right when:
(1) the right of appeal has been renounced or waived;
(2) the period for appeal has lapsed without an appeal having been taken; or
(3) the appeal has been resolved and the records of the case have been returned to the court of origin.
What is a writ of preliminary injunction?
A writ of preliminary injunction is an ancillary and interlocutory order that bars an act or requires performance of a particular act pending litigation of a case.
Requisites for preliminary injunction
(1) The applicant must have a clear and unmistakable right to be protected, that is a right in esse;
(2) There is a material and substantial invasion of such right;
(3) There is an urgent need for the writ to prevent irreparable injury to the applicant; and
(4) No other ordinary, speedy, and adequate remedy exists to prevent the infliction of irreparable injury.
Two instances when a temporary restraining order may issue
first, when great or irreparable injury would result to the applicant even before the application for writ of preliminary injunction can be heard; and second, if the matter is of extreme urgency and the applicant will suffer grave injustice and irreparable injury.
Conditions to allow the conversion of a petition for declaratory relief into an ordinary action
- The interested party files a petition for declaratory relief before breach of the statute, contract, deed or subject written instrument;
- There is a breach or violation of the statute, contract, deed or subject written instrument which occurred before the final termination of the case; and
- The interested party should indicate the ordinary action he or she has chosen.
Prescription for quo warranto proceedings
The one-year prescriptive period applies only when the quo warranto petition is filed by an individual in his/her own name or by the Solicitor General/public prosecutor at the request and upon relation of another person, with leave of court. When the petition is filed by the State at its own instance, through the Solicitor General, prescription shall not apply.
Requisites for the valid exercise of the power of eminent domain
(1) the property taken must be private property;
(2) there must be genuine necessity to take the private property;
(3) the taking must be for public use;
(4) there must be payment of just compensation; and
(5) the taking must comply with due process of law. It is settled that a property already devoted to public use can still be subject to expropriation, provided this is done directly by the national legislature or under a specific grant of authority to a delegate, as in the case of MORE.
Just compensation in expropriation
Just compensation is defined “as the full and fair equivalent of the property taken from its owner by the expropriator.” The qualifier “just” modifies the meaning of the word “compensation” to impress the idea that the equivalent to be given for the property to be taken shall be real,
substantial, full, and ample. The true measure is not the taker’s gain but the owner’s loss. Heirs of Dimao vs. National Grid Corporation of the Philippines
Reckoning period of taking for just compensation
Just compensation shall be determined as of the date of the filing of the complaint or the date of the actual taking, whichever transpired earlier.
While the just compensation shall be appraised as of the date of the filing of the complaint or the date of the actual taking, whichever transpired earlier, the legal interest shall run from the time that the government took possession of the property and not from the time of filing of the expropriation complaint.
What is the a ppropriate recourse in case a governmental entity, in the exercise of its eminent domain powers, takes over the possession of a property without the benefit of expropriation proceeding?
Recovery of possession. Manila Railroad annunciated that a public entity stands on an equal footing as other trespassers/intruders if it enters a private property or constructs establishments thereon without the acquiescence or consent of the owner.
3 kinds of actions to judicially recover possession
Summary action of ejectment (accion interdictal), plenary action to recover the right of possession (accion publiciana), and action to recover ownership which also includes recovery of possession (accion reivindicatoria).
What really distinguishes an action for unlawful detainer from a possessory action (accion publiciana) and from a
reivindicatory action (accion reivindicatoria) is that the first is limited to the question of possession de facto. Unlawful detainer suits (accion interdictal), together with forcible entry, are the two forms of ejectment suit that may be filed to recover possession of real property. Aside from the summary action of ejectment, accion publiciana or the plenary action to recover the right of possession and accion reivindicatoria or the action to recover ownership which also includes recovery of possession, make up the three kinds of actions to judicially recover possession. Unlawful detainer and forcible entry suits are designed to summarily restore physical possession of a piece of land or building to one who has been illegally or forcibly deprived thereof, without prejudice to the settlement of the parties’ opposing claims of juridical possession in appropriate proceedings.
Forcible entry
The act of depriving a person of the material or actual possession of a land or building or of taking possession thereof by force, intimidation, threat, strategy or stealth, against the will or without the consent of the possessor.
No previous demand to vacate is required by law before the filing of the action.
Unlawful detainer
The act of unlawfully withholding the
possession of a land or building against or from a landlord, vendor, vendee or other persons, after the expiration or termination of the detainer’s right to hold possession by virtue of a contract, express or implied.
Deed form mnemonic
[TAF-CAS-SA]
Title
Announcement
First Party
Consideration
Act or Conveyance
Second Party
Signature
Acknowledgment
Contract form mnemonic
Unless required by your bar examiner, sparingly use the CONTRACT FORM [TAA-RAC-SA]
Title
Announcement
Actors
Recitals
Agreement
Conditions
Signatories
Acknowledgment
Acknowledgment
Acknowledgement refers to a formal declaration before an official that one has executed a particular legal document. They are are notarial acts that apply to contracts.
*check Buenviaje notes
Jurat
A jurat is a certificate attached to an affidavit or deposition to signify that the affidavit or deposition was properly made before a duly authorized officer.
*for sworn statements and affidavits
Affidavit template mnemonic
VeTiPe-OStaSiJu
Venue of Execution
Title
Person’s Bona Fides
Oath
Statements
Signature
Jurat
Parts of a Typical Judicial Form
Cap-TIBRA-A
Caption
Title
Introduction
Body (Parties, Cause of Action)
Relief
Attorney’s Box
Addenda
Contents of a judicial affidavit
a. Case caption and the personal circumstances of the witness;
b. The identity of the lawyer who conducts or supervises the examination of the witness;
c. The place where the examination is being held; and
d. A statement that the witness is answering the questions under oath and that he may face criminal liability for false testimony or perjury.
Complaint
sworn statement charging a person with an offense, subscribed by the offended party, any peace officer, or other public officer charged with the enforcement of the law violated
Information
accusation in writing charging a person with an offense, subscribed by the prosecutor and filed with the court
A complaint or information is sufficient if it states
- The name of the accused
- The designation of the offense given by the statute
- The acts or omission complained of as constituting the offense
- The name of the offended party
- The approximate date of the commission of the offense
- The place where the offense was committed
Revised Lawyer’s Oath
I, (name), do solemnly swear that I accept the honor, privilege, duty and responsibility of practicing law in the Philippines as an Officer of the Court in the interest of our people. I declare fealty to the Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines.
In doing so, I shall work towards promoting “the rule of law and a regime of truth, justice, freedom, love, equality, and peace.” I shall conscientiously and courageously work for justice, as well as safeguard the rights and meaningful freedoms of all persons, identities and communities. I shall ensure greater and equitable access to justice.
I shall do no falsehood nor shall I pervert the law to unjustly favor nor prejudice anyone. I shall faithfully discharge these duties and responsibilities to the best of my ability, with integrity, and utmost civility. I impose all these upon myself without mental reservation nor purpose of evasion. So help me, God.
