Law School Notes

Herald Black Dacasin vs. Sharon del Mundo Dacasin

G.R. No. 168785, February 5, 2010 FACTS: Petitioner Herald Dacasin (petitioner), American, and Sharon Del Mundo Dacasin (respondent), Filipino, were married and have one daughter, Stephanie.  In 1995, Sharon obtained from the Illinois Court a divorce decree against the petitioner. The Illinois court dissolved the marriage and awarded Sharon sole custody of Stephanie and retained jurisdiction over the case for enforcement purposes. In 2002, petitioner and respondent executed in Manila a contract (Agreement) for the joint custody of Stephanie. The parties chose Philippine courts as exclusive forum to adjudicate disputes arising from the Agreement. Respondent undertook to obtain from the Illinois court an order “relinquishing” jurisdiction to Philippine courts. In 2004, petitioner sued respondent in the Regional Trial Court of Makati City, to enforce the Agreement. He submits the following arguments (a) the divorce decree obtained by respondent is void; (b) the Agreement novated the valid divorce decree, modifying the terms of child custody from sole (maternal) to joint; or (c) the Agreement is independent of the divorce decree obtained by respondent. Respondent sought the dismissal of the complaint for lack of jurisdiction because of the Illinois court’s retention of jurisdiction to enforce the divorce decree. The trial court sustained the respondent’s motion and dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction. The trial court held that:  it is precluded from taking cognizance over the suit considering the Illinois court’s retention of jurisdiction to enforce its divorce decree, including its order awarding sole custody of Stephanie to respondent; the divorce decree is binding on petitioner following the “nationality rule” prevailing in this jurisdiction; and the Agreement is void for contravening Article 2035, paragraph 5 of the Civil Code prohibiting compromise agreements on jurisdiction. ISSUE:  (1) whether the trial court has jurisdiction to take cognizance of petitioner’s suit and enforce the Agreement on the joint custody of the parties’ child. HELD: The trial court has jurisdiction to entertain petitioner’s suit but not to enforce the Agreement which is void. However, factual and equity considerations militate against the dismissal of petitioner’s suit and call for the remand of the case to settle the question of Stephanie’s custody. What the Illinois court retained was “jurisdiction x x x for the purpose of enforcing all and sundry the various provisions of [its] Judgment for Dissolution.” Petitioner’s suit seeks the enforcement not of the “various provisions” of the divorce decree but of the post-divorce Agreement on joint child custody. However, the  trial court cannot enforce the Agreement which is contrary to law. In this jurisdiction, parties to a contract are free to stipulate the terms of agreement subject to the minimum ban on stipulations contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order, or public policy.  Otherwise, the contract is denied legal existence, deemed “inexistent and void from the beginning.”  For lack of relevant stipulation in the Agreement, these and other ancillary Philippine substantive law serve as default parameters to test the validity of the Agreement’s joint child custody stipulations. Under Article 213 of the Family Code): “no child under seven years of age shall be separated from the mother x x x.” (This statutory awarding of sole parental custody to the mother is mandatory, grounded on sound policy consideration, subject only to a narrow exception not alleged to obtain here. The Agreement’s object to establish a post-divorce joint custody regime between respondent and petitioner over their child under seven years old contravenes Philippine law. The Agreement would be valid if the spouses have not divorced or separated because the law provides for joint parental authority when spouses live together. Upon separation of the spouses, the mother takes sole custody or under Article 213 of the Family Code, if the child is below seven years old and any agreement to the contrary is void. Thus, the law suspends the joint custody regime for (1) children under seven of (2) separated or divorced. Additionally, petitioner’s reliance on the invalidity of  divorce decree because it was obtained by his Filipino spouse is not meritorious.  In Van Dorn v. Romillo settled the matter by holding that an alien spouse of a Filipino is bound by a divorce decree obtained abroad. “ pursuant to his national law, the private respondent is no longer the husband of the petitioner. He would have no standing to sue in the case below as petitioner’s husband entitled to exercise control over conjugal assets. As he is bound by the Decision of his own country’s Court, which validly exercised jurisdiction over him, and whose decision he does not repudiate, he is estopped by his own representation before said Court from asserting his right over the alleged conjugal property.” Instead of ordering the dismissal of petitioner’s suit, the logical end to its lack of cause of action, we remand the case for the trial court to settle the question of Stephanie’s custody.

Adolfo Aznar vs. Helen Christensen Garcia

G.R. No. L-16749, January 31, 1963 FACTS: Edward E. Christensen was a citizen of the United States and of the State of California but was domiciled in the Philippines at the time of his death. In accordance with the provisions of the will of the testator,  the estate shall be  distributed, which provides Php 3,600 be given to HELEN Christensen and the rest of his estate to his daughter LUCY Christensen.  Helen filed an opposition insofar as it deprives her of her legitime as an acknowledged natural child under the laws of the Philippines. She insisted that Article 946, California Civil Code should be applicable following the doctrine of renvoi – “if there is no law to the contrary in the place where personal property is situated, it is deemed to follow the decree of its owner and is governed by the law of the domicile”. The executor argued that as the deceased Christensen was a citizen of the State of California, the internal law thereof, should govern the determination of the validity of the testamentary provisions of Christensen’s will. Provided that the  testator has the right to dispose of his property in the way he desires, because the right of absolute dominion over his property is sacred and inviolable. ISSUE: Whether the validity of the testamentary provision in question should be referred back to the law of the decedent’s domicile, as provided by the laws of California, which is the Philippines. HELD: YES. The domicile of the deceased Christensen, a citizen of California, is the Philippines, the validity of the provisions of his will depriving his acknowledged natural child, the appellant, should be governed by the Philippine Law, the domicile, pursuant to Art. 946 of the Civil Code of California, not by the internal law of California. The laws of California have prescribed two sets of laws for its citizens, one for residents therein and another for those domiciled in other jurisdictions. Reason demands that We should enforce the California internal law prescribed for its citizens residing therein, and enforce the conflict of laws rules for the citizens domiciled abroad. The conflict of laws rule in California, Article 946, precisely refers back the case, when a decedent is not domiciled in California, to the law of his domicile, the Philippines in the case at bar. The court of the domicile can not and should not refer the case back to California; such action would leave the issue incapable of determination because the case will then be like a football, tossed back and forth between the two states, between the country of which the decedent was a citizen and the country of his domicile. The Philippine court must apply its own law as directed in the conflict of laws rule of the state of the decedent, if the question has to be decided, especially as the application of the internal law of California provides no legitime for children while the Philippine law, Arts. 887(4) and 894, Civil Code of the Philippines, makes natural children legally acknowledged forced heirs of the parent recognizing them. Notes: The theory of the doctrine of renvoi is that the court of the forum, in determining the question before it, must take into account the whole law of the other jurisdiction, but also its rules as to conflict of laws, and then apply the law to the actual question which the rules of the other jurisdiction prescribe.Renvoi takes place when the conflicts rule of the forum makes a reference to a foreign law, but the foreign law is found to contain a conflict rule that returns or refers the matter back to the law of the forum (Remission).

Juan Miciano vs. Andre Brimo

G.R. No. L-22595, November 1, 1927 FACTS: Joseph G. Brimo, a Turkish citizen,  executed a will which provided that his properties be disposed of in accordance with the laws in force in the Philippines. There is also a condition that, if any legatee who must disrespect the will , as expressed, is prevented from receiving his legacy. Andre Brimo, one of the brothers of the deceased, opposed on the basis that the partition in question puts into effect the provisions of Joseph G. Brimo’s will which are not in accordance with the laws of his Turkish nationality, for which reason they are void as being in violation of article 10 of the Civil Code (now Article 16(2) ) .  However, no evidence in the record that the national law of the testator was violated in the testamentary dispositions in question which, not being contrary to our laws in force, must be complied with. ISSUES:  (1) Whether the approval of the scheme of partition on the ground that it is not in accordance with the laws of Joseph’s Turkish nationality is erroneous. (2) Whether the conditions as it is expressed in the will were legal and valid HELD: (1) NO, the approval of the scheme of partition in respect was not erroneous. No evidence in the record that the national law of the testator Joseph G. Brimo was violated in the testamentary dispositions in question which, not being contrary to our laws in force, must be complied with The fact is that the Andre did not prove that said testamentary dispositions are not in accordance with the Turkish laws, inasmuch as he did not present any evidence showing what the Turkish laws are on the matter, and in the absence of evidence on such laws, they are presumed to be the same as those of the Philippines. The refusal to give the oppositor another opportunity to prove such laws does not constitute an error. It is discretionary on the part of the court to postpone or not to postpone a particular proceeding in a case, and when the person applying for it has already been given ample opportunity to present the evidence that he wishes to introduce, the court commits no abuse of discretion in denying it. (2) NO . If the condition imposed upon the legatee is that he respect the testator’s order that his property be distributed in accordance with the laws of the Philippines and not in accordance with the laws of his nation, said condition is illegal, because, according to article 10 of the Civil Code, said laws govern his testamentary disposition, and, being illegal, shall be considered unwritten, thus making the institution unconditional. All of the remaining clauses of said will with all their dispositions and requests are perfectly valid and effective, not appearing that said clauses are contrary to the testator’s national laws.

Testate Estate of Amos G. Bellis vs. Edward A. Bellis

G.R. No. L-23678, June 6, 1967 FACTS: Amos G. Bellis was a citizen and resident of Texas at the time of his death. He executed a will in the Philippines, that a portion of his distributable asset amounting should be divided, in the following order and manner:  $240,000.00 to his first wife, Mary E. Mallen; P120,000.00 to his three illegitimate children, Amos Bellis, Jr., Maria Cristina Bellis, Miriam Palma Bellis, or P40,000.00 each andThe remainder shall go to his seven surviving children by his first and second wife. Maria Cristina and Miriam filed their oppositions to the partition on the ground that they were deprived of their legitimes as illegitimate children and, therefore, compulsory heirs of the deceased.. The lower court, under Art. 16 of the Civil Code, applied the national law of the decedent, which in this case is Texas law, which did not provide for legitimes. Appellants contend that : Art. 17(3), of the Civil Code stating that – “ Prohibitive laws concerning persons, their acts or property, and those which have for their object public order, public policy and good customs shall not be rendered ineffective by laws or judgments promulgated, or by determinations or conventions agreed upon in a foreign country.”,  prevails as the exception to Art. 16, par. 2 of the Civil Code. The decedent executed two wills — one to govern his Texas estate and the other his Philippine estate — arguing from this that he intended Philippine law to govern his Philippine estate. ISSUE/S:  (1) Whether Art. 17, paragraph three, of the Civil Code, prevails as the exception to Art. 16, par. 2 of the Civil Code.  (2) Whether the will executed in the Philippines shall be governed by the Philippine law. HELD: (1) NO. Congress deleted the phrase, “notwithstanding the provisions of this and the next preceding article” when they incorporated Art. 11 of the old Civil Code as Art. 17 of the new Civil Code, while reproducing without substantial change the second paragraph of Art. 10 of the old Civil Code as Art. 16 in the new. It must have been their purpose to make the second paragraph of Art. 16 a specific provision in itself which must be applied in testate and intestate succession. As further indication of this legislative intent, Congress added a new provision, under Art. 1039, which decrees that the capacity to succeed is to be governed by the national law of the decedent. It is therefore evident that whatever public policy or good customs may be involved in our System of legitimes, Congress has not intended to extend the same to the succession of foreign nationals. For it has specifically chosen to leave, inter alia, the amount of successional rights, to the decedent’s national law. Specific provisions must prevail over general ones. (2) NO. Assuming that such was the decedent’s intention in executing a separate Philippine will, it would not alter the law, for as this Court ruled in Miciano v. Brimo, a provision in a foreigner’s will to the effect that his properties shall be distributed in accordance with Philippine law and not with his national law, is illegal and void, for his national law cannot be ignored in regard to those matters that Article 10 — now Article 16 — of the Civil Code states said national law should govern. The parties admit that the decedent, Amos G. Bellis, was a citizen of the State of Texas, U.S.A., and that under the laws of Texas, there are no forced heirs or legitimes. Accordingly, since the intrinsic validity of the provision of the will and the amount of successional rights are to be determined under Texas law, the Philippine law on legitimes cannot be applied to the testacy of Amos G. Bellis.

Estrada vs. Sandiganbayan

G.R. No. 148560 November 19, 2001 FACTS: On April 4, 2001, the Office of the Ombudsman filed before the Sandiganbayan eight (8) separate Information against President Joseph Ejercito Estrada, the highest-ranking official,  for violation of the Plunder Law (Crim. Case No. 26558), Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (Crim. Cases Nos. 26559 to 26562), The Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees (Crim. Case No. 26563), Perjury (Crim. Case No. 26564), and Illegal Use Of An Alias (26565). On April 11, 2001, petitioner, bewails the failure of the law to provide for the statutory definition of the terms “combination” and “series” in the key phrase “a combination or series of overt or criminal acts” found in Sec. 1, par. (d), and Sec. 2, and the word “pattern” in Sec. 4. These omissions, according to petitioner, render the Plunder Law unconstitutional for being impermissibly vague and overbroad and deny him the right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him, hence, violative of his fundamental right to due process.