Four-fold duties of a lawyer
Society - Bar - Courts - Client
Lawyers Shane and Badet work for the same law firm representing a construction firm. One night, Shane admitted to Badet that she is romantically involved with a man who supplies her cocaine. When Badet pontificated that Shane should desist promptly from taking cocaine for being immoral, Shane laughed it off saying that it helps her be awake to earn more billable hours for the firm and eventually income for herself. When advised to go into rehabilitation, Shane exploded and asserted that the matter is none of her business. Is Badet duty bound to report Shane to the authorities?
No. None of Shane’s conduct is dishonest, deceitful or misleading in relation to a court, tribunal or government agency.
Prohibition against claim of influence, familiarity, solicitation, self promotion or self-aggrandizement (Secs. 15, 17-19)
Professional business cards may only contain the following details:
a. Lawyer’s name;
b. Name of the law firm with which he is connected;
c. Address;
d. Telephone number; and
e. Special branch of law practiced (Linsangan v. Tolentino, 2009)
Tarpaulin Ad alerting the public about Atty. X as Regional distributor of Amway Philippines or Avon Cosmetics. Is this an ethical advertisement?
No. Nothing wrong if lawyer engages in commercial activities, but not as “attorney.”
The website of ABC Law Office enumerating all the lawyers of the firm and citing its practice areas, with the words “Hire us!” Is this ethical advertisement?
No. Remove “hire us” and it would be appropriate.
Accused of murdering his sons, Leopoldo has his case followed by the public due to the gruesome details of the case. A national TV network covers it with Atty. Marjorie as co-anchor. Carina, her co-anchor, openly discussed that Marjorie is a seasoned litigator and was a former associate of the judge handling the case before his appointment in the judiciary. Carina asked Marjorie how the judge would resolve the motion to quash filed by Leopoldo’s counsel given Marjorie’s familiarity of the judge and his thought processes. What would be proper for Marjorie to do?
Refuse to answer the question and discuss publicly the reasons why he can’t respond to the question citing the sub-judice rule. This way, the lawyer also aids in disseminating information regarding law and jurisprudence.
Atty. Mel continued with his tirade against complainant manufacturing company in his TV and radio programs and broadsheet columns saying that the company’s liver spread contained a colony of worms, all despite the pendency of a civil and criminal case against him and the TRO issued restraining Mel from doing such acts. Is Mel liable?
Yes, because the continued publication of such criticism despite the pending case was calculated to arouse public sympathy for him and against the manufacturer.
May the government engage private lawyers?
As a rule, no. Except when unavoidable and/or justified under extraordinary or exceptional circumstances.
COA Circular 86-255: In the event that such legal services cannot be avoided or is justified under extraordinary or exceptional circumstances for government agencies and instrumentalities, including government-owned or controlled corporations, the written conformity and acquiescence of the Solicitor General or the Government Corporate Counsel, as the case may be, and the written concurrence of the Commission on Audit shall first be secured before the hiring or employment of a private lawyer or law firm.
Essential criteria in determining whether a person is engaged in the practice of law
(HACA)
Habituality
Application of Legal Knowledge
Compensation
Attorney-Client Relation
Non-lawyers who can practice law
a. Law student practice (Rule 138-A)
b. Pro Hac Vice representation (Sec. 33, Rule 138) ** repealed by CPRA - no longer controlling
c. Pro Se practice (Sec. 34, Rule 138) - rendered moot by CPRA as well
d. DARAB Cases (Sec. 50, RA 6657)
e. Cadastral Cases (Sec. 9, Act 2259)
f. Labor Cases (Art. 222, Labor Code)
g. Small claims cases (A.M. 08-8-7-SC)
h. International and domestic commercial arbitrations (Sec. 22 and 33, RA 9285)
Pro se - You can no longer represent yourself.
Lawyers who are absolutely prohibited from practicing law
a. President, Vice President
b. Cabinet members who are lawyers
c. Governors, city/municipal mayors
d. Solicitor General, Government Corporate Counsel
e. Judges/Justices in the active service and SC officials/employees
f. Government lawyers unless given limited authority to practice
g. Ombudsman, Members of the Constitutional Commission
h. Disbarred lawyers
i. Suspended lawyers
j. Dead lawyers
k. Lawyers residing abroad
l. Foreign lawyers
Lawyers authorized to do Limited Law Practice
a. Senators, Congressmen who are lawyers
b. Vice Governor, Vice-Mayor, members of the local sanggunian
c. Government lawyers authorized to engage in limited law practice
d. Retired Judges
e. The rules on Small Claims and Katarungang Pambarangay put limits to a lawyer’s authority to practice
f. Former government lawyers cannot engage in the private practice of law within one year from resignation, retirement, or separation from public office in connection with any matter before the office he used to be with
Remedies against unauthorized legal practice:
a. Petition for Injunction
b. Contempt of Court
c. Criminal Complaint for Estafa
d. Disqualification and complaints for disbarment
e. Administrative complaint against an erring lawyer or government official
When does a lawyer-client relations commence? (Sec. 3, Canon III)
Upon the signing of a retainer
When there is an implied agreement
When there is a consultation
If the President grants amnesty to Atty. Gadon, will he be allowed to continue his practice of law?
No. Amnesty only applies to criminal cases, not administrative cases.
But he can apply for judicial clemency after 5 years.
There is inconsistency of interests within the meaning of the prohibition under the CPRA when
the acceptance of a new relation will prevent a lawyer from the full discharge of his duty of undivided fidelity and loyalty to his client or invite suspicion of unfaithfulness or double dealing in the performance of that duty; also when the lawyer would be called upon in the new relation to use against a former client any confidential information acquired through their connection or previous employment
Spouses Brian and Leah were Atty. Charlotte’s clients in the past. Hannah engaged Charlotte’s services to compel payment from debtors, who turned out to be the spouses. Eventually, Charlotte won the case in court for Hannah. On appeal, the spouses’ counsel moved to disqualify Charlotte for taking inconsistent interests. Charlotte insists that since the spouses never objected when the case was tried in the trial court, they effectively approved her appearance for Hannah. Is Charlotte right?
No, because the approval she pointed at falls short of the required consent.
July Sims asks Atty. Hunyo to represent him in a complex tax matter. Hunyo readily disclosed that he is young and inexperienced in tax practice but July would not hear it professing his full trust in him. a) Will Hunyo be disciplined if he accepted the case and gets help from a competent co-counsel? b) What options are available to Hunyo as regards this retainer offer to avoid administrative liability?
No, Hunyo will not be disciplined here provided he gets July’s written consent before working with a competent co-counsel. The law prohibits a lawyer from undertaking a legal service which he knows or should know that he is not qualified to render. But he may render such service if, with the client’s consent, he can obtain a competent collaborating co-counsel. Given his candid admission to July about his incompetence, Atty. Hunyo’s cooperation with another counsel will not incur him liability, as long as he obtains July’s consent.
To avoid administrative liability, Atty. Hunyo may take any of the following options given his inexperience:
a. Refuse to handle the matter, given the clear command to lawyers to serve clients with competence and diligence
b. Accept the matter because he expects, in good faith, to be competent through diligent study convinced that such research would not cause client undue delay and expense
c. Accept the matter and associates with a competent co-counsel after obtaining his client’s consent to do so consistent with the CPRA.
Atty. Nora represents Rommel on a charge of homicide. One afternoon, Rommel barges to Nora’s office and threw a gun in her desk, confessing his guilt. He also tells Nora that he is going to kill Beth, the witness. He also admitted that he removed some things from the crime scene. After trial, Rommel got convicted and later slams Nora for her incompetence. In the civil suit that Rommel filed against Nora, the latter took the stand in her own defense and, disclosed that Rommel confessed his guilt.
If Nora tells the prosecution that Rommel removed evidence from the crime scene, what, if any, would be her liability or liabilities?
Was it ethical for Nora to take the stand in her own defense and offer work-product information?
a. For disclosing such information to the prosecution, then Atty. Nora becomes vulnerable criminally, civilly and administratively as such revelation constitutes a violation of her lawyer’s duty of confidentiality to Rommel.
The law punishes the revelation of a client’s secret as prevaricacion. The law also holds her civilly responsible for all damages which Rommey may reasonably attribute to her for such wanton breach of obligation. She may also be held administratively liable as lawyers are forbidden from revealing the confidences or secrets of his client, save for limited exceptions, without obtaining his client’s consent.
b. Yes, Nora may testify in her own defense and offer work-product information without violating her ethical duties to Rommel. The law explicitly authorizes a lawyer to reveal a client’s confidence or secret when necessary to defend himself, his employees or associates or when a breach of lawyer’s duty is involved. Since Rommel sued Nora upon a charge of professional incompetence, then the disclosure that Rommel confessed his guilt becomes necessary to defend herself from such a charge.
Exceptions to the rule on Sec. 24 (Rule 130), Disqualification by reason of privileged communication
I. Furtherance of crime or fraud: If the services or advice of the lawyer were sought or obtained to enable or aid anyone to commit or plan to commit what the client knew or reasonably should have known to be a crime or fraud;
Ii. Claimaints through the same deceased client: As to a communication relevant to an issue between parties who claim through the same deceased client, regardless of whether the claims are by testate or by inter vivos transaction;
Iii. Breach of duty by lawyer or client: As to a communication relevant to an issue of breach of duty by the lawyer to his or her client, or by the client to his or her lawyer;
Iv. Document attested by the lawyer: As to a communication relevant to an issue concerning an attested document to which the lawyer is an attesting witness; or
V. Joint clients: As to communication relevant to a matter of common interest between two or more clients if the communication, when offered in an action between any of the clients, unless they have expressly agreed otherwise.
Complainants engaged Atty. John in connection with the recovery of their properties from Fevidal. Complainants signed a contract of legal services, where they would not pay acceptance and appearance fees to their counsel, but that they would share the docket fees. Under their contract, complainants would pay him 50% of whatever would be recovered of the properties. Later, however, complainants terminated John’s services and settled with Fevidal. John opposed the withdrawal of their complaint in court. Thus, complainants filed a case against him alleging that counsel’s motion to record attorney’s charging lien was the “legal problem” preventing them from enjoying the fruits of their property. Is Atty. John’s action proper?
No. John’s retainer is void for being champertous. Atty. John’s retainer with the complainants in this case is in the nature of a champertous contract–an agreement where a lawyer undertakes to pay the expenses of the proceedings to enforce the client’s rights in exchange for some bargain to have a part of the thing in dispute. These contracts are contrary to public policy and are thus void or inexistent.
Prescription for disbarment proceedings
None. Disbarment complaints are imprescriptible. - neither civil nor criminal, no double jeopardy, no pari delicto
Serious offenses for lawyers
Gross misconduct or any inexcusable, shameful or flagrant unlawful conduct
Serious dishonesty, fraud, or deceit, including falsification of documents and making untruthful statements;
Bribery or corruption, sexual abuse;
Gross negligence in the performance of duty, or conduct that is reckless and inexcusable, which results in the client being deprived of his or her day in court;
Conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude;
Grossly immoral conduct, or an act that is so corrupt or false as to constitute a criminal act, or so immoral as to be reprehensible to a high degree;
Misappropriating a client’s funds or properties
Less serious offenses for lawyers
Simple misconduct, or such misconduct without the manifest elements of corruption, clear intent to violate the law or flagrant disregard of established rules
Simple dishonesty
Other violations of the conflict of interest rules
Prohibited borrowing of money from a client
Prohibited lending of money
Other unlawful threats
Instituting frivolous or baseless actions, on the basis of a final decision or order dismissing such action for being frivolous or baseless;
Violation of the sub judice rule
Deliberate failure or refusal to pay just debts
Light offenses for lawyers
Violation of IBP rules and issuances governing membership in the IBP
Use of vulgar or offensive language in personal dealings
Fraternizing with the officials or employees of a court, tribunal, or other government agency where the respondent has a pending case or cases, to such a degree and frequency as would give the appearance of power or influence over them, or which tends to create an impression of impropriety
Filing of frivolous motions for inhibition
Failure to promptly call upon client to rectify a fraudulent act; or
Deliberate failure or refusal to pay just debts
Department of ABC, which is a National Government Agency, entered into service agreements with Atty. G, Atty. M, and Atty. C. The lawyers were assigned to perform the following services, among others: (i) review documents papers and any proposed rules and regulations which Department of ABC may find relevant; (ii) prepare draft scheme of legal steps or requirements; (iii) render legal opinion on issues presented; (iv) draft measure for legislative actions; and (v) represent the agency before judicial and quasi-judicial bodies.
However, upon post-audit, the Commission on Audit (COA) issued a Notice of Disallowance (NOD) on the engagement, on the ground that it did not have the written conformity and acquiescence of the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG).
The Department of ABC did not deny the absence of written conformity from the OSG but justified the agency action by asserting the “dire need” to hire technical assistance from outside the agency to augment its deficient staff.
Is the issuance of the NOD proper and meritorious?
Yes, the issuance of the NOD is proper and meritorious, as the engagement of Atty. G, Atty. M, and Atty. C by the Department of ABC did not comply with the existing rules in hiring private lawyers by government agencies and instrumentalities.
While our jurisdiction generally restricts government agencies and instrumentalities in hiring private lawyers to render legal services for them and handle their cases, the government has allowed deviation, subject to certain conditions. Under COA Circular No. 2021-003, the written conformity and acquiescence of the OSG are indispensable requirements, for purposes of validating the necessity and procuring services of a private lawyer.
Here, the Department of ABC admitted the absence of the written conformity and acquiescence of the OSG, which contravenes the requirements set by COA Circular No. 2021-003. Thus, COA has basis in issuing the NOD. (Ricalde v. COA)
Atty. JT allegedly notarized ABCDEF’s General Information Sheets (GIS) for the years 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014 without the affiants’ personal appearance. It was also alleged that Atty. JT assigned the notarial particulars of documents he previously notarized and entered in his notarial register on the ABCDEF’s GIS. Hence, ABCDEF’s GIS were not recorded in Atty. JT’s notarial books. Atty. JT claimed that he found out about the unrecorded notarized ABCDEF’s GIS when he received a copy of the complaint filed against him. He then learned from his staff that they failed to enter the five GIS in his notarial books. Atty. JT explained that as an office practice, he would sign the documents after reading and ascertaining their authenticity and due execution and then refer to his staff for filling in the notarial details and affixing his notarial seal. He admitted that there were lapses committed by his office staff to which he is responsible. Should Atty. JT’s notarial commission be revoked?