United BF Homeowners’ Associations, Inc. vs. The (Municipal) City Mayor, Parañaque City

G.R. No. 141010. February 7, 2007 FACTS BF Homes Parañaque Subdivision is the largest subdivision in the country. On 11 November 1997, the Municipal Council of Parañaque enacted Municipal Ordinance No. 97-085 entitled, “An Ordinance Prescribing the Comprehensive Land Use Plan & Zoning of the Municipality of Parañaque Pursuant to the Local Government Code of 1991 and Other Pertinent Laws.” Sections 11.5 and 11.6 of Municipal Ordinance No. 97-08, reclassifying El Grande and Aguirre Avenues in BF Homes Parañaque from residential to commercial areas. In 1998, petitioners alleged that the reclassification of certain portions of BF Homes Parañaque from residential to commercial zone is unconstitutional because it amounts to impairment of the contracts between the developer of BF Homes Parañaque and the lot buyers. Petitioners cited the annotation on the lot buyers’ titles which provides that “the property shall be used for residential purposes only and for no other purpose.” Public respondents alleged that the passage of Municipal Ordinance No. 97-08 is a valid exercise of police power by the Municipal Council of Parañaque and that such ordinance can nullify or supersede the contractual obligations entered into by the petitioners and the developer. The Court of Appeals held that the enactment was a valid exercise of police power by the Municipality.

People vs. Morial

G.R. No. 129295. August 15, 2001 FACTS In the early evening of January 6, 1996, Edwin Morial, Leonardo Morial and Nonelito Abeñon allegedly committed robbery and to silence any witnesses, they killed the occupants of the house, Paula Bandibas and her three-year old grandson Albert. Gabriel Guilao revealed that he witnessed Paula’s killing and confirmed that the three accused were the perpetrators. At 11:00 p.m., the police arrived to investigate the killing of the Bandibases and brought the accused to the police station for the continuation of the investigation. SPO4 Fernandez testified that the investigation he conducted resulted in an admission by Leonardo Morial that he was one of those who participated in the robbery with homicide. SPO4 Fernandez asked Leonardo whether he was willing to reduce his statement into writing and to sign the same. The suspect answered positively. He also volunteered to obtain a lawyer for the suspect, to which Leonardo Morial consented.

Primicias vs. Fugoso

VOL. 80, JANUARY 27, 1948 FACTS The Philippine Legislature has delegated the exercise of the police power to the Municipal Board of the City of Manila which is provided in Administrative Code, Sec. 2439. Included among others is the power granted “ (1) to provide prohibition and suppression of riots, affrays, disturbances and disorderly assemblies, (2)  to regulate the use of streets, parks and other public places (3) to enact ordinances it may deem necessary and proper for sanitation and safety…” Under the delegated power of Philippine Legislature, the Municipal Board of the City of Manila, enacted Revised Ordinance of 1927 that prohibits any act in public place, meeting or procession tending to disrupt public peace or riot or disquiet any congregation engaged in any lawful assembly (Sec 844) and to secure permit from the mayor for the use of public places and streets.

People vs. Kimura

G.R. No. 130805. April 27, 2004 FACTS In 1994, Narcotics Command received information that a certain Koichi Kishi and Rey Plantilla were engaged in the selling of illegal drugs at the Cash and Carry Supermarket, Makati City. A buy-bust operation was launched which led to the capture of Koichi and allegedly pointed Kimura and Kizaki as his friends/suppliers  who will fetch him. That in the parking lot Kimura handed a package wrapped in a newspaper which found to contain marijuana to a certain person named Boy. Kimura was arrested however Kizaki allegedly escaped. Department of Justice filed a case against Kimura and Kizaki of violation of Section 4, Article II of Republic Act 6425, as amended by R.A. 7659, otherwise known as the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972. Appellants’ defense is denial and alibi. Kimura claims that he saw marijuana placed at the car trunk and Kizaki was not with him.  On the other hand, appellant Kizaki testified that on the date that the alleged crime was committed, he was in the company of his friends which was corroborated by his housemaid and friend, and he was arrested 2 days after the incident.

People vs. Tee

G.R. Nos. 140546-47. January 20, 2003 FACTS A raid conducted by operatives of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) and Philippine National Police Narcotics Command (PNP NARCOM) at premises allegedly leased by Modesto Tee – a Chinese national in his forties, a businessman, and a resident of Baguio City, which yielded huge quantities of marijuana. The PNP NARCOM had received a tip regarding the presence of a huge amount of drugs in a rented room of Tee. They sought the permission of Nazarea Abreau- the owner, to enter the room rented by appellant. She acceded and allowed them entry. Without wherein the NBI agents possessed a total amount of  336.93 kilograms of marijuana. Later that evening, the NBI operatives applied for a search warrant from RTC Judge Antonio Reyes to direct a search on appellant’s residence for marijuana. The search was witnessed by Tee, members of his family, barangay officials, and members of the media. Photographs were taken during the actual search. The law enforcers found  a total weight of  591.81 kilograms of marijuana. Tee was arrested.

Nuñez vs. Sandiganbayan

Nos. L-50581-50617. January 30, 1982. FACTS In 1979, Nunez was accused of respondent Court of estafa through falsification of public and commercial documents committed in connivance with his other co-accused, all public officials, in several cases. He filed a motion to quash on constitutional and jurisdictional grounds, which was denied by Sandiganbayan. Hence, he filed for petition for certiorari and prohibition claiming that the Presidential Decree No. 1486, is violative of the due process, equal protection, and ex post facto clauses of the Constitution. Nunez contention underlies on the premise that the Sandiganbayan proceedings violates petitioner’s right to equal protection, because—appeal as a matter of right became minimized into a mere matter of discretion – there is only one chance to appeal conviction, by certiorari to the Supreme Court, instead of the traditional two chances; while all other estafa indictees are entitled to appeal as a matter of right covering both law and facts and to two appellate courts,

Camacho vs. Gloria

G.R. No. 138862. August 15, 2003. FACTS Camacho, petitioner is the Dean of the College of Education of the University of Southeastern Philippines (USP). In 1995, several doctorate students complained to petitioner of certain “ghost students” in the class of Dr. Sixto Daleon during the first semester of school year 1994-1995 who were given passing grades despite their unjustified failure to attend classes. Petitioner brought the matter to the attention of the University President and to the Board of Regents (BOR) where Department of Education, Culture and Sports (DECS) Secretary Ricardo Gloria sat as chairman which uphold the grade given by Dr. Daleon. Camacho filed a complaint against Dr. Daleon for gross incompetence and insubordination which include the University Board of Regents chaired by then DECS Secretary Gloria, DECS Legal Officer Reno Capinpin, and the three students who received passing marks, despite, numerous absences, namely Aida Agulo, Desiderio Alaba and Norma Tecson which was dismissed.

Republic vs. Salem Investment Corporation

G.R. No. 137569. June 23, 2000 FACTS In 1983, Batas Pambansa Blg. 340 was passed authorizing the expropriation of parcels of lands belonging to Milagros and Inocentes De la Rama. In 1988, 5 years after, De la Rama’s agreed to sell to Alfredo Guerrero the entire property for the amount of, in which they received P2,200,000.00 as partial payment. While the case is pending the Republic of the Philippines filed the present case for expropriation pursuant to B.P. Blg. 340 which includes the properties of De la Ramas’.Upon the deposit of P12,970,350.00 representing 10 percent of the approximate market value of the subject lands, a writ of possession was issued on August 29, 1990 in favor of the government. De la Ramas and Guerrero entered into a contract to sell with respect to Lot 834 amounting to P11,800,000.00. The entire lot has an area of 4,075 square meters. This contract was executed on December 14, 1988, 5 years after B.P. Blg. 340 was passed authorizing the expropriation of a portion of the land, consisting of 1,380 square meters, of the De la Ramas.

Ortigas & Co., Limited Partnership vs. Feati Bank and Trust Co.

FACTS In March 1952, Ortigas – plaintiff and vendor entered into an agreements of sale over two parcels of land, known as Lots Nos. 5 and 6, Block 31, of the Highway Hills Subdivision, situated at Mandaluyong, Rizal with Augusto Padilla y Angeles and Natividad Angeles, as vendees. The vendees transferred their rights to Emma Chavez and upon completion of payment, executed a deed of sale and agreement which contained stipulations and restrictions as follows : (1) Land shall be used by the Buyer exclusively for residential purposes (2) All buildings and other improvements must be of strong materials and properly painted, modern sanitary installations, and be at a distance of less than 2 meters from the boundary line. Feati Bank, defendant – appellee acquired Lots Nos. 5 and 6 which included the building restrictions annotated therein. Restrictions were imposed as part of its general building scheme designed for the beautification and development of the Highway Hills Subdivision. However, area along the western part of Epifanio de los Santos Avenue (EDSA) from Shaw Boulevard to Pasig River, has been declared a commercial and industrial zone, per Resolution No. 27, dated February 4, 1960 of the Municipal Council of Mandaluyong, Rizal.

Estipona, Jr. vs. Lobrigo

G.R. No. 226679. August 15, 2017. FACTS Petitioner Salvador Estipona, Jr. was found to be in possession of (1) piece heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet of shabu, a dangerous drug.  He was accused for violation of Section 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165. Under Section 23 of R.A. No. 9165, plea-bargaining is prohibited in all drug cases. Estipona filed a Motion to Allow the Accused to Enter into a Plea Bargaining Agreement, praying to withdraw his not guilty plea and, instead, to enter a plea of guilty for violation of Section 12, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 with a penalty of rehabilitation in view of his being a first-time offender and the minimal quantity of the dangerous drug seized in his possession. Judge Lobrigo denied the Motion holding that Section 23 of R.A. No. 9165 expressly prohibits plea-bargaining in drugs cases

Drilon vs. Court of Appeals; G.R. No. 107019. March 20, 1997.

FACTS In a letter-complaint to Secretary of Justice Franklin Drilon, General Renato de Villa who was then Chief of Staff of the AFP, requested DOJ to order the investigation of several individuals named therein, including private respondent Adaza, for their alleged participation in the failed December 1989 coup d’etat. The complaint is based on the affidavit. There was a preliminary inquiry made by Special Composite Team of Prosecutors created by the DOJ finding that there is a probable cause to hold Adaza et al for trial for the crime of REBELLION WITH MURDER AND FRUSTRATED MURDER. Their Resolution became the basis for the filing of information. Feeling aggrieved by the institution of proceedings against him, Adaza filed a complaint for damages before the RTC of Quezon City. In his complaint, Adaza charged petitioners with engaging in a deliberate, willful and malicious experimentation by filing against him a charge of rebellion complexed with murder and frustrated murder when petitioners, according to Adaza, were fully aware of the non-existence of such crime in the statute books.

San Miguel Properties, Inc. vs. Perez

G.R. No. 166836. September 4, 2013. FACTS Petitioner purchased 130 residential lots from BF Homes represented by Atty. Florencio B. Orendain (Orendain) as its duly authorized rehabilitation receiver appointed by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the transactions were embodied in three separate deeds of sale. BF Homes claimed that it withheld the delivery of the 20 TCTs for parcels of land purchased under the third deed of sale because Atty. Orendain had ceased to be its rehabilitation receiver at the time of the transactions. BF Homes refused to deliver the 20 TCTs despite demands. San Miguel Properties filed a complaint-affidavit in the Office of the City Prosecutor of Las Piñas City charging respondent directors and officers of BF Homes with non-delivery of titles in violation of Section 25, in relation to Section 39, both of Presidential Decree No. 957.

Consing, Jr. vs. People

FACTS Petitioner & his mother obtained loan with Unicapital for 18M. The loans were secured by real estate mortgage wherein the title is under the name of “de la Cruz”. Half of the property was purchased by Unicapital & other half was purchased by Plant Builders. However before they can finally develop the property, they found out that the title is spurious. Unicapital demanded for the return of the payment, but petitioner ignored the demand. Consing filed a civil case in RTC Pasig for injunctive relief, thereby seeking to enjoin Unicapital from proceeding against him for the collection of the P41,377,851.48 on the ground that he had acted as a mere agent of his mother.

Dreamwork vs Janiola; G.R. No. 184861; 30 June 2009

FACTS In 2004, Petitioner filed for violation of BP Blg 22 against Janiola with the Office of the City Prosecutor of Las Piñas City. He also filed the same in MTC In 2006, Private respondent, joined by her husband, instituted a civil complaint against petitioner for the rescission of an alleged construction agreement between the parties, as well as for damages. The case was filed with the RTC, Branch 197 in Las Piñas City. In 2007, private respondent filed a Motion to Suspend Proceedings, claiming that the civil case posed a prejudicial question as against the criminal cases.

Casupanan vs. Laroya; G.R. No. 145391. August 26, 2002

FACTS 2 Vehicles are involve in an accident. One is driven by the respondent (Laroya) & the other one is driven by Casupanan and owned by Capitulo. Both of them filed separate cases in MCTC in Tarlac. Laroya filed the criminal case for reckless imprudence resulting in damage to property based on the Revised Penal Code while Casupanan and Capitulo filed the civil action for damages based on Article 2176 of the Civil Code. ART. 2176. Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done. Such fault or negligence, if there is so pre-existing contractual relation between the parties, is called a quasi-delict and is governed by the provisions of this Chapter. When the civil case was filed, the criminal case was then at its preliminary investigation stage. Laroya, defendant in the civil case, filed a motion to dismiss the civil case on the ground of forum-shopping considering the pendency of the criminal case.