Yes. The notary public’s failure to make the proper entry or entries in the notarial register concerning his notarial acts is a ground for the revocation of his commission or imposition of appropriate administrative sanctions.
Jurisprudence has been consistent that notarization is not an empty, meaningless or routinary act, but invested with substantive public interest. It is through the act of notarization that a private document is converted into a public one, making it admissible in evidence without further proof of its authenticity and due execution. Here, Atty. JT did not deny notarizing the five ABCDEF’s GIS and even stated that the affiants appeared before him for the notarization of the GIS.
However, he failed to record the GIS in his notarial register. Atty. JT’s failure to record the GIS in his notarial book is inexcusable and constitutes gross negligence in carefully discharging his duties as a notary public. Hence, revocation of his notarial commission is proper. (Re: John Mark Tamaño, A.C. No. 12274 (Resolution), [October 7, 2020)
The Regional Trial Court issued an Order putting on record that Atty. MR appeared as private prosecutor in a criminal case despite her disbarment from the legal profession. Accordingly, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) docketed the Order as an administrative complaint against Atty. MR. Despite due notice, Atty. MR did not file an answer and did not attend the mandatory conference. The IBP Commission on Bar Discipline reported that Atty. MR is guilty of unauthorized practice of law. It is undisputed that Atty. MR was previously suspended from the practice of law, prior to the pending administrative case. Should Atty. MR be found liable in the pending administrative case, can the penalty of suspension or disbarment therein be further imposed?
The penalty of suspension or disbarment can no longer be imposed on a lawyer who had been disbarred except for recording purposes. There is no double or multiple disbarment in our laws or jurisprudence. Once a lawyer is disbarred, there is no penalty that could be imposed regarding his privilege to practice law. Thus, should Atty. MR be found guilty and be given due penalty in the pending administrative case, the corresponding penalty thereof should still be adjudged for recording purposes on the lawyer’s personal file with the Office of the Bar Confidant, which should be taken into consideration in the event that he subsequently files a petition for reinstatement. (In Re: Order Dated October 27, 2016 Issued by Branch 137, Regional Trial Court, Makati in Criminal Case No. 14- 765 v. Ramon, A.C. No. 12456, [September 8, 2020])
Ms. LC filed a complaint for disbarment against Atty. RE for using and taking advantage of his legal knowledge to achieve his malicious, evil and unlawful purpose. Ms. LC narrated that Atty. RE served as her legal adviser and retained counsel. Sometime in 1993, Ms. LC approached Atty. RE with regard to a mortgage she obtained from Banco de Oro (BDO). Allegedly, Atty. RE advised Ms. LC to execute a Deed of Sale in his favor, so that the former can transact directly with BDO. At the same time, Ms. LC gave Atty. RE P200,000.00 to settle her indebtedness to BDO. At one point, she went with Atty. RE to BDO to settle her account. However, Atty. RE left her in the car to wait. Upon his return, Atty. RE told Ms. LC that the bank refused to receive payment, and that a case was already filed in court. Later on, Atty. RE made Ms. LC execute a Special Power of Attorney as she will be leaving for Germany. While Ms. LC was in Germany, she entrusted to Atty. RE her Toyota Lite Ace, which she was selling. In January 1994, Ms. LC arrived in the Philippines and found out that Atty. RE was able to transfer the land and vehicle in his name. Ms. LC talked to Atty. RE, who promised to return her properties, but this promise was not heeded. After a long time, it was only in 2014, that Ms. LC and Atty. RE’s paths crossed at Seahorse Hotel, Pollilo, Quezon. When Ms. LC approached Atty. RE, the latter dismissed her saying, “ayaw kong pag-usapan ang bagay na nangyari 20 years ago.” For his part, Atty. RE denied receiving money from Ms. LC, as well as, serving as her legal counsel since he was a lawyer of the Quezon City District Office of the Public Attorney’s Office (PAO-QC) from 1990 to 1994. He only accompanied Ms. LC to BDO, sometime in 1992-1993, as a favor when she visited him at PAO-QC. Per Atty. RE, he validly acquired Ms. LC’s properties, when the latter offered them for sale as she was contemplating on settling down in Germany. They negotiated and agreed on a reasonable price. In 1994, Ms. LC requested to repurchase the lot, but Atty. RE did not acquiesce to her offer. Thereafter, from 1995 to 2015, they would see each other from time to time, and Ms. LC even sought legal advice from Atty. RE, but he was never retained as counsel. Finally, Atty. RE denied having met Capinpin at Seahorse Hotel because, on that specific day, he was in Quezon City with a client and, in the afternoon was in a Financial Rehabilitation Seminar at Max’s Restaurant in Quezon City Circle. Upon consideration of the submissions on record, the IBP Board of Governors dismissed the case against Atty. RE. Assuming that the factual appreciation by the IBP Board of Governors, giving more credence to the submissions of Atty. RE, is accurate and indisputable, provide for a meritorious discussion on upholding the recommendations of the IBP Board of Governors.
Disbarment of lawyers is a proceeding that aims to purge the law profession of unworthy members of the bar. It is intended to preserve the nobility and honor of the legal profession. Jurisprudence is replete with cases reiterating that in disbarment proceedings, the burden of proof rests upon the complainant. Further, the proper evidentiary threshold in disbarment cases is substantial evidence. The complainant must then prove by substantial evidence the allegations in his complaint. It is likewise well to remember that, in suspension or disbarment proceedings, lawyers enjoy the presumption of innocence. In this case, Ms. LC failed to discharge her burden of presenting substantial evidence to prove that Atty. RE took advantage of his legal knowledge and profession to deceive her and appropriate her properties to himself. Thus, it cannot be established that Atty. RE engaged in unlawful and dishonest conduct. (Capinpin v. Espiritu, A.C. No. 12537, [September 3, 2020])
Ms. SR, the surviving spouse of the late Mr. TR, and Mr. NR, who is Mr. TR’s son from another woman, filed a civil case for annulment of documents, cancellation of title and damages against Mr. FP and the Register of Deeds of Nueva Ecija before the Regional Trial Court (RTC). The case was entitled “Ms. SR & Mr. NR v. Mr. FP and the Register of Deeds of Nueva Ecija.” The controversy is over a land registered in Mr. TR’s name. However, the RTC dismissed the complaint for lack of merit. Immediately, Ms. SR and Mr. NR elevated the case to the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA affirmed the RTC’s findings. Aggrieved, Ms. SR and Mr. NR sought assistance from Atty. BD who prepared a motion for reconsideration. In due course, the CA granted the motion and ruled in favor of Ms. SR and Mr. NR. Upon finality of the decision, Atty. BD filed a motion for execution of judgment and then a motion to clarify writ of execution. Later, Ms. SR discovered that Mr. NR and his wife Ms. EL executed an Affidavit of Self-Adjudication with Sale involving Mr. TR’s property. The land was sold for P100,000.00 to Spouses JM and MW, who were later issued title in their names. Meantime, Ms. SR filed a complaint for the annulment of the affidavit of self-adjudication with sale and the cancellation of title before the RTC. Likewise, Ms. SR consigned the P100,000.00 in court. In their answer, the Spouses JM and MW attached a Deed of Absolute Sale with a consideration of P4,000,000.00 and notarized by Atty. BD. However, Ms. SR claimed that the deed was antedated to prevent the consignment. Moreover, Atty. BD was aware that Ms. SR has an interest over the property of her late husband. Did Atty. BD exhibit unethical conduct?
Yes, Atty. BD exhibited unethical conduct, when he acted in violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA), particularly the provisions on Propriety. In Canon II of the CPRA, a lawyer shall, at all times, act with propriety and maintain the appearance of propriety in personal and professional dealings, observe honesty, respect and courtesy, and uphold the dignity of the legal profession consistent with the highest standards of ethical behavior. Here, Atty. BD cannot argue that he did not represent Ms. SR. Foremost the caption of the case he handled for them was “Ms. SR & Mr. NR v. Mr. FP and the Register of Deeds of Nueva Ecija.” Atty. BD cannot deny that Ms. SR is Mr. TR’s wife or that she has an interest in the disputed land. As such, Atty. BD should have been circumspect in notarizing the deed of absolute sale over the property knowing that a legal heir was left out. The transaction disregarded the rules on succession that the widow is a compulsory heir of the decedent. Corollarily, Atty. BD should have refused the notarization of the deed. (Rivera v. Dalangin, A.C. No. 12724, [July 28, 2020])
BC Bank engaged the services of AIT Co., Ltd. to reserve hotel accommodations and to purchase airplane tickets bound for Singapore from November 27 to 30, 2013 for its board of directors and employees. Mr. NE, the owner of AIT Co., Ltd, received P244,640.00 from BC Bank as advance payment. However, a day before the departure, Mr. NE advised BC Bank to postpone its travel abroad because the accommodations were not yet confirmed. Accordingly, BC Bank cancelled the trip and asked for a refund but Mr. NE did not heed the demand. Aggrieved, BC Bank filed an action for sum of money against Mr. NE. On the other hand, Mr. NE, through his counsel Atty. JA, blamed BC Bank for cancelling the trip after the airplane tickets were already issued. He explained that the tickets were nonrefundable and any reimbursement was contingent on the airline company’s approval. Moreover, any refund was processed using the VIA Philippines system which could take some time. At the pre-trial conference, Atty. JA asked another lawyer to appear on his behalf and to pre-mark four electronic tickets which Cebu Pacific Airline issued on November 18, 2013 for a flight on November 27, 2013. The four tickets bore the “VIA” logo but two of them have no booking reference number. The tickets were then marked as Exhibits 8, 9, 10 and 11. BC Bank learned that Mr. NE’s PreTrial Brief did not mention any electronic tickets as documentary evidence. Thus, BC Bank moved for the issuance of a subpoena against VIA Philippines to verify the genuineness of the tickets. During trial, VIA Philippines’ representative testified that the four electronic tickets marked as Exhibits 8, 9, 10 and 11 were altered. The two tickets without booking reference were not genuine while the tickets with reference number correspond to different flight schedule, airline company and set of passengers. As supporting evidence, VIA Philippines submitted the correct electronic printouts of tickets. With these, BC Bank filed a disbarment complaint against Atty. JA before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP). BC Bank alleged that Atty. JA failed to examine the authenticity of the evidence before presenting them in court and tolerated the commission of fraud in pre-marking altered documents. In his answer, Atty. JA claimed good faith because there was no indication that the electronic tickets were not genuine and he has no expertise to determine their authenticity. Further, Atty. JA presented Mr. NE’s judicial affidavit clarifying that he did not participate in the printing of the tickets. Should Atty. JA be held administratively liable in the disbarment complaint?
Atty. JA should be held administratively liable, as he did not measure up to the exacting standards of candor and honesty towards the court. In acting with propriety, Canon II of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability has been expressive in stating that a lawyer shall, at all times, act with propriety and maintain the appearance of propriety in personal and professional dealings, observe honesty, respect and courtesy, and uphold the dignity of the legal profession consistent with the highest standards of ethical behavior. Foremost, it was clearly established that the electronic tickets pre-marked as exhibits were altered. The representative of VIA Philippines attested to this fact. Atty. JA cannot hide on the simple excuse that he has no expertise to determine the authenticity of these documents especially that the introduction of such evidence can potentially mislead the trial court. It is of no moment that Mr. NE printed the tickets and handed them for premarking. The fact remains that Atty. JA did not observe greater care to prevent the court from being misled. (Bukidnon Cooperative Bank v. Arnado, A.C. No. 12734, [July 28, 2020])
Mr. OS was Sheriff IV of the Regional Trial Court, Office of the Clerk of Court, Pagadian City, Zamboanga del Sur. In 1999, before entering the Judiciary, Mr. OS and his wife obtained a loan from Ms. JS in the amount of PHP810,000.00. Mr. OS and his wife issued and delivered to Ms. JS seven checks for the repayment of the loan. However, the payee bank dishonored the checks upon presentment due to “account closed.” In 2005, Ms. JS filed criminal cases against Mr. OS for violations of Batas Pambansa (B.P.) Blg. 22 before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC). When Mr. OS promised to pay his loan, Ms. JS moved for the provisional dismissal of the criminal cases, which was granted. Mr. OS executed a promissory note obligating himself to pay PHP1,000.00 every month starting on January 31, 2006 until the amount of PHP564,000.00 is fully paid. But Mr. OS failed to make good his promise; thus, Sorensen filed the instant administrative complaint for “Willful Failure to Pay Just Debt” against Mr. OS. Will the administrative complaint prosper?
The administrative complaint for willful failure to pay just debt against Mr. OS should be dismissed. Willful failure to pay just debt, particularly on claims the existence and justness of which are admitted by the debtor, under the 2017 Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, is no longer included in the administrative charges set forth in A.M. No. 21-08-09- SC, providing for, among others, the discipline of members, officials, and personnel of the Judiciary. Here, the factual circumstances of Mr. OS fall within the ambit of the application of A.M. No. 21-08-09-SC. Since the alleged infraction of Mr. OS is no longer punishable, pursuant to A.M. No. 21-08-09-SC, there is thus no basis for disciplinary action against Mr. OS. Accordingly, the complaint against him must perforce be dismissed. (Sorensen v. Santos, OCA IPI No. 13- 4069-P, [April 12, 2023])
Owing to the compulsory retirement of Judge RF, the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) conducted a judicial audit of Branch 7, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Branch 7, Davao City, from August 25, 2020 to September 7, 2020. The OCA discovered delays in the rendition of judgment, resolution of pending incidents and motions, appropriate actions in the implementation of writs of execution, release of orders requiring the submission of counteraffidavits in criminal cases, and submission of returns and periodic reports in the implementation of writs of execution. It also identified the MTCC Br. 7’s incorrect practices relating to case records management, reportorial requirements, implementation of the writs of execution, and incomplete details in the court-issued orders, such as the absence of the original signature of the presiding judge in some court documents and details of hearing dates in some of the pre-trial orders. Assume that cause has been found against Judge RF. What provision of the New Code of Judicial Conduct may have been violated by Judge RF?