De la Cruz vs. Northern Theatrical Enterprises, Inc., et al. No. L-7089. August 31, 1954

FACTS Northern Theatrical, a domestic corporation, is operating a movie house in Laoag, Ilocos Norte. Domingo De la Cruz, one of it employee, was hired as a special guard to maintain the entrance of the cinema and so as the peace and order of the premises. In July 4 of 1941, a man named Benjamin Martin wanted to crash the entrance of the movie house. Infuriated by the refusal of plaintiff De la Cruz to let him in without first providing himself with a ticket, Martin attacked him with a bolo. De la Cruz defended himself as best he could until he was cornered, at which moment to save himself he shot the gate crasher, resulting in the latter’s death. Domingo was charged with homicide before the Court of First Instance of Ilocos Norte which was dismissed. He was again accused of the same crime of homicide of the same Court which he was finally acquitted. He demanded from his former employer reimbursement of his expenses but was refused, after which he filed the present action against the movie corporation to recover not only the amounts he had paid his lawyers but also moral damages said to have been suffered, due to his worry, his neglect of his interests and his family as well in the supervision of the cultivation of his land, a total of P1 5,000. The case was dismissed for the reason that he has no cause of action.

Bautista vs. Federico O. Borromeo, Inc. No. L-26002. October 31, 1969.

FACTS The Ford truck of petitioner Roberto Tan Ting driven by Abelardo Bautista, the other petitioner, and the Volkswagen delivery panel truck owned by respondent Federico O. Borromeo, Inc. (hereinafter called Borromeo) were involved in a traffic accident which was caused by the negligence of petitioners. Quintin Delgado, a helper in Borromeo’s delivery panel truck, sustained injuries which resulted in his instantaneous death. Borromeo had to pay Delgado’s widow the sum of P4,444 representing the compensation (death benefit) and funeral expenses due Delgado under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. Borromeo, filed a suit to recover the compensation and funeral expenses it paid to the widow of Quintin. However, during the trial neither of the petitioners and counsel appeared contended that they had substantial defense since there was no contractual relationship between the parties, whether express or implied.

Leung Ben v. O’Brien; G.R. No. 13602. April 6, 1918

FACTS: P. J. O’Brien instituted an action to in the Court of First Instance of the city of Manila to recover of Leung Ben the sum of P15,000, alleged to have been lost by the plaintiff to the defendant in a series of gambling, banking, and percentage games. against the property of the defendant, on the ground that the latter was about to depart from the Philippine Islands with intent to defraud his creditors. The plaintiff  asked for an attachment against the property of the defendant, on the ground that the latter was about to depart from the Philippine Islands with intent to defraud his creditors. The attachment was issued. The petitioner, Leung Ben, moved the court to quash the attachment for the reason that attachment was issued requires that there should be a “cause of action arising upon contract, express or implied.” The contention of the petitioner is that the statutory action to recover money lost at gaming is not such an action as is contemplated in this provision, and he insists that the original complaint shows on its face that the remedy of attachment is not available in aid thereof; that the Court of First Instance acted in excess of its jurisdiction in granting the writ of attachment; that the petitioner has no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy by appeal or otherwise; and that consequently the writ of certiorari supplies the appropriate remedy for this relief.

R.S. Tomas, Inc. vs. Rizal Cement Company, Inc. G.R. No. 173155. March 21, 2012.

FACTS On December 28, 1990, respondent and petitioner entered into a contract for the supply of labor, materials, and technical supervision for (3) job orders. Rizal agreed to pay P2,944,000.00 for the job orders while RS Tomas undertook to complete the project within 120 days and 10% of the contract price amount for damages for any delay. RS Tomas failed to fulfill the commitment, thus requested for an extension – despite the lapse of eleven months from the time of the effectivity of the contract entered into between respondent and petitioner, the latter had not completed the projects. Through counsel, the respondent found out that the  financial status of petitioners showed that it could no longer complete the projects as agreed upon which made them decide to terminate the contract.

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Philippine Basketball Association vs. Court of Appeals; G.R. No. 119122. August 8, 2000

FACTS: On June 21, 1989, the petitioner received an assessment letter from the Commissioner of Internal Revenue for the payment of deficiency amusement tax amounted to P5,864,260.84. Petitioner contested the assessment by filing a protest who denied the same by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue. On January 8, 1990, petitioner filed a petition for review with the Court of Tax Appeals whom on December 24, 1993, dismissed petitioner’s petition, holding petitioner to pay P5,864,260.84 as deficiency amusement tax for the year 1987 plus 20% annual delinquency interest from July 22, 1989 pursuant to the provision of Sec.248 & 249 Petitioner presented a motion for reconsideration of the said decision but the same was denied by CTA. Petitioner appealed the CTA decision to the Court of Appeals, however, the CA affirmed CTA’s decision.

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. American Express International, Inc. (Philippine Branch);  G.R. No. 152609. June 29, 2005.

TOPIC: VAT; Destination Principle And Cross Border Doctrine Doctrines:  As a general rule, the VAT system uses the destination principle as a basis for the jurisdictional reach of the tax. Goods and services are taxed only in the country where they are consumed. Thus, exports are zero-rated, while imports are taxed.An exception to the destination principle; that is, for a zero percent VAT rate for services that are performed in the Philippines, “paid for in acceptable foreign currency and accounted for in accordance with the rules and regulations of the [BSP]

Law School Notes - Case Digest

National Power Corporation vs. City of Cabanatuan; G.R. No. 149110. April 9, 2003

TOPIC: Local and Property Taxation ; Franchise Tax (Sec. 137, LGC) Doctrine:  As commonly used, a franchise tax is “a tax on the privilege of transacting business in the state and exercising corporate franchises granted by the state. FACTS:  Petitioner is a government-owned and controlled corporation which sells electric power to the residents of Cabanatuan City.  The City of Cabanatuan pursuant to section 37 of Ordinance No. 165-92, assessed the petitioner a franchise tax amounting to P808,606.41, representing 75% of 1% of the latter’s gross receipts for the preceding year. 

Argente vs. West Coast Life; 51 Phil. 725 (1928)

FACTS: In May 1925, West Coast Life Insurance issued a joint life insurance policy for P15,000 to Bernardo Argente, and his wife, Vicenta de Ocampo.  In November 1925, Vicenta de Ocampo died of cerebral apoplexy. Thereafter Bernardo Argente presented a claim in due form to the West Coast Life Insurance Co. for the payment of the sum of P15,000 the amount of the joint life insurance policy. During the investigations, it was found that the answers given by the insured in their medical examinations with regard to their health and previous illnesses and medical attendance were untrue. For that reason, the West Coast Life Insurance Co. refused to pay the claim of Bernardo Argente on the ground of fraud and misrepresentation. Appellant argues that the alleged concealment was immaterial and insufficient to avoid the policy.

Ng vs. Asian Crusader; 122 SCRA 461 (1983)

FACTS: On May 12, 1962, Kwong Nam applied for a 20-year endowment insurance on his life for the sum of P20,000.00, with his wife, appellee Ng Gan Zee, as beneficiary. On the same date, Asian Crusader, upon receipt of the required premium from the insured, approved the application and issued the corresponding policy. On December 6, 1963, Kwong Nam died of cancer of the liver with metastasis. All premiums had been religiously paid at the time of his death. On January 10, 1964, his widow Ng Gan Zee presented a claim in due form to appellant for payment of the face value of the policy. Appellant denied the claim on the ground that the insured was guilty of misrepresentation when he answered “No” to the following question appearing in the application for life insurance—

Innodata Philippines, Inc. vs. Quejada-Lopez

G.R. No. 162839. October 12, 2006 FACTS: Natividad and Quejada’s employment were terminated by Innodata since the employment contract had expired which is effective for a fixed period of one (1) year. They filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and for damages. Claiming that their job was necessary and desirable to the usual business of the company which is data processing/conversion and that their employment is regular pursuant to Article 280 of the Labor Code. Petitioner contends that the regularity of the employment of respondents does not depend on whether their task may be necessary or desirable in the usual business of the employer. It argues that the use of fixed-term employment contracts has long been recognized by this Court. The Labor Arbiter rendered a judgment in favor of the complainants – Natividad and Quejada to have been illegally dismissed by Innodata and ordered to reinstate them to their former position without loss of seniority rights, and to pay them backwages computed from the time they were illegally dismissed up to the date of the decision.

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Agabon vs. National Labor Relations Commission

G.R. No. 158693. November 17, 2004 FACTS: Private respondent Riviera Home Improvements, Inc. is engaged in the business of selling and installing ornamental and construction materials. It employed petitioners Virgilio Agabon and Jenny Agabon as gypsum board and cornice installers on January 2, 19922 until February 23, 1999 when they were dismissed for abandonment of work. Petitioners filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and payment of money claims. They asserted that they were dismissed because the private respondent refused to give them assignments unless they agreed to work on a “pakyaw” basis. They did not agree on this arrangement because it would mean losing benefits as Social Security System (SSS) members. They also claim that private respondent did not comply with the twin requirements of notice and hearing. The private respondent maintained that petitioners were not dismissed but had abandoned their work. The petitioners are sent two letters to the last known addresses of the petitioners advising them to report for work. They also talk to Agabon by telephone to inform them of new assignment however did not report since they subcontracted for an installation work for another company.

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Montinola vs. Philippine Airlines

G.R. No. 198656. September 8, 2014. FACTS: Nancy Montinola, an employee of PAL, were subjected to custom searches in Honolulu, Hawaii, USA. During the search, 10 crews, including her were found of possession of food items. PAL conducted an investigation. PAL’s Cabin Services Sub-Department required Montinola to comment on the incident. Montinola gave a handwritten explanation, stating that she did not take anything from the aircraft and committed to give her full cooperation should there be any further inquiries on the matter.  She was furnished by a notice of administrative charge. During the Clarificatory hearings, Montinola requested for proper notice of the acts violative of PAL’s Code of Discipline. Instead of giving proper notice, PAL threatened that she would be waiving her right to a clarificatory hearing if she insisted on her request. PAL failed to specify her participation in the alleged pilferage. PAL’s Management found Montinola guilty of 11 violations of the company’s Code of Discipline and Government Regulation. She was meted with suspension for one (1) year without pay.

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Hanjin Heavy Ind. And Cons.Ltd v Ibanez

G.R. No. 170181             June 26, 2008 FACTS: Respondents Felicito Ibañez, Aligwas Carolino, Elmer Gacula, Enrique Dagotdot, Ruel Calda, and four other co-workers filed a complaint before the NLRC for illegal dismissal with prayer for reinstatement and full backwages against petitioners.  The group alleged that the contract they have is good for three months, subject to automatic renewal if there is no notice of termination from Hanjin, and that the contract would automatically terminate upon the completion of the project. Respondents stated that they are regular employees since their tasks were usual and necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of HANJIN. Hanjin maintained that respondents were hired as project employees for the construction of the LRT/MRT Line 2 Package 2 and 3 Project. HANJIN and respondents purportedly executed contracts of employment, in which it was clearly stipulated that the respondents were to be hired as project employees for a period of only three months, but that the contracts may be renewed Petitioners failed to furnish the Labor Arbiter a copy of said contracts of employment. The Labor Arbiter found merit in the respondents’ complaint and declared that they were regular employees who had been dismissed without just and valid causes and without due process.

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Peckson vs. Robinsons Supermarket Corporation;

G.R. No. 198534. July 3, 2013. FACTS: Peckson was holding the position of Category Buyer in RSC when respondent Sarte, RSC’s Assistant Vice-President for Merchandising, reassigned her to the position of Provincial Coordinator. The petitioner refused to turn over her responsibilities claiming that her new assignment was a demotion because it was non-supervisory and clerical in nature. Sarte demanded twice for an  explanation within 48 hours and cited one of its company rules which “disobedience, refusal or failure to do assigned task or to obey superior’s/official’s orders/ins­tructions, or to follow established procedures or practices without valid reason” would be meted the penalty of suspension. She also assigned tasks which Peckson refused to heed. Petitioner filed a complaint for constructive dismissal against RSC, Sarte, Gadia and Alex (respondents).  The petitioner argued before the LA that the position of Category Buyer was one level above that of the Provincial Coordinator thus a demotion.

Law School Notes - Case Digest

St. Luke’s Med. Center Inc. v. Sanchez

Doctrine: The right of an employer to regulate all aspects of employment, aptly called “management prerogative,” gives employers the freedom to regulate, according to their discretion and best judgment, all aspects of employment, including work assignment, working methods, processes to be followed, working regulations, transfer of employees, work supervision, lay-off of workers and the discipline, dismissal and recall of workers. FACTS: Sanchez is a nurse at St. Luke’s Medical Center, Inc. (SLMC) until her termination on July 6, 2011 for her purported violation of SLMC’s Code of Discipline, particularly Section 1, Rule 1 on Acts of Dishonesty, i.e., Robbery, Theft, Pilferage, and Misappropriation of Funds. At the end of her shift on May 29, 2011, Sanchez passed through the SLMC Centralization Entrance/Exit where she was subjected to the standard inspection procedure by the security personnel.  In the course thereof, the Security Guard on-duty, Jaime Manzanade  (SG Manzanade), noticed a pouch in her bag and asked her to open the same. When opened, said pouch contained assortment of medical stocks which were subsequently confiscated.

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Echo 2000 Commercial Corp. v Obrero Filipino Echo 2000 Chapter-CLO

G.R. No. 214092, January 11, 2016 FACTS: Echo received information about shortages in peso value arising from the movement of products to and from its warehouse. After an immediate audit, Echo suspected that there was a conspiracy among the employees in the warehouse. Since an uninterrupted investigation was necessary, Echo, in the exercise of its management prerogative, decided to re-assign the staff. The respondents were among those affected Enriquez issued a memorandum informing the respondents of their transfer to the Delivery Section, which was within the premises of Echo’s warehouse. The transfer would entail no change in ranks, status and salaries.

Law School Notes - Case Digest

WATEROUS DRUG CORPORATION vs NLRC

G.R. No. 113271 October 16, 1997 FACTS: Catolico was hired as a pharmacist by Waterous Drug Corporation. On 29 January 1990, WATEROUS Control Clerk Eugenio Valdez informed WATEROUS Vice President-General Manager Emma R. Co that he noticed an irregularity involving Catolico and Yung Shin Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (YSP) in the purchase of bottles of Voren tablets which he described that there was an over price of the bottles of tablets for a total of P640.00. YSP, Inc. Accounting Department (Ms. Estelita Reyes) confirmed that the difference represents refund of jack-up price of ten bottles of Voren tablets per sales invoice no. 266 as per their check voucher no. 629552, which was paid to Ms. Catolico through China Bank check no. 892068 dated November 9, 1989. Catolico denied having received the check and that she is unaware of the overprice. However, it was confirmed by Ms. Saldana, EDRC Espana Pharmacy Clerk, that the check amounting to P640.00 was actually received by Ms. Catolico. That  Ms. Catolico even asked Ms. Saldana if she opened the envelope containing the check but Ms. Saldana answered her “talagang ganyan, bukas.” It appears that the amount in question (P640.00) had been pocketed by Ms. Catolico.

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Punzal v ETSI Technologies Inc.

G.R. Nos. 170384-85             March 9, 2007 FACTS: Lorna  Punzal , an employee of Etsi Technologies Inc. , sent an email to her officemates announcing the holding of a Halloween party that was to be held in the office. However, the petitioner’s immediate superior, Remudaro , advised Punzal to first secure for the approval of the Senior Vice president , respondent Werner Geisert, for the holding of the party in the office. The VP did not approve the Halloween party which prompted Punzal  to send another email informing that the VP did not agree to the idea and expressed her disappointment particularly saying: “He was so unfair , para bang palagi syang iniisahan sa trabaho.” Bakit most of the parents na magjoined ang anak ay naka VL naman . Anyway, solohin na lang nya bukas ang office.” The HR  required her to explain in writing within 48 hours why she should not be given disciplinary action for improper conduct or acts of discourtesy concerning a company officer. Punzal replied by letter stating that she never expected that  such kind of words can be considered as acts of discourtesy or disrespect. 

Law School Notes - Case Digest

QUIRICO LOPEZ vs ALTURAS GROUP OF COMPANIES and/or MARLITO UY

G.R. No. 191008 April 11, 2011 FACTS: Quirico Lopez (petitioner) is a truck driver of Alturas. 10 years of employment he was dismissed allegedly for attempting to smuggle out of the company premises 60 kilos of scrap iron worth ₱840.  Petitioner, denied the allegations by a handwritten explanation written in the Visayan dialect.  Respondent on the grounds of loss of trust and confidence, and of violation of company rules and regulations terminated his employment. The result of an investigation also showed that petitioner had been smuggling out its cartons, thus prompted the respondent to file  a criminal case for Qualified Theft against him before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Bohol. Petitioner thereupon filed a complaint against respondent company for illegal dismissal and underpayment of wages. He claimed that the smuggling charge against him was fabricated to justify his illegal dismissal

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Yrasuegui vs PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC.

G.R. No. 168081              October 17, 2008 FACTS: Armando Yrasuegui was a former international flight steward of Philippine Airlines, who stands at 5’8” with a large body frame (the ideal weight for his size is 166 lbs).  In 1984, due to weight problems of the petitioner, PAL advised him to go on an extended vacation leave from December 1984 to March 1985 to address his weight concern. In many instances, the petitioner  did not meet the weight standards which prompted several leave without pay. After meeting the required weight, petitioner was allowed to return to work but petitioner’s weight problem recurred which made his off duty status retained. He was directed to report every two weeks for weight checks but he refused to do so. PAL finally served petitioner a Notice of Administrative Charge for violation of company standards on weight requirements. Petitioner in his answer claimed that PAL discriminated against him because “the company has not been fair in treating the cabin crew members who are similarly situated.”

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Duncan Association of Detailman-PTGWO vs. Glaxo Wellcome Philippines, Inc.

G.R. No. 162994. September 17, 2004. FACTS: Tecson is an employee of Glaxo. Included in the contract of employment he signed is that he agrees to abide all company rules which includes disclosure of any existing future relationships with co-employees and employees of competing drug companies. If management perceives a conflict of interest on the relationship, the management and the employee will explore the possibility of a “transfer to another department in a non-counterchecking position” or preparation for employment outside the company after six months. Subsequently, Tecson entered into a romantic relationship and married Bettsy, an employee of Astra, a competitor of Glaxo. Tecson’s superiors informed him that his marriage to Bettsy gave rise to a conflict of interest. Tecson applied for a transfer in Glaxo’s milk division, thinking that since Astra did not have a milk division, the potential conflict of interest would be eliminated. However it was denied. In 1999, Glaxo transferred Tecson to the Butuan City-Surigao City-Agusan del Sur sales area. Tecson sought Glaxo’s reconsideration regarding his transfer but Glaxo remained firm in its decision.

Law School Notes - Case Digest

BPI v BPI Employees Union

G.R. No. 164301 : August 10, 2010 FACTS: BPI and FEBTC entered in a merger. Pursuant to which all employees of FEBTC shall be hired by petitioner as its own employees, with their status and tenure recognized and salaries and benefits maintained. The BPI EU invited said FEBTC employees to a meeting regarding the Union Shop Clause of the existing CBA between petitioner BPI and respondent Union. Section 2.  Union Shop  – New employees falling within the bargaining unit as defined in Article I of this Agreement, who may hereafter be regularly employed by the Bank shall, within thirty (30) days after they become regular employees, join the Union as a condition of their continued employment.  It is understood that membership in good standing in the Union is a condition of their continued employment with the Bank The former FEBTC employees who refused to join, as well as those who retracted their membership was called for a hearing for that matter. When these former FEBTC employees refused to attend the hearing, the president of the Union requested BPI to implement the Union Shop Clause of the CBA and to terminate their employment pursuant thereto.

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Goya Inc. v GI Employees Union- FFW

G.R. No. 170054               January 21, 2013 FACTS: Goya, Inc., hired contractual employees from PESO Resources Development Corporation (PESO) to perform temporary and occasional services in its factory in Makati. Goya, Inc. Employees Union–FFW (Union) requested for a grievance conference on the ground that the contractual workers do not belong to the categories of employees stipulated in the existing CBA. The Union asserts that  hiring of contractual employees, is not a management prerogative and in gross violation of the CBA tantamount to unfair labor practice (ULP). It noted that the contractual workers engaged have been assigned to work in positions previously handled by regular workers and Union members, in effect violating Section 4, Article I of the CBA. The Company argued that: (a) the law expressly allows contracting and subcontracting arrangements; (b) the engagement of contractual employees did not, in any way, prejudice the Union, since not a single employee was terminated and neither did it result in a reduction of working hours nor a reduction or splitting of the bargaining unit c) Section 4, Article I of the CBA merely provides for the definition of the categories of employees and does not put a limitation on the Company’s right to engage the services of job contractors or its management prerogative to address temporary/occasional needs in its operation.

Law School Notes - Case Digest

PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC. (PAL) vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

G.R. No. 85985 August 13, 1993 FACTS: In 1985, PAL completely revised its 1966 Code of Discipline. The Code was circulated among the employees and was immediately implemented, and some employees were forthwith subjected to the disciplinary measures embodied therein. PALEA filed a complaint before the NLRC for unfair labor practice due to arbitrary implementation of PAL’s Code of Discipline without notice and prior discussion with Union by Management under Article 249 and Article 253 of the Labor Code.  The Union also alleged that the copies of the Code did not conform with the requirements of sufficient publication and was circulated in limited numbers. It argues that PAL should discuss the substance of the Code with PALEA and that employees dismissed under the Code be reinstated and their cases subjected to further hearing.

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Serrano v Gallant Maritime Services Inc.,

G.R. No. 167614 : March 24, 2009 FACTS: Serrano was hired by Gallant Maritime under a POEA approved Contract of Employment. In 1998, on the date of his departure, petitioner was constrained to accept a downgraded employment contract for the position of Second Officer, upon the assurance and representation of respondents that he would be made Chief Officer by the end of April 1998. Respondents did not deliver on their promise to make petitioner Chief Officer. Hence, petitioner refused to stay on as Second Officer and was repatriated. He had served only two (2) months and seven (7) days of his contract, leaving an unexpired portion of nine (9) months and twenty-three (23) days. Petitioner filed  a Complaint  with the Labor Arbiter (LA) against respondents for constructive dismissal and for payment of his money claims.

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Ang Tibay vs. Court of Industrial Relations

No. 46496. February 27, 1940 FACTS: The respondent National Labor Union, Inc prays for the vacation of the judgment rendered by the Court and the remanding of the case to the Court of Industrial Relations for a new trial. It avers that Teodoro’s claim that there was shortage of leather soles in ANG TIBAY making it necessary for him to temporarily lay off the members of the National Labor Union Inc., is entirely false and unsupported by the records of the Bureau of Customs and the Books of Accounts of native dealers in leather. It is a scheme adopted to systematically discharge all the members of the National Labor Union, Inc., from work.

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Serrano vs National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC)

G.R. No. 117040. January 27, 2000 FACTS: Petitioner was hired by private respondent Isetann Department St. ore as a security checker to apprehend shoplifters and prevent pilferage of merchandise. Initially hired on October 4, 1984 on contractual basis, petitioner eventually became a regular employee on April 4, 1985. In 1988, he became head of the Security Checkers Section of private respondent.  Sometime in 1991, as a cost-cutting measure, private respondent decided to phase out its entire security section and engage the services of an independent security agency. The loss of his employment prompted the petitioner to file a complaint for illegal dismissal, illegal layoff, unfair labor practice, underpayment of wages, and nonpayment of salary and overtime pay. Serrano asserts that the real purpose was to avoid payment of the wage increases provided in the collective bargaining agreement approved in 1990.

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Polsotin v De Guia Enterprises

G.R. No. 172624               December 5, 2011 FACTS: Petitioners- Polsotin, Rayala, Limpante, Domdom and Andrin, bus drivers and conductors, filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and payment of backwages and damages against De Guia Enterprises because they were allegedly dismissed without cause and due process. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the  complaint for lack of merit. It held that petitioners were validly terminated from employment for violation of company rules and regulations as well as for gross and habitual neglect of duties as supported by petitioners’ employment records submitted by respondent. The  NLRC which dismissed the same for failure to append thereto a certificate of non-forum shopping and proof of service upon the other party. Upon appeal to the CA, it rendered a decision dismissing the same.

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Opinaldo vs Ravina

G.R. No. 196573, October 16, 2013 FACTS: Petitioner Victorino Opinaldo is a security guard who had worked for the Agency owned by Ravina. Opinaldo was assigned to PAIJR Furniture. however, PAIJR requested that petitioner be relieved from his work because he was no longer physically fit to perform his duties. Respondent also required petitioner to submit a medical certificate to prove that he is physically and mentally fit for work as security guard. In 2006, Opinaldo was reassigned to Gomez Construction. After working for a period of two weeks and upon receipt of his salary, petitioner ceased to report for work. Petitioner filed a complaint against respondent with the (DOLE) for underpayment of salary and nonpayment of other labor standard benefits. The parties agreed to settle and reached a compromise agreement.

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Globe Mackay vs National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC)

G.R. No. 82511 March 3, 1992 FACTS: Imelda L. Salazar, employee of Globe-Mackay Cable and Delfin Salvidar, manager for technical operation’s support was allegedly very close. In 1984, an audit report indicated that Saldivar had entered into a partnership with Richard Yambao, the owner of Elecon who is a supplier of GMCR  recommended by Saldivar. It was also disclosed that Saldivar had taken petitioner’s missing Fedders air-conditioning unit for his own personal use without authorization. During the investigation, it appeared that  Imelda Salazar violated company regulations by involving herself in transactions conflicting with the company’s interests. Evidence showed that she signed as a witness to the articles of partnership between Yambao and Saldivar.