Judge RF may have violated, among others, Canon 6 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct (NCJC). Under Canon 6 of the NCJC, the judicial duties of a judge take precedence over all other activities. Judges shall devote their professional activity to judicial duties, which include not only the performance of judicial functions and responsibilities in court and the making of decisions, but also other tasks relevant to the judicial office or the court’s operations. Judges shall perform all judicial duties, including the delivery of reserved decisions, efficiently, fairly and with reasonable promptness. Here, there have been delays in a number of court processes under the judicial function of Judge RF. It is to be emphasized that competence and diligence are prerequisites to the due performance of judicial office. (Office of the Court Administrator v. Ferraris, Jr., A.M. No. MTJ-21-001 (Resolution), [December 6, 2022])
Sub-judice rule
A lawyer shall not use any forum or medium to comment or publicize opinion pertaining to a pending proceeding before any court, tribunal, or other government agency that may:
a. Cause a pre-judgment, or
b. Sway public perception so as to impede, obstruct, or influence the decision of such court, tribunal, or other government agency, or which tends to tarnish the court’s or tribunal’s integrity or
c. Impute improper motives against any of its members or
d. Create a widespread perception of guilt or innocence before a final decision
Prescriptive period for forcible entry
For forcible entry, the one (1)-year prescriptive period is generally reckoned from the date of actual entry on the land. However, if forcible entry is done through stealth, the period is counted from the time the plaintiff discovered the entry. In marked contrast, the one (1)-year
period in unlawful detainer is counted from the date of the last demand to vacate.
Is there identity of causes of action between a case of forcible entry or unlawful detainer and accion reinvindicatoria?
No. Section 18, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court expressly provides that a “judgment rendered in an action for forcible entry or detainer shall be conclusive with respect to the possession only and shall in no wise bind the title or affect the ownership of the land.” Since there is no identity of causes of action, there can be no multiplicity of suits.
Define contempt
Contempt of court has been defined as a willful disregard or disobedience of a public authority. In its broad sense, contempt is a disregard of, or disobedience to, the rules or orders of a legislative or judicial body or an interruption of, its proceedings by disorderly behavior or insolent language in its presence or so near thereto as to disturb its proceedings or to impair the respect due such a body.
It consists of misbehavior in the presence of or so near a court as to obstruct or interrupt the proceedings before it. It includes: (i) disrespect to the court, (ii) offensive behavior against others, (iii) refusal, despite being lawfully required, to be sworn in or to answer as a witness, or to subscribe an affidavit or deposition.
Indirect contempt
It is committed through any of the acts enumerated under Section 3, Rule 71 of the Rules of Court, thus:
(a) Misbehavior of an officer of a court in the performance of his official duties or in his official transactions;
(b) Disobedience of or resistance to a lawful writ, process, order, or judgment of a court, including the act of a person who, after being dispossessed or ejected from any real property by the judgment or process of any court of competent jurisdiction, enters or attempts or induces another to enter into or upon such real property, for the purpose of executing
acts of ownership or possession, or in any manner disturbs the possession given to the person adjudged to be entitled thereto;
(c) Any abuse of or any unlawful interference with the processes or proceedings of a court not constituting direct contempt under
section 1 of this Rule;
(d) Any improper conduct tending, directly or indirectly, to impede, obstruct, or degrade the administration of justice;
(e) Assuming to be an attorney or an officer of a court, and acting as such without authority;
(f) Failure to obey a subpoena duly served; and
(g) The rescue, or attempted rescue, of a person or property in the custody of an officer by virtue of an order or process of a court held by him
Can a person be held in direct contempt even without a hearing?
Yes. A person can be punished summarily without
a hearing.
But for indirect contempt, a person can only be punished after a written
petition is filed and an opportunity to be heard is given to the party charged.
Criminal contempt vs. Civil contempt
Crim: It is a conduct that is directed against the dignity and authority of the court or a judge acting judicially; it is an act obstructing the administration of justice which tends to bring the court into disrepute or disrespect
Civil: It is one’s failure to fulfill a court
order in a civil action that would
benefit the opposing party. It is,
therefore, an offense against the
party in whose behalf the violated
order was made.
Crim: The Government, the courts, and the people are interested in their
prosecution. The private parties’
interest in the criminal contempt
proceedings is tangential, if any.
Civil: The party in whose favor that
judgment was rendered is the real
party-in-interest in the proceedings.
Crim: It is punitive in nature.
Civil: It is remedial and civil in nature.
Crim: Intent is a necessary element only in criminal contempt cases. In such proceedings, the good faith, or lack thereof, of the person being cited in contempt should be considered.
Can contempt be the subject of compromise, mediation, conciliation?
No. Regardless of the nature of the proceedings, contempt is always treated separately even when the allegedly contumacious act is incidental to another action. It is not subject to compromise, mediation, or conciliation between the parties.
Bank of Commerce vs. Borromeo
Is the determination of heirship a pre-requisite to an ordinary civil action to enforce ownership rights acquired by virtue of succession?
No. The rule laid down in Ypon, Yaptinchay, Portugal, Reyes, Heirs of
Gabatan, and other similar cases, which requires a prior determination of heirship in a separate special proceeding as a prerequisite before one can file an ordinary civil action to enforce ownership rights acquired by virtue of succession, is abandoned. Henceforth, the rule is: unless there is a pending special proceeding for the settlement of the decedent’s estate or for the determination of heirship, the compulsory or intestate heirs may commence an ordinary civil action to declare the nullity of a deed or instrument, and for recovery of property, or any other action in the enforcement of their ownership rights acquired by virtue of succession, without the necessity of a prior and separate judicial declaration of their status as such. The ruling of the trial
court shall only be in relation to the cause of action of the ordinary civil action, i.e., the nullification of a deed or instrument, and recovery or reconveyance of property, which ruling is binding only between and among the parties.
Can wills of foreigners be probated in the Philippines?
Wills of foreigners executed in the Philippines may be probated if they have estate in the Philippines because probate of the properties can only be effected under Philippine law. The
will may be proved in the Regional Trial Court of any province in which they have an estate.
Probation
To probate a will means to prove before some officer or tribunal, vested by law with authority for that purpose, that the instrument offered to be proved is the last will and testament of the deceased person whose testamentary act it is as alleged to be; that it has been executed, attested, and published as required by law; and that the testator was of sound and disposing mind.
Y had X’s will probated in the RTC. Consequently, it was published in the Official Gazette to give notice to the heirs, devisees, and legatees. Z, who as an heir and had lost contact with X and Y’s family, found out the probate in the middle of proceedings months later. Z contends he was not notified personally. Does Z’s contention have merit?
Yes. In an allowance or disallowance of a will, there are two (2) notification requirements both of which are mandatory and jurisdictional: (a) publication in a newspaper of general circulation or the Official Gazette, and (b) personal notice to the designated or known heirs, legatees, and devisees.
However, individual notice upon heirs, legatees, and devisees is necessary only when they are known or when their places of residence are known. In other instances, such notice is not necessary and the court may acquire and exercise jurisdiction simply upon the publication of the notice in a newspaper of general circulation.
X contends that he wasn’t notified of the rescheduled date of hearing. Is X correct to complain of not being notified for subsequent scheduling?
No. The Court regards that it is sufficient that publication of the notice of hearing has been done prior to the commencement of the proceedings notifying all persons of the verified petition for the allowance of will and giving them an opportunity to defend their interests on a scheduled date of hearing. After which, it then becomes incumbent upon all persons concerned to appear
and actively protect their interests. That the hearing date indicated in the notice did not push through is beside the point as for all intents and purposes, all interested parties have already been notified of the existence of the probate proceedings by virtue of publication and any subsequent development is easily verifiable.
Under Sec. 4, Rule 76, how many days prior to hearing shall personal notice be served?
Under Sec. 4 of Rule 76, personal notice must either be (1) deposited in the post office with the postage thereon prepaid at least 20 days before the hearing or (2) personally served at least 10 days before the day of hearing.
Actions which may be brought against executor or administrator
Rule 87, Section 1 of the Rules of Court enumerates actions that survive
against a decedent’s executors or administrators, and they are: (1) actions to recover real and personal property from the estate; (2) actions to enforce a lien thereon; and (3) actions to recover damages for an injury to person or property.
Can the privilege of writing of habeas corpus be suspended?
Under the Constitution, the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus cannot be suspended except in cases of invasion or rebellion when the public safety requires it.
Writ of habeas corpus
The writ of habeas corpus or the “great writ of liberty” was devised as a “speedy and effectual remedy to relieve persons from unlawful restraint, and as the best and only sufficient defense of personal freedom.” The primary purpose of the writ “is to inquire into all manner of involuntary restraint as distinguished from voluntary, and to relieve a person therefrom if such restraint is illegal.”
Presumption of regularity may invoked (unlike sa writ of amparo)
When can writ of habeas corpus be availed of as a post-conviction remedy?
(1) there has been a deprivation of a constitutional right resulting in the restraint of a person;
(2) the court had no jurisdiction to impose the sentence; or
(3) the imposed penalty has been excessive, thus voiding the sentence as such excess.
Whatever situation the petitioner invokes from the exceptional circumstances listed above, the threshold remains high. Mere allegation of a violation of one’s constitutional right is not enough.
Jurisdiction of courts over petitions for habeas corpus
Batas Pambansa (B.P.) Blg. 129, as amended, gives the CA original jurisdiction to issue a writ of habeas corpus whether or not in aid of its appellate jurisdiction. The CA’s original jurisdiction over habeas corpus petitions was re-stated in R.A. No. 7902. Similarly, B.P. Blg. 129 gives the RTCs original jurisdiction in the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus. Family courts have concurrent jurisdiction with this Court and the CA in petitions for habeas corpus where the custody of minors is at issue, with the Family courts having exclusive jurisdiction to issue the ancillary writ of habeas corpus in a petition for custody of minors filed before it. In the absence of all RTC judges in a province or city, special jurisdiction is likewise conferred to any Metropolitan Trial Judge, Municipal Trial Judge or Municipal Circuit Trial Judge to hear and decide petitions for
a writ of habeas corpus.
Requisites for writ of habeas corpus in case of custody of minors
The grant of the writ depends on the concurrence of the following requisites: (1) that the petitioner has the right of custody over the minor; (2) that the rightful custody of the minor is being withheld from the petitioner by the respondents; and (3) that it is to the best interest of the minor concerned to be in the custody of petitioner and not that of the respondents.
Writ of amparo
The writ of amparo is a remedy available to victims of extra-judicial killings and enforced disappearances or threats of a similar nature, regardless of whether the perpetrator of the unlawful act or omission is a public official or employee or a private individual. The writ is designed to protect and guarantee the (1) right to life; (2) right to liberty; and (3) right to
security of persons, free from fears and threats that vitiate the quality of life.
Elements constituting enforced disappearances
a) that there be an arrest, detention, abduction or any form of deprivation of liberty;
b) that it be carried out by, or with the authorization, support or acquiescence of, the State or a political organization;
c) that it be followed by the State or political organization’s refusal to acknowledge or give information on the fate or whereabouts of the person subject of the amparo petition; and
d) that the intention for such refusal is to remove subject person from the protection of the law for a prolonged period of time.
Writ of habeas data
The writ of habeas data “is a remedy available to any person whose right to privacy in life, liberty or security is violated or threatened by an unlawful act or omission of a public official or
employee, or of a private individual or entity engaged in the gathering, collecting or storing of data or information regarding the person, family, home and correspondence of the aggrieved party.”
Is change of name a matter of right?
No. A change of name is not a matter of right but of sound judicial discretion.
Grounds sufficient to warrant a change of name
The Court, in Republic vs. Hernandez, recognized the following grounds as sufficient to warrant a change of name: “(a) when the name is ridiculous, dishonorable, or extremely difficult to write or pronounce; (b) when the change results as a legal consequence of legitimation or adoption; (c) when the change will avoid confusion; (d) when one has continuously used and been known since childhood by a Filipino name and was unaware of alien parentage; (e) when the change is based on a sincere desire to adopt a Filipino name to erase signs of former alienage, all in good faith and without prejudice to anybody; and (f) when the surname causes embarrassment and there is no showing that the desired change of name was for a fraudulent purpose or that the change of name would prejudice public interest.”
Rule 103 vs. Rule 108 vs. RA10172
Rule 108 applies when the person is seeking to correct clerical and innocuous mistakes in his or her documents with the civil register. It also governs the correction of substantial errors in the entry of the information enumerated in Section 2 of this Rule and those affecting the civil status, citizenship, and nationality of a person.
A change of one’s name under Rule 103 can be granted, only on grounds provided by law. In order to justify a request for change of name, there must be a proper and compelling reason for the change and proof that the person requesting will be prejudiced by the use of his official name.
However, Republic Act No. 9048 amended Articles 376 and 412 of the Civil Code, effectively removing clerical errors and changes of the name outside the ambit of Rule 108 and putting them under the jurisdiction of the civil register. In 2012, Republic Act No. 9048 was amended by Republic Act No. 10172. In addition to the change of the first name, the day and month of birth, and the sex of a person may now be changed without judicial proceedings. Republic Act No. 10172 clarifies that these changes may now be administratively corrected where it is patently clear that there is a clerical or typographical mistake in the entry. It may be changed by filing a subscribed and sworn affidavit with the local civil registry office of the city or municipality where the record being sought to be corrected or changed is kept.
Can a person file a petition for change/correction of entry under Rule 103/108 without filing it administratively first?