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Pascua vs. Bank Wise, Inc.

G.R. No. 191460. January 31, 2018. FACTS: Pascua was employed by Bankwise as its Executive Vice President for Marketing. In 2004, Philippine Veterans Bank and Bankwise entered into a merger.  Due to this Pascua was re-assigned to another unit but his duties, functions, and responsibilities were not clearly delineated or defined. As part of the merger, Pascual was informed to tender his resignation. In a letter, he pleaded to stay in office until the end of the year. Campa, a director of Bankwise  assured all his money claims will be paid once he tendered resignation. Pascua tendered his resignation. Due to the inaction of respondents for early settlement of his money claims. Pascua filed a Complaint for illegal dismissal, nonpayment of salary, overtime pay, holiday pay, premium pay for holiday, service incentive leave, 13th month pay, separation pay, retirement benefits, actual damages, moral damages, exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees against Bankwise and Philippine Veterans Bank.

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Surigao del Norte Electric Cooperative, Inc. vs. Gonzaga

G.R. No. 187722. June 10, 2013 FACTS: Gonzaga, lineman of Surigao Del Norte Electric Cooperative, was questioned regarding his remittance shortages in the total amount of P314,252.23, covering the period from February 2000 to May 2001. During the investigative proceedings, Gonzaga was placed under preventive suspension. The Investigation Committee found Gonzaga guilty of (a) gross and habitual neglect of duty (b) misappropriation of REC funds and (c) failure to remit collections/monies under Code of Ethics. Written notice was sent to Gonzaga informing him of the company’s decision to relieve him from employment, as well as the grounds therefor. Gonzaga filed a complaint with the NLRC for illegal dismissal claiming that he was denied due process and dismissed without just cause. He alleged that while he was asked to explain the P314,252.23 remittance shortage, he was nonetheless denied due process since the actual grounds for his dismissal, i.e., gross and habitual neglect of duties and responsibilities, misappropriation of REC funds and failure to remit collections/monies, were not indicated in the said memorandum. He also added that the cooperative’s proper procedure for the conduct of investigation, as outlined in Section 16.5 of the Code of Ethics was not followed; hence, he was denied due process

Abbot Laboratories v. Alcaraz

G.R. No. 192571               July 23, 2013 FACTS: Abbott caused the publication in a major broadsheet newspaper of its need for a Regulatory Affairs Manager, indicating therein the job description for as well as the duties and responsibilities attendant to the aforesaid position. Alcaraz signed an employment contract which specifically stated, inter alia, that she was to be placed on probation for a period of six (6) months beginning February 15, 2005 to August 14, 2005. On the day Alcaraz accepted Abbott’s employment offer, Bernardo sent her copies of Abbott’s organizational structure and her job description through e-mail. She also had undergone a pre-employment orientation and training program as part of her orientation. In May , Alcaraz was informed and asked to tender her resignation or they be forced to terminate her services because she failed to meet the regularization standards. She then filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and damages against Abbott and its officers.

Vergara v. Coca-Cola Bottlers

G.R. No. 176985. April 1, 2013. FACTS: Petitioner Ricardo E. Vergara, Jr. was an employee of respondent Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc. from May 1968 until he retired on January 31, 2002 as a District Sales Supervisor (DSS). As stipulated in Retirement Plan Rules and Regulations at the time, the Annual Performance Incentive Pay of DSS shall be considered in the computation of retirement benefits. Petitioner filed a complaint before the NLRC for the payment of his “Full Retirement Benefits and Commission. He claims that respondent allegedly deducted illegally from his retirement package an amount of PhP496,016.67 and entitlement of additional PhP474,600.00 as Sales Management Incentives (SMI). The management argued that Vergera did not qualify for the SMI thus he is not entitled to receive it as part of retirement pay.

Read-Rite Philippines, Inc. vs. Francisco

G.R. No. 195457. August 16, 2017 FACTS: In the Compensation and Benefits Manual of Read-Rite’s predecessor company, among the benefits that an employee is entitled to are (a) Voluntary Separation Benefit (b) Involuntary Separation Benefit (c) In April 1999, Read-Rite began implementing a retrenchment program due to serious business losses. About 200 employees were terminated and they were each given involuntary separation benefits equivalent to one month pay per year of service. From this first batch of retrenched employees, however, there were eight employees – who had rendered at least ten years of service that apparently received additional voluntary separation benefits All of the respondents received involuntary separation benefits equivalent to one month pay per year of service. They each executed a Release, Waiver and Quitclaim[10] (quitclaim), which stated, among others, that they had each received from Read-Rite the full payment of all compensation due them and they will not undertake any action against the company to demand further compensation.

Dole Philippines, Inc. vs. Pawis ng Makabayang Obrero

G.R. No. 146650. January 13, 2003 FACTS: In 1996, five-year Collective Bargaining Agreement for 1996 – 2001 was executed by petitioner Dole Philippines, Inc., and private respondent Pawis Ng Makabayang Obrero-NFL (PAMAO-NFL). One of the provisions of CBA provides that “Company agrees to grant a MEAL ALLOWANCE of TEN PESOS (P10.00) to all employees who render at least TWO (2) hours or more of actual overtime work on a workday, and FREE MEALS, as presently practiced, not exceeding TWENTY FIVE PESOS (P25.00) after THREE (3) hours of actual overtime work.” Some departments of DOLE continued continued the practice of granting free meals only after more than three hours of overtime work. PAMAO-NFL filed a complaint before the National Conciliation and Mediation Board alleging that petitioner Dole refused to comply with the provisions of the 1996-2001 CBA because it granted free meals only to those who rendered overtime work for more than three hours and not to those who rendered exactly three hours overtime work.

Philippine Airlines, Incorporated vs. Philippine Airlines Employees Association

G.R. No. 142399. March 12, 2008 FACTS: PAL and respondent PALEA entered into a CBA covering the period of 1986-1989. Part of said agreement required PAL to pay its rank and file employees 13th month and Christmas Bonus. In 1988, PAL releases a guideline which provides that those who have not yet achieved regular status by the cut-off date, 30 April 1988 shall not be eligible for 13th month. PALEA filed a labor complaint  for unfair labor practices asserting that all employees of PAL, regular or non-regular, must be paid their 13th month pay. It also argues that the guideline is in contravention of the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) entered into by petitioner PAL and respondent PALEA. PAL asserts that it did not deny their 13th month pay considering they receive said mandatory bonus in the form of the Christmas Bonus which is in compliance with Presidential Decree No. 851.

Benson Ind. Employees Union v. Benson Ind., Inc.

G.R. No. 200746, August 06, 2014 FACTS: Benson sent its employees, including herein petitioners, a notice informing them of their intended termination from employment on the ground of closure and/or cessation of business operations. Petitioners, through Benson Industries Employees Union-ALU-TUCP (Union), filed a notice of strike, claiming that the company’s supposed closure was merely a ploy to replace the union members with lower paid workers, and, as a result, increase its profit at their expense. The strike did not, however, push through due to the parties’ amicable settlement whereby petitioners accepted Benson’s payment of separation pay, computed at 15 days for every year of service

Standard Chartered Bank Employees Union NUBE v. Confesor

G.R. No. 114974 : June 16, 2004 FACTS: Standard Chartered Bank (the Bank, for brevity) is a foreign banking corporation doing business in the Philippines. The Bank and the Union signed a five-year collective bargaining agreement (CBA). Prior to the expiration of the 3 year period, the Union initiates negotiation. Divinagracia, president of the Union submitted proposals, then the Bank sent counterproposals. The parties agreed to set meetings to settle their differences on the proposed CBA. Divinagracia, suggested that the bank lawyers should be excluded from the negotiating team. The Bank acceded but suggested to Divinagracia that Jose P. Umali, Jr., the President of the National Union of Bank Employees (NUBE), the federation to which the Union was affiliated, be excluded from the Union’s negotiating panel. However, Umali was retained as a member thereof.

International School Alliance of Educators v. Quisumbing.

G.R. No. 128845               June 1, 2000 FACTS: International School is a domestic educational institution established primarily for dependents of foreign diplomatic personnel and other temporary residents. The School hires both foreign and local teachers as members of its faculty – they are classified as (1) foreign-hires and (2) local-hires. The School grants foreign-hires certain benefits not accorded local-hires. These include housing, transportation, shipping costs, taxes, and home leave travel allowance. Foreign-hires are also paid a salary rate twenty-five percent (25%) more than local-hires. The School justifies the difference on two “significant economic disadvantages” foreign-hires have to endure.

Peñaranda vs. Baganga Plywood Corporation

G.R. No. 159577. May 3, 2006. FACTS: Charlito Peñaranda was an employee of Baganga Plywood Corporation (BPC) supervising the engineering section of the steam plant boiler. In 2001, Peñaranda filed a Complaint for illegal dismissal with money claims against BPC and its general manager, Hudson Chua, before the NLRC. He alleges that his services [were] terminated without the benefit of due process and valid grounds in accordance with law. Furthermore, he was not paid his overtime pay, premium pay for working during holidays/rest days, night shift differentials and finally claims for payment of damages and attorney’s BPC allege that complainant’s separation from service was done pursuant to Art. 283 of the Labor Code. It was on temporary closure due to repair and general maintenance and it applied for clearance with the Department of Labor and Employment, to shut down and to dismiss employees. They also pay petitioner of separation. When BPC reopened failed to reapply hence, he was not terminated from employment much less illegally.

Maternity Children’s Hospital vs. Secretary of Labor

G.R. No. 78909. June 30, 1989 FACTS: Maternity Children  is a semi-government hospital. mIn May 23, 1986 when E.O. No. 111 was not yet in effect, 10 of its employees filed with DOLE complaint for underpayment of their salaries and ECOLAs with the Office of the Regional Director of Labor and Employment. The Regional Director directed two of his Labor Standard and Welfare Officers to ascertain the truth of the allegations. The Officers confirmed that there was underpayment of wages and ECOLAs of all the employees by the petitioner. The Regional Director issued an Order directing the payment of underpayment of wages and ECOLAs to all the petitioner’s. The Minister of Labor and Employment modified the order that the deficiency wages and ECOLAs should only be computed from May 23, 1983 to May 23, 1986. The petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration which was denied by the Secretary of Labor.

Mariveles Shipyard Corp. vs. Court of Appeals

G.R. No. 144134. November 11, 2003 FACTS: Petitioner Mariveles Shipyard Corporation engaged the services of Longest Force Investigation and Security Agency, Inc to render security services. Pursuant to their agreement, Longest Force deployed its security guards at the petitioner’s shipyard. However, it found the services being rendered by the assigned guards unsatisfactory and inadequate, causing it to terminate its contract with Longest Force The security guards filed a case for illegal dismissal, underpayment of wages, non-payment of overtime pay, holiday, rest day pay and attorney’s fees, against both Longest Force and petitioner. Longest force admitted the non-payment of wage differential but passed the liability to petitione ralleging that the service fee paid was below the required rate.

Rivera v Genesis Transport Service, Inc.

G.R. No. 215568, August 03, 2015 FACTS: Rivera was employed by respondent Genesis Transport Service, Inc. (Genesis) as a bus conductor. Rivera was dismissed by Genesis on account of a discrepancy in the amount he declared on bus ticket receipts. He received a Memorandum giving him twenty-four (24) hours to explain why he should not be sanctioned for reporting and remitting the amount of P198.00 instead of the admittedly correct amount of P394.00 worth of bus ticket receipts. He responded that it was an honest mistake, which he was unable to correct “because the bus encountered mechanical problems. (P196 difference) Rivera filed a complaint of illegal dismissal contending termination was arbitrary and not based on just causes for terminating employment.

Paredes vs. Feed the Children Philippines, Inc.

G.R. No. 184397. September 9, 2015 FACTS: Respondent Feed the Children Philippines, Inc. (FTCP) is a nonstock, nonprofit, and nongovernment organization which objective is to provide food, clothing, educational supplies and other necessities of indigent children worldwide Paredes was FTCP’s National Director. 42 FTCP employees signed a petition letter addressed to the Board expressing their complaints against petitioner’s leadership and management of FTCP. During the Board meeting, the Board decided to establish Supervisory Team that will draw a definite work plan – the Supervisory Team will not replace the functions of the National Director and will hire an independent professional management and financial auditor. The Board resolved to suspend petitioner because of her indifferent attitude and unjustified refusal to submit to an audit. Before it could be implemented, respondent FTCP received her resignation letter effective December 31 2005. The Board accepted her resignation with the condition that its effectivity be moved to November 30, 2005.

American Express Transnational vs Borre

G.R. No. 228320, July 15, 2020 FACTS: In 2005, AITI hired Borre as a company driver.  AITI’s Leisure Team requested for the services of a company driver but Borre refused to drive. Prior to the above-cited incident, Borre also refused to drive for executives on 3 instances. The management gave Borre notice and opportunity to formally explain himself. Borre generally denied the allegations. During the investigation and hearings it was found that Borre failed to drive because he left his drivers license. Borre was dismissed from employment for will disobedience. The Labor Arbiter found Borre to be validly dismissed based on just cause. The NLRC affirmed the Labor Arbiter’s factual findings.

Philippine Association of Service Exporters, Inc. vs. Drilon

No. L-81958. June 30,1988 FACTS: The petitioner, Philippine Association of Service Exporters, Inc (PASEI), engaged principally in the recruitment of Filipino workers, male and female, for overseas placement, challenges the Constitutional validity of Department Order No. 1, Series of 1988, of the Department of Labor and Employment. The Department Order No 1 or the “Temporary Suspension of Deployment of Filipino Domestic and Household Workers “ is discriminatory since it “does not apply to all Filipino workers but only to domestic helpers and females with similar skills;” and that it is violative of the right to travel. It also contended that the passage of the Department Order is not in consonance with Section 3, of Article XIII of the Constitution, providing for worker participation “in policy and decision-making processes affecting their rights and benefits as may be provided by law.” Department Order No. 1, it is contended, was passed in the absence of prior consultations.

Phil. Long Distance Telephone Co. vs. NLRC & Marilyn Abucay

No. L-80609. August 23, 1988 FACTS: Marilyn Abucay, a traffic operator of the Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company was accused by two complainants having demanded and received from them the total amount of P3,800.00 in consideration of her promise to facilitate approval of their applications for telephone installation. After investigations and hearings, she was found guilty. Abucay filed a complaint with Ministry of Labor and Employment claiming she had been illegally removed but such complaint was dismissed for lack of merit. However the Labor Arbiter awarded Abucay of financial assistance amounting to one month pay for every year of service. PLDT questioned the validity of award as having been made with grave abuse of discretion. NLRC in its decision finds that award of separation pay as financial assistance is equitable taking into consideration her long years of service to the company.

The Conference of Maritime Manning Agencies, Inc. vs. Philippine Overseas Employment Administration

G.R. No. 114714. April 21, 1995 FACTS: Petitioner Conference of Maritime Manning Agencies, Inc., licensed manning agency to recruit Filipino seamen for and in behalf of their respective foreign shipowner-principals, urge to annul Resolution No. 01, series of 1994, of the Governing Board of the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) and POEA Memorandum Circular No. 05, series of 1994 on the grounds of this 2 main issues – (a) The POEA does not have the power and authority to fix and promulgate rates affecting death and workmen’s compensation of Filipino seamen (b) The resolution and the memorandum circular are unconstitutional because they violate the equal protection and non-impairment of obligation of contracts clauses of the Constitution. POEA contended that the issuance of the challenged resolution and memorandum circular was a valid exercise of the POEA’s rule-making authority or power of subordinate legislation which this Court had sustained.

Anflo Management vs. Lagdameo

G.R. No. 141608. October 4, 2002. FACTS: Respondent, Rodolfo Bolanio was employed as company driver of Anflo Corp. and was assigned to the residence of its senior vice-president Lagdameo. His main task is to transport Regina, the daughter of Lagdameo, to and from her work.  Regina and Bolanio got involved in a heated argument stemming from respondent’s failure to follow Regina’s instructions regarding road directions. Linda confronted Bolanio and accused him of verbally abusing her daughter.  Respondent tried to explain that he did not say anything against petitioner’s daughter but Linda would not give him a chance and instead shouted the words “you’re fired” at him. He was then ordered to return company ID, uniform and was allowed to work anymore. Respondent filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with a prayer for reinstatement and payment of monetary claims with Labor Arbiter.

Aris (Phil.) Inc. vs. NLRC

G.R. No. 90501. August 5, 1991 FACTS: In 1988, private respondents, who were employees of petitioner requested for grievance conference concerning their working surroundings which had become detrimental and hazardous. As none was arranged, they protested directly to the management’s office for the inaction on their complaints. The management issued a memorandum to those who were identified by their supervisor as the most active participants in the “rally”, requiring them to explain why they should not be terminated from the service. Despite their explanation, private respondents were dismissed for violation of company rules and regulations, more specifically of the provisions on security and public order and on inciting or participating in illegal strikes or concerted actions. Private respondents filed complaint for illegal dismissal with the NLRC. Labor Arbiter F. Garduque III in its decision ordered that Aris Phil reinstate within ten (10) days the private respondents to their former respective positions or any substantial equivalent positions if already filled up, without loss of seniority right and privileges but with limited backwages of six (6) months. Complainants (herein private respondents) filed a Motion For Issuance of a Writ of Execution.

Guido vs. Rural Progress Administration

No. L-2089. October 31, 1949 Guido filed for prohibition to prevent the Rural Progress Administration and the Court of First Instance of Rizal from proceeding with the expropriation of her land on the ground that to be expropriated is commercial and therefore excluded within the purview of the provisions of Act 539.

Calalang vs. Williams et al.

No. 47800. December 2, 1940 FACTS: Maximo Calalang in his capacity as a private citizen and a taxpayer of Manila filed a petition for a writ of prohibition against the respondents – Williams, as Chairman of the National Traffic Commission; Fragante, as Director of Public Works; Bayan, as Acting Secretary of Public Works and Communications; Rodriguez, as Mayor of the City of Manila; and Dominguez, as Acting Chief of Police of Manila. In pursuance of the provisions of Commonwealth Act No. 548 which authorizes the Director of Public Works to prohibit animal-drawn vehicles from passing along certain roads. As a consequence of such enforcement, all animal-drawn vehicles are not allowed to pass and pick up passengers in such places to the detriment not only of their owners but of the riding public as well He contended that Commonwealth Act No. 548 by which the respondents are authorized to promulgate rules and regulations for the regulation and control of the use of and traffic on national roads and streets is unconstitutional because it constitutes an undue delegation of legislative power. It also infringe upon the constitutional precept regarding the promotion of social justice to insure the well-being and economic security of all the people.

De la Cruz vs. Maersk Filipinas Crewing, Inc

G.R. No. 172038. April 14, 2008 FACTS: Respondent Elite Shipping A.S. hired petitioner Dante D. de la Cruz as third engineer for the vessel M/S Arktis Morning through its local agency in the Philippines, co-respondent Maersk Filipinas Crewing Inc. The contract of employment was for a period of nine months, starting April 19, 1999, with a monthly basic salary of US$1,004.00 plus other benefits. Chief engineer Norman Per Nielsen, twice in a logbook entry, expressed his dissatisfaction over petitioner’s performance. Due to this, petitioner is discharge according to CBA article 1 (7) where in several occasions, he is not qualified for the position as 3rd engineer onboard this vessel. Petitioner thereafter filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with claims for the monetary equivalent of the unexpired portion of his contract, damages and attorney’s fees in the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC).

Herma Shipyard, Inc. vs. Oliveros

G.R. No. 208936. April 17, 2017. FACTS: Respondents were Herma Shipyard’s employees occupying various positions such as welder, leadman, pipe fitter, laborer, helper, etc. The respondents filed before the Regional Arbitration Branch III a Complaint for illegal dismissal, regularization, and non-payment of service incentive leave pay with prayer for the payment of full backwages and attorney’s fees against petitioners. Respondents alleged that they are Herma Shipyard’s regular employees who have been continuously performing tasks usually necessary and desirable in its business, however, petitioners dismissed them from employment. They were also made them sign employment contracts for a fixed period ranging from one to four months to make it appear that they were project-based employees. Allegedly petitioners resorted to this scheme to defeat their right to security of tenure, but in truth there was never a time when they ceased working for Herma Shipyard.

San Miguel Corporation vs. National Labor Relations Commission, Third Division

G.R. No. 125606. October 7, 1998 FACTS: In 1990, De Guzman, private respondent, was hired by petitioner as helper/bricklayer for a specific project, the repair and upgrading of furnace C at its Manila Glass Plant. His contract of employment provided that said temporary employment was for a specific period of approximately four (4) months. On April 30, 1991, private respondent’s employee contract was terminated on that same day as there was no more work to be done. On May 10, 1991, private respondent was again hired for a specific job for a specific period of approximately three (3) months. In July 1991, after the completion of this task, private respondent’s services were terminated. On August 1, 1991, complainant saw his name in a Memorandum posted at the Company’s Bulletin Board as among those who were considered dismissed.

Valeroso vs. Skycable Corporation

G.R. No. 202015. July 13, 2016. FACTS: Valeroso and Legatona, from being direct hires of Skycable were transferred to Skill Plus Manpower Services. They were also informed that their commissions would be reduced due to the introduction of prepaid cards sold to cable subscribers resulting in lower monthly cable subscriptions. Dismayed,  the petitioners informed Pasta, manager, of their intention to file a labor case with the NLRC. Pasta then informed them that they will be dropped from the roster of its account executives, which act, petitioners claimed, constitutes unfair labor practice. Petitioners filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, nonpayment of 13th month pay, separation pay and illegal deduction against Skycable before Labor Arbiter. Respondent claimed that it did not terminate the services of petitioners for there was never an employer-employee relationship to begin with. It averred that in 1998, it engaged petitioners as independent contractors under a Sales Agency Agreement. In 2007, it decided to streamline its operations, as a result petitioners’ contracts were terminated but they were employed by Armada Agency, an independent contractor.

Universal Rubber Products, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals

No. L-30266. June 29, 1984 FACTS: Converse Rubber Corporation and  Edwardson Manufacturing Corporation sued Universal Rubber for unfair competition with damages and attorney’s fees before the Court of First Instance of Rizal. The private respondents requested for the  issuance of a subpoena duces tecum against the treasurer of Universal Rubber which was granted.  Universal Rubber filed a motion in the court below praying that the subpoena duces tecum be quashed on the grounds that the said subpoena is both unreasonable and oppressive as (a) there is no good cause shown for the issuance thereof and (b) the question of liability should be determined first before discovery by means of a subpoena duces tecum is allowed. It also assails that private respondent is a foreign corporation not licensed to do business in the Philippines and that respondent Edwardson is merely its licensee; that respondent Converse has no goodwill to speak of and that it has no registrable right over its own name.

Marvex Commercial Co., Inc. vs. Petra Hawpia & Co.

No. L-19297. December 22, 1966. FACTS: Petra Hawpia & Co., a partnership duly organized under the laws of the Philippines filed a petition for the registration of the trademark “LIONPAS” used on medicated plaster, with the Philippine Patent Office, asserting its continuous use in the Philippines since June 9, 1958. The Marvex Commercial Co., Inc. filed an opposition thereto, alleging that the registration of such trademark would violate its right to and interest in the trademark “SALONPAS” used on another medicated plaster and that both trademarks when used on medicated plaster would mislead the public as they are confusingly similar. The Director of Patents in his decision gave due course to the petition, stating in part that “confusion, mistake, or deception among the purchasers will not likely and reasonably occur.  The Marvex Commercial argued that the application be rejected on the ground that (a) the applicant is not the owner of the trademark “LIONPAS” and (b) “LIONPAS” confusingly similar to the trademark “SALONPAS”. 

La Chemise Lacoste, S.A. vs. Fernandez

Nos. L-63796-97. May 21, 1984 FACTS: La Chemise Lacoste, S.A., a well known European manufacturer of clothings and sporting apparels sold in the international market and bearing the trademarks “LACOSTE”, “CHEMISE LACOSTE”, “CROCODILE DEVICE” and a composite mark consisting of the word “LACOSTE” and a representation of a crocodile/alligator.  In 1975, Hemandas & Co., a duly licensed domestic firm applied for and was issued the Supplemental Register of the trademark “CHEMISE LACOSTE & CROCODILE DEVICE” by the Philippine Patent Office for use on T-shirts, sportswear and other garment products of the company. Thereafter, it assigned to Gobindram Hemandas all rights, title, and interest in the trademark.  In 1980, La Chemise filed its application for registration of the trademark “Crocodile Device” (Application Serial No. 43242) and “Lacoste” (Application Serial No. 43241).  La Chemise filed with the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) a letter-complaint alleging therein the acts of unfair competition being committed by Hemandas and requesting their assistance in his apprehension and prosecution. The NBI filed with the trial court two applications for the issuance of search warrants which would authorize the search of the premises used and occupied by the Lacoste Sports Center and Games and Garments both owned and operated by Hemandas.

Sony Computer Entertainment, Inc. vs. Bright Future Technologies, Inc.

G.R. No. 169156. February 15, 2007. FACTS:  Inspector Macatlang of the Philippine National Police applied for eight search warrants for copyright and trademark infringement after a complaint was received from Sony Computer Entertainment, Inc. (SCEI). After the Search Warrants were issued by Manila Regional Trial Court, a raid was conducted on the premises of Bright Future Technologies, Inc. (BFTI). BFTI filed an Urgent Motion to Quash and/or to Exclude or Suppress Evidence and Return Seized Articles, alleging that (a) The searching team entered the premises and conducted the search without any witness in violation of the Rules of Court; (b) SCEI had no personality to represent the People of the Philippines in the case and to file the opposition to the motion because SCEI’s agents were mere witnesses of the applicant for the issuance of the search warrants (c) the use of bolt cutter to enter into the premises is unnecessary thus violative of  Section 7 of Rule 126

Maguan vs. Court of Appeals

No. L-45101. November 28, 1986 FACTS:  Rosario Maguan,  is doing business under the firm name and style of “SWAN MANUFACTURING”, is a patent holder of powder puff. Maguan informed and ordered Susana Luchan, that the powder puffs she is manufacturing and selling are substantially identical of her. She explained such production and sale constitute infringement of said patents and therefore its immediate discontinuance is demanded, otherwise it will be compelled to take judicial action. Luchan stated that her products are not identical, or even if substantially identical, by way of affirmative defenses, further alleged that Maguan’s patents in question are void on the following grounds: (1) at the time of filing of application for the patents involved, the utility models applied for were not new and patentable  since it existed and were publicly known and used as early as 1963  and (2) the person to whom the patents were issued was not the true and actual author of the utility models applied for, and neither did she derive her rights from any true and actual author of these utility models.