Yes. Failure to observe the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies does not affect the jurisdiction of the court. We have repeatedly stressed this in a long line of decisions. The only effect of non-compliance with this rule is that it will deprive the complainant of a cause of action, which is a ground for a motion to dismiss. If not invoked at the proper time, this ground is deemed waived and the court can then take cognizance of the case and try it.” Verily, even with the advent of RA 9048, as amended by RA 10172 prescribing the administrative remedy for correction of entries with the civil registry, the regional trial courts are not divested of their jurisdiction to hear and decide petitions for correction of entries.
Writ of kalikasan
A suit for the issuance of the writ of kalikasan is a special civil action. The writ of kalikasan is extraordinary in nature and is issued not only when there is actual violation of the constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology. Threat of violation through an unlawful act is enough,
whether the threat be committed by a natural or juridical person, or a public or private person or entity.
A writ of kalikasan is an extraordinary remedy that ‘covers environmental damages the magnitude of which transcends both political and territorial boundaries.’ The damage must be caused by an unlawful act or omission of a public official, public employee, or private individual or entity. It must affect the inhabitants of at least two (2) cities or provinces. This Court explained that ‘the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases does not define the exact nature or degree of environmental damage but only that it must be sufficiently grave, in terms of the territorial scope of such damage.’
Oposa v. Factoran
A petition for the issuance of a writ of kalikasan may be brought “on behalf of persons whose constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology is violated,” an exception to the rule that the party bringing suit must be the real party in interest, or one who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit. Since this Court’s promulgation of Oposa vs.
Factoran, it has allowed representative suits brought on behalf of “minors and generations yet unborn” in environmental cases. Given that no specific quantum of evidence is required in writ of kalikasan cases, and that representative suits are generally allowed in environmental advocacy, petitions for issuance of a writ of kalikasan must be examined on a case-to-case basis.
Requisites for a Writ of Kalikasan to issue
1) there is an actual or threatened violation of the constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology;
2) the actual or threatened violation arises from an unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee, or private individual or entity; and
3) the actual or threatened violation involves or will lead to an environmental damage of such magnitude as to prejudice the life, health or property of inhabitants in two (2) or more cities or provinces.
Writ of Continuing Mandamus
The Rules define a writ of continuing mandamus as a court issuance in an environmental case which directs any governmental agency or instrumentality or officer to “perform an act or series of acts decreed by final judgment which shall remain effective until judgment is fully satisfied.”
Precautionary principle
Under the precautionary principle, when in doubt, cases must be resolved in favor of the constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology.
The conditions for the application of the precautionary principle are (1) uncertainty, (2) threat of environmental damage, and (3) serious or irreversible harm.
Rule 20 of the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases provides for the applicability and standards for application of the precautionary principle as a rule of evidence. Reading Rule 20 and its interpretation in Mosqueda, it appears that our jurisdiction adopts the weak version of the precautionary principle, as opposed to its strong version. In his article, The Paralyzing Principle, Professor Cass Sunstein (Prof. Sunstein) defined the weak version of the precautionary principle to mean “that a lack of decisive evidence of harm should not be a ground for refusing to regulate.” On the other hand, the strong version of the precautionary principle requires
governmental regulation “whenever there is a possible risk to health, safety, or the environment, even if the supporting evidence is speculative and even if the economic costs of regulation are high.”
X, a 16-year-old boy was charged with homicide. The Information failed to allege that he had acted with discernment, but the same was proven during trial. On appeal, X contends the prosecution’s failure to allege his discernment in the Information. Is X correct?
No. While it is true that the circumstance of acting with discernment must be specifically alleged in the Information, the child in conflict with the law (CICL)/accused may waive the right to question the defects or insufficiency of said Information. Hence, he may still be convicted of homicide if discernment was established during trial.
Will the lack of signature of the provincial, city, or chief state prosecutor on the face of the Information divest the court of jurisdiction?
No. all previous doctrines laid down by this Court, holding that the lack of signature and approval of the provincial, city or chief state prosecutor on the face of the Information shall divest the court of jurisdiction over the person of the accused and the subject matter in a criminal action, are hereby abandoned. It is sufficient for the validity of the Information or Complaint, as the case may be, that the Resolution of the investigating prosecutor recommending for the filing of the same in court bears the imprimatur of the provincial, city or chief state prosecutor whose approval is required by Sec. 1 of R.A. No. 5180 and is adopted under Sec. 4, Rule 112 of the Rules of Court. Gomez vs. People of the Philippines
Amendments after arraignment/plea in criminal cases
After arraignment, there can be no substantial amendment except if it is beneficial to the accused.
Substantial amendments to the information after plea are prohibited because they will violate the accused’s constitutional rights to be informed of the nature and cause of his/her accusation and against double jeopardy.
Effect of death of the accused on criminal and civil liability
The death of the accused after arraignment and during the pendency of the criminal action shall extinguish the civil liability arising from the delict.
However, the independent civil action instituted under section 3 of this Rule or which thereafter is instituted to enforce liability arising from other sources of obligation may be continued against the estate or legal representative of the accused after proper substitution or against said estate, as the case may be.
Guidelines in the prosecution of criminal actions for violation of tax laws
I. When a criminal action for violation of the tax laws is filed, a prior assessment is not required. Neither a final assessment is a precondition to collection of delinquent taxes in the criminal tax case. The criminal action is deemed a collection case. Therefore, the government must prove two things: one, the guilt of the accused by proof beyond reasonable doubt, and two, the accused’s civil liability for taxes by competent evidence (other than an assessment).
II. If before the institution of the criminal action, the government filed (1) a civil suit for collection, or (2) an answer to the taxpayer’s petition for review before the CTA, the civil action or the resolution of the taxpayer’s petition for review shall be suspended before judgment on the merits until final judgment is rendered in the criminal action. However, before judgment on the merits is rendered in the civil action, it may be consolidated with the criminal action. In such a case, the judgment in the criminal action shall include a finding of the accused’s civil liability for unpaid taxes relative to the criminal case.
Once the court acquires jurisdiction to decide what to do with the case, within how many days is it required to arraign?
Upon the lapse of the 60-day period, the court is bound to arraign the accused or deny the Motion to Defer Arraignment whether or not the petition before the DOJ has been resolved. The reason behind this course of action is easy to discern. As explained in Crespo vs. Judge Mogul (Crespo), when an Information has been filed in court, the prosecutor would be stripped of the power to dismiss the case, motu proprio. Instead, the court acquires the exclusive jurisdiction to decide what to do with the case even if it is against the position of the public prosecutor or even the Secretary of Justice.
Suspension of the arraignment under Rule 116, Sec. 11(c) cannot exceed 60 days counted from the filing of the petition with the reviewing office even if the petition before the office has yet to be resolved. Upon the lapse of the 60-day period, the court is bound to arraign the accused.
Requisites of an in flagrante delicto arrest
(1) the person to be arrested must execute an overt act indicating that he has just committed, actually committing, or is attempting to commit a crime; and (2) such overt act is done in the presence or within the view of the arresting officer. In an arrest made in flagrante delicto, it is required that the apprehending officer must have been spurred by probable cause to arrest a person caught. Probable cause refers to “such facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent [person] to believe that an offense has been committed by the person sought to be arrested.”