Smith Kline Beckman Corporation vs. Court of Appeals

G.R. No. 126627. August 14, 2003.* When the language of its claims is clear and distinct, the patentee is bound thereby and may not claim anything beyond them. FACTS:  In 1986, Smith Kline Beckman Corporation,  a foreign corporation licensed to do business in the Philippines filed before the Philippine Patent Office an application for patent over an invention entitled “Methods and Compositions for Producing Biphasic Parasiticide Activity Using Methyl 5 Propylthio-2-Benzimidazole Carbamate.” The application bore Serial No. 18989. In 1981,  Letters Patent No. 145611 for the aforesaid invention was issued to petitioner for a term of seventeen (17) years. The letters patent provides in its claims that the patented invention consisted of a new compound named methyl 5 propylthio-2-benzimidazole carbamate and the methods or compositions utilizing the compound as an active ingredient in fighting infections caused by gastrointestinal parasites and lungworms in animals such as swine, sheep, cattle, goats, horses, and even pet animals. Tryco Pharma Corporation (private respondent) is a domestic corporation that manufactures, distributes and sells veterinary products including Impregon, a drug that has Albendazole for its active ingredient and is claimed to be effective against gastrointestinal roundworms, lungworms, tapeworms and fluke infestation in carabaos, cattle and goats.

Paris-Manila, Perfume Co. vs. Phœnix Assurance Co.; No. 25845. December 17, 1926

FACTS: In May 1924, Phœnix Assurance Co., (corporation under Great Britain Law) issued a fire insurance Policy No. 841163 in the sum of P13,000 upon the property of Paris-Manila. With the knowledge of the defendant, the property was also insured in two other companies, one for P12,000, and the other for P5,000.  The property covered by the insurance was completely destroyed by fire for the total loss to the plaintiff of P38,025.56. Upon presentation of the claim, Phoenix unjustly refused to pay. Petitioner also requested the defendant to appoint an arbitrator under the provisions of section 17 of the policy, which was also denied. The denial of Phoenix Insurance is on the ground that (a) the policywas issued “to one Peter Johnson, as proprietor of ParisManila Perfumery Co.,” and that the company was not the insured named in the policy (b) “the policy of insurance did not cover any loss or damage occasioned by explosion, and that the loss was occasioned by an explosion, and was not covered by the policy. (c) the claim of the plaintiff is fraudulent as to the quantity and value of the insured property at the time of the fire, thus all benefits are forfeited. It relies on Sec.6 of the policy which provides that the insurance policy shall not cover any Loss or damage occasioned by explosion.

Bonifacio Bros. vs. Mora; No. L-20853. May 29, 1967.

FACTS: Enrique Mora, owner of an Oldsmobile sedan model 1956, bearing plate No. QC-8088, mortgaged the same to the H.S. Reyes, Inc., with the condition that the former would insure the automobile with the latter as beneficiary. The automobile was thereafter insured on June 23, 1959 with the State Bonding & Insurance Co,, Inc.  During the effectivity of the insurance contract, the car met with an accident. Enrique Mora, without the knowledge and consent of the H.S. Reyes, Inc., authorized the Bonifacio Bros. Inc. to furnish the labor and materials, some of which were supplied by the Ayala Auto Parts Co. The car was delivered to Enrique Mora without the consent of the H.S, Reyes, Inc., and without payment to the Bonifacio Bros. Inc. and the Ayala Auto Parts Co. of the cost of repairs and materials,

New Life Enterprises vs. CA, 207 SCRA 609, (1992)

Doctrine: If such terms are clear and unambiguous, they must be taken and understood in their plain, ordinary and popular sense. Moreover, obligations arising from contracts have the force of law between the contracting parties and should be complied with in good faith. FACTS: Newlife Enterprises insured its stocks with Western Guaranty Corporation, Reliance Surety and Insurance Co., Inc., and Equitable Insurance Corporation. In 1982, the building was gutted by fire where the stocks insured are placed. According to the certification issued the cause of fire was electrical in nature. After the fire, the petitioner went to the insurance companies to file a claim. Ultimately, the three insurance companies denied plaintiffs’ claim for payment  for breach of policy conditions. It allegedly violated Conditions No. 3 & 27 of the insurance contract where it provides that it must state or endorse thereon the other insurance coverage obtained or subsequently effected on the same stocks. Petitioners contend that they are not to be blamed for the omissions, alleging that insurance agents knew about the existence of the additional insurance coverage d that they were not informed about the requirement that such other or additional insurance should be stated in the policy, as they have not even read policies

Pioneer Insurance and Surety vs. Yap, 61 SCRA 426 (1974)

DOCTRINE A condition in the policy which requires the insured to disclose to the insurer of any insurance that, if violated by the insured, would ipso facto avoid the contract Respondent Oliva Yap was the owner of a store in a two- storey building located at No. 856 Juan Luna Street, Manila, where in 1962 she sold shopping bags and footwear, such as shoes, sandals and step-ins. Chua Soon Poon, Oliva Yap’s son-in-law, was in charge of the store.  On April 19, 1962, Yap took out Fire Insurance Policy No. 4216 from  Pioneer Insurance & Surety Corporation with a face value of P25,000.00 covering her stocks, office furniture, fixtures and fittings of every kind and description.  In the policy, it was stipulated that the Insured shall give notice to the Company of any insurance or insurances already effected, or which may subsequently be effected, covering any of the property hereby insured, and unless such notice be given and the particulars of such insurance or insurances be stated in or endorsed on this Policy by or on behalf of the Company before the occurrence of any loss or damage, all benefits under this Policy shall be forfeited. 

Qua Chee Gan vs. Law Union, 98 PhiI. 85 (1955)

Where the insurer, at the time of the issuance of a policy of insurance, has knowledge of existing facts which, if insisted on, would invalidate the contract from its very inception, such knowledge constitutes a waiver of conditions in the contract inconsistent with the known facts, and the insurer is stopped thereafter from asserting the breach of such conditions. FACTS: Qua Chee Gan, a merchant, owned 4 warehouses in Albay which were used for the storage of copra and hemp in which the appelle deals with exclusively. The warehouses together with the contents were insured with Law Union since 1937 and the loss made payable to PNB as mortgagee of the hemp and copra. A fire of undetermined cause broke out on July 21, 1940 and lasted for almost 1 whole week. Qua Chee informed the insurer of the unfortunate event and submitted the corresponding fire claims. Insurer refused to pay claiming violations of the warranties and conditions – (a) fire hydrant warranty: the appellee should have 11 fire hydrants in the compound, and that he actually had only two 2 (b) filing of fraudulent claims and that the fire had been deliberately caused by the insured. Insured filed an action before CFI which rendered a decision in favor of the insured.

Pacific Banking vs. CA 168 SCRA 1 (1988)

DOCTRINE: If the whole foundation of the contract fails, the risk does not attach and the policy never becomes a contract between the parties. Representations of facts are the foundation of the contract and if the foundation does not exist, the superstructure does not arise. FACTS: Paramount Shirt Mfg. Co., a shirt factory, had a fire insurance policy (open policy) with Oriental Assurance Corporation for an amount not exceeding P61k. Pacific Banking was Paramount’s creditor for P800k. The goods covered by the insurance were held in trust by Paramount for the benefit of Pacific under a trust receipt. Paramount endorsed the policy to Pacific as mortgagor/trustor with Oriental’s consent. The endorsement stated: “loss if any under this policy is payable to the Pacific Banking Corporation.” The goods insured were then totally destroyed by fire. Pacific demanded indemnity from Oriental. The latter refused on ground that, according to its adjuster, Pacific was yet to file a formal claim with it and submit proof of loss. Pacific then informed the adjuster to verify the loss with the Bureau of Customs, and again demanded payment from Oriental which remained unheeded.

Edillon vs. Manila Bankers Life, 717 SCRA 187 (1982)

FACTS: Carmen O, Lapuz applied with Manila Bankers for insurance coverage against accidents and injuries. She gave the date of her birth as July 11, 1904. She paid the sum of P20.00 representing the premium for which she was issued the corresponding receipt. The policy was to be effective for 90 days. During the effectivity, Carmen O. Lapuz died in a vehicular accident in the North Diversion Road. Petitioner Regina L. Edillon, a sister of the insured and the beneficiary in the policy, filed her claim for the proceeds of the insurance. Her claim having been denied, Regina L. Edillon instituted this action in the trial court.

Manila Bankers Life Insurance Corp. vs. Aban

G.R. No. 175666, July 29, 2013 FACTS: Delia Sotero (Sotero) took out a life insurance policy from Manila Bankers Life Insurance Corporation (Bankers Life), designating respondent Cresencia P. Aban (Aban), her niece, as her beneficiary. When the insurance policy had been in force for more than two years and seven months, Sotero died. Respondent filed a claim for the insurance proceeds on July 9, 1996.  Petitioner conducted an investigation into the claim and found that Sotero was sickly since 1990 and the respondent was the one who filed the insurance application, and designated herself as the beneficiary. Petitioner denied respondent’s claim on April 16, 1997 and refunded the premiums paid on the policy Petitioner filed a civil case for rescission and/or annulment of the policy. Aban argued that petitioner’s cause of action was barred by prescription pursuant to Section 48 of the Insurance Code, which provides as follows:

Tan vs. CA, 174 SCRA 403 (1989)

FACTS: Tan Lee Siong was issued a policy by Philamlife on Nov. 6, 1973 for P80,000. On April 26, 1975, Tan died of hepatoma.  His beneficiaries then filed a claim with Philamlife for the proceeds of the insurance.The claim was denied on the ground of misrepresentation and concealment of material facts.   The beneficiaries contend that Philamlife can no longer rescind the contract on the ground of misrepresentation as rescission must allegedly be done “during the lifetime of the insured” within two years and prior to the commencement of the action following the wording of Sec. 48, par. 2.

Sunlife vs. CA, 245 SCRA 268 (1995)

FACTS: On April 15, 1986, Bacani procured a life insurance contract for himself from Sun Life. He was issued a life insurance policy with double indemnity in case of accidental death. The designated beneficiary was his mother, Bernarda. On June 26, 1987, the insured died in a plane crash. Bernarda Bacani filed a claim with Sun Life, seeking the benefits of the insurance.  Sun Life rejected the claim on the ground that the insured did not disclose material facts relevant to the issuance of the policy, thus rendering the contract of insurance voidable. A check representing the total premiums paid in the amount of P10,172.00 was attached to said letter. Sun Life discovered that 2 weeks prior to his application, Bacani was examined and confined at the Lung Center of the Philippines, where he was diagnosed for renal failure. During his confinement, the deceased was subjected to urinalysis, ultrasonography and hematology tests.  Sunlife claimed that the insured gave false statements in his application when he answered the following questions:

Great Pacific Life vs. CA, 89 SCRA 643 (1979)

FACTS: A contract of group life insurance was executed between petitioner Great Pacific Life Assurance Corporation (hereinafter Grepalife) and Development Bank of the Philippines (hereinafter DBP). Grepalife agreed to insure the lives of eligible housing loan mortgagors of DBP.  On November 11, 1983, Dr. Wilfredo Leuterio, a physician and a housing debtor of DBP applied and granted by Grepalife of insurance to the extent of his DBP mortgage indebtedness amounting to eighty-six thousand, two hundred (P86,200.00) pesos. In 1984, Dr. Leuterio died due to massive cerebral hemorrhage. Grepalife denied the claims of DBP alleging that Dr. Leuterio was not physically healthy when he applied for insurance. Grepalife insisted that Dr. Leuterio did not disclose he had been suffering from hypertension, which caused his death. Allegedly, such non-disclosure constituted concealment that justified the denial of the claim.

Canilang vs. CA, 223 SCRA 443 (1993)

After Jaime Canilang was diagnosed with “sinus tachycardia” and “acute bronchitis”, he applied for life insurance with  Great Pacific Life Assurance Company (“Great Pacific”) naming his wife, petitioner Thelma Canilang, as his beneficiary. Jaime Canilang was issued ordinary life insurance Policy No. 345163, with the face value of P19,700, effective as of 9 August 1982. After a year, Jaime died of “congestive heart failure,” “anemia,” and “chronic anemia.”2 Petitioner, widow and beneficiary of the insured, filed a claim with Great Pacific which the insurer denied on 5 December 1983 upon the ground that the insured had concealed material information from it.

Florendo v. Philam Plans, Inc. et.al.; G.R. No 186983, Feb. 22, 2012

FACTS: Manuel Florendo obtained a pension plan with Philam Plans. The plan had a pre-need price of P997,050.00, payable in 10 years, and had a maturity value of P2,890,000.00 after 20 years. Manuel signed the application and left to Perla the task of supplying the information needed in the application. Respondent Ma. Celeste Abcede, Perla’s daughter, signed the application as sales counselor. Under the master policy, Philam Life was to automatically provide life insurance coverage, including accidental death, to all who signed up for Philam Plans’ comprehensive pension plan. If the plan holder died before the maturity of the plan, his beneficiary was to instead receive the proceeds of the life insurance, equivalent to the pre-need price. Eleven months later Manuel died of blood poisoning. Subsequently, Lourdes filed a claim with Philam Plans for the payment of the benefits under her husband’s plan. Because Manuel died before his pension plan matured and his wife was to get only the benefits of his life insurance.  Philam declined the claim upon findings that Manuel was on maintenance medicine for his heart and had an implanted pacemaker. Further, he suffered from diabetes mellitus and was taking insulin.

DONOR’S TAX

DEFINITION: Art. 725. Donation is an act of liberality whereby a person disposes gratuitously of a thing or right in favor of another, who accepts it. (Civil Code)  It is a tax imposed on the exercise of the donor’s right during lifetime to transfer property to others in the form of a gift. Hence, donor’s tax is not a property tax but an excise tax imposed on the transfer of property by way of gift inter-vivos.  Donor’s Tax is a direct tax because it is a tax imposed on the donor and determined with reference to all donor’s gifts.  Applies to both natural and juridical person Completion and Perfection of Donation: The donor’s tax shall apply if there is already completed gift. The transfer of property is perfected from the moment the donor knows the acceptance by the donee. On the other hand, it is completed by delivery of the donated property to the donee. The Law that governs the imposition of donor’s tax is the law at the time of the perfection/completion of the donation. 

Ramie Textiles, Inc. vs. Mathay, Sr.; No. L-32364. April 30, 1979

Topic: Real and Local Property Taxation Doctrine:  Payment was made through error or mistake, in the honest belief that petitioner was liable, and therefore could not have been made under protest, but with complete voluntariness. In any case, a taxpayer should not be held to suffer loss by his good intention to comply with what he believes is his legal obligation, where such obligation does not really exist.

Government Service Insurance System vs. City Treasurer of the City of Manila; G.R. No. 186242.  December 23, 2009

Topic: Real and Local Property Taxation DOCTRINE:  Beneficial Use Rule – the unpaid tax attaches to the property and is chargeable against the taxable person who had actual or beneficial use and possession of it regardless of whether or not he is the owner.

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Icasiano, Jr. vs. Sandiganbayan

G.R. No. 95642. May 28, 1992 MAIN TOPIC – Double Jeopardy FACTS On February 17, 1987, Romana Magbago filed an administrative complaint with the Supreme court against then acting Municipal Trial Court Judge of Naic, Cavite, petitioner Aurelio G, Icasiano, Jr. for grave abuse of authority, manifest partiality and incompetence. The administrative complaint arose from two (2) orders of detention  issued by Icasiano against Magbago for contempt of court. In 1988, the Supreme Court dismissed the complaint for lack of merit.

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Poe-Llamanzares vs. Commission on Elections

G.R. No. 221697 / G.R. Nos. 221698-700  March 8, 2016 MAIN TOPIC – Freedom of Speech and To Peacefully Assemble and Petition Government for Redress of Grievance FACTS Mary Grace Natividad S. Poe-Llamanzares (petitioner) was found abandoned as a newborn infant in the Parish Church of Jaro, Iloilo by a certain Edgardo Militar (Edgardo) on 3 September 1968. When petitioner was five (5) years old, she was legally adopted by celebrity spouses Ronald Allan Kelley Poe (a.k.a. Fernando Poe, Jr.) and Jesusa Sonora Poe (a.k.a. Susan Roces). Initially, the petitioner enrolled and pursued a degree in Development Studies at the University of the Philippines but she opted to continue her studies abroad and left for the United States of America (U.S.) in 1988. She immigrated to the US in 1991 after her marriage to Theodore Llamanzares who was then based at the US. In 2001, petitioner became a naturalized American citizen and obtained U.S. Passport.

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Lupangco vs. Court of Appeals

No. L-77372. April 29, 1988 MAIN TOPIC – Academic Freedom FACTS In 1986, Professional Regulation Commission (PRC) issued Resolution No. 105 as part of its “Additional Instructions to Examinees,” to all those applying for admission to take the licensure examinations in accountancy. The resolution embodied the following pertinent provisions: “No examinee shall attend any review class, briefing, conference or the like conducted by, or shall receive any hand-out, review material, or any tip from any school, college or university, or any review center or the like or any reviewer, lecturer, instructor official or employee of any of the aforementioned or similar institutions during the three days immediately preceding every examination day including the examination day.

Law School Notes - Case Digest

IDEALS, Inc. v. PSALM Corporation

GR No. 192088, Oct. 9, 2012 FACTS:  PSALM is a GOCC mandated by RA 9136 (Electric Power Industry Reform Act of 2001 or the EPIRA Law) to manage the orderly sale, disposition, and privatization of the assets of the National Power Corporation (NPC). In the discharge of its said duties, PSALM held a public bidding for the sale of AHEPP, a 246-MW hydroelectric power plant. After evaluating the submitted bids, PSALM awarded the sale to K-Water, a Korean company. Petitioners filed for a petition with prayer for a temporary restraining order (TRO) and/or writ of preliminary injunction , they alleged that PSALM violated the constitutional provisions on the appropriation and utilization of water as a natural resource, as implemented by the Water Code of the Philippines limiting water rights to Filipino citizens and corporations which are at least 60% Filipino-owned.

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Republic vs. Vda. de Joson

FACTS:  The respondent filed application for land registration under  her name by alleging that she and her predecessors-in-interest had been in open, peaceful, continuous, uninterrupted and adverse possession of the land in the concept of owner since time immemorial.   However, at the initial hearing of the application, Fiscal Liberato L. Reyes interposed an opposition in behalf of the Director of Lands and the Bureau of Public Works. The Republic insist that the land was within the unclassified which were denominated as forest lands and thus was public land; and that it could not be acquired by prescription. The CFI rendered its decision, ordering the registration of the land in favor of the respondent on the ground that she had sufficiently established her open, public, continuous, and adverse possession in the concept of an owner for more than 30 years.

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Walter E. Olsen & Co., Inc. vs. Aldanese

G.R. No. L-18740, March 29, 1922. FACTS Petitioner, a duly licensed domestic corporation, provides that, under the Tariff Act, it had the legal right to export from the Philippine Islands into the United States it’s manufactured tobacco. In 1916, the Philippine Legislature enacted Law No. 2613 entitled “An Act to improve the methods of production and the quality of tobacco in the Philippine and to develop the export trade therein.” The law allegedly empowers the Collector of Internal Revenue to establish rules defining the standard and the type of leaf and manufactured tobacco which may be exported into the United States. It also enjoins it as a duty to issue a certificate of origin and to permit the exportation to the United States of all cigars manufactured of material and tobacco.  

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Bacani vs. National Coconut Corp

G.R. No. L-9657, November 29, 1956. FACTS Plaintiffs herein are court stenographers. National Coconut Corporation, Assistant Corporate Counsel Federico Alikpala requested the stenographers for copies of the transcript of the stenographic notes taken by them during the hearing of Civil Case No. 2293 entitled Francisco Sycip vs. National Coconut Corporation. Plaintiffs complied with the request and thereafter submitted to him their bills for the payment of their fees amounting to P714.00. The Auditor General required the plaintiffs to reimburse said amounts on the strength of a circular of the Department of Justice wherein the opinion was expressed that the National Coconut Corporation, being a government entity, was exempt from the payment of the fees in question. The Auditor General issued an order directing the Cashier of the Department of Justice to deduct from the salary of plaintiffs the subject amounts. To prevent deduction of these fees from their salaries and secure a judicial ruling that the National Coconut Corporation is not a government entity within the purview of section 16, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court. 

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Peran vs. Presiding Judge, Br. II, CFI of Sorsogon

No. L-57259. October 13, 1983. Main Topic – Rule 70. FACTS Peran personally asked respondents, who has a house erected on the subject land, to remove the same and vacate the premises. The respondents refused so the petitioner filed a complaint for Forcible Entry and Illegal Detainer seeking the ejectment seeking the ejectment of the respondents on the grounds that (a) they are mere squatters (b) that they had prevented him from entering the property and deprived him of possession and (c) and that they were tolerating persons in getting soil and bringing about a gradual erosion of the land to his extreme prejudice.

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Rural Bank of Oroquieta (Mis. Occ.), Inc. vs. Court of Appeals

No. 53466. November 10, 1980. Main Topic – Rule 68. FACTS The failure of Serrano Spouses on paying the mortgaged debt resulted in Trial Court’s order for the sale at public auction of the mortgaged coconut land. The mortgaged lot was sold to the bank as the only bidder and there being no redemption within the one-year period (sec. 78, General Banking Law), the sheriff issued a final certificate of sale. The bank then sold the lot to Eufemia Mejos. Judge Genato issued an order directing the issuance of a writ of possession to the bank. 

Law School Notes - Case Digest

National Power Corp. vs. Court of Appeals

No. L-56378. June 22, 1984 Main Topic – Rule 67. FACTS NPC instituted proceedings for eminent domain against the spouses Sadang purpose of constructing an access road to its Angat River Hydroelectric Project.

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Garcia vs. Perez

No. L-28184. September 11, 1980 Main Topic – Rule 65. FACTS Garcia filed with the Civil Service Commission, a protest against the appointment of the Perez on the ground that she was next in rank better qualified and entitled to preferential appointment to the position of Senior Clerk. The CSC approved the appointment of Perez.  Garcia then filed a petition for quo warranto with Court of First Instance of Manila, questioning the authority of Perez. to occupy and discharge the duties of the position of Senior Clerk in the Fiscal Management and Budget Division. The court a quo dismissed the complaint on the ground that the petitioner does not claim to be entitled to the position but she merely asserted a ‘preferential right’ to be appointed thereto. Under the situation, the petitioner has no cause of action against the respondent. 

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Turqueza vs. Hernando

No. L-51626. April 30, 1980. Main Topic – Rule 65. FACTS Turqueza instituted an action for recovery of damages on the ground of injury sustained involving a Ford pick-up vehicle belonging to the CDCP Mining and a Willy’s passenger jeep owned and operated by M. Pacapac.  No one appeared during the pre-trial despite due notice to both the private respondent and its counsel. On motion of petitioners, respondent judge declared respondent in default and petitioners were allowed to submit their evidence. The trial court rendered Pacapac in default and ordered her to pay for moral and compensatory damages. No appeal was taken and the judgment became final and executory.

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Silverio vs. Court of Appeals

No. L-39861. March 17, 1986. Main Topic – Rule 65. FACTS Silverio filed a case for the recovery of the amount he entrusted to Mendoza, in connection with a proposed purchase of a Forbes Park realty. The trial court rendered its decision in favor of Silverio and subsequently denied the motion for reconsideration instituted by Mendoza. Aggrieved, Mendoza initiated certiorari proceedings in the Court of Appeals seeking the annulment of the order of the trial court and the issuance of preliminary injunction against the petitioners. The Court of Appeals dismissed Mendoza’s certiorari petition and granted Silverio’s motion for execution for payment of the principal, legal interest and attorney’s fees.  Mendoza filed for a certiorari petition questioning the authority of the court a quo to grant and order the partial execution of a judgment that had not yet acquired finality. Silverio filed a motion to dismiss Mendoza’s appeal with Court of Appeals on the ground that the said appeal rendered moot and academic or barred by the dismissal of the petition for certiorari. Mendoza asserted that the appellate court’s dismissal of his certiorari petition constituted no bar to his appeal, for the decision decreeing the said dismissal resolved not the merits of the controversy subject of the order a quo dated July 17, 1973 but the issue as to the jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion of the said court a quo in rendering the said order.

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Soriano vs. Atienza

G.R. No. 68619. March 16, 1989. Main Topic – Rule 65. FACTS Petitioners filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, unfair labor practice and moral damages against Shellwood Industries (SHELWOOD). It appears that SHELLWOOD entered into a compromise agreement with the petitioners and agreed to give financial assistance amounting to P20,000.00 in lieu of union’s withdrawal of a case. SHELWOOD instead of paying the petitioners, terminated their service. The labor arbiter ordered the company to reinstate the petitioners and extend financial assistance equivalent to six (6) months of their respective salaries. On appeal to the NLRC, affirmed the judgment but deleted the award of financial assistance. The deletion is based on the ground that the company did not act in bad faith in terminating the petitioners since it merely complied with the request of the certified union for the dismissal of employees expelled from the union pursuant to the union security clause in the Collective Bargaining Agreement

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Searth Commodities Corp. vs. Court of Appeals

G.R. No. 64220. March 31, 1992. Main Topic – Rule 58. FACTS Searth borrowed from Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP) amounting to P370,000 to finance its tomato plantation in La Union. In 1974, Searth failed to pay its agricultural loan which resulted to the foreclosure of the real estate and chattel mortgage executed. Title to the foreclosed properties were thereafter consolidated in the name of DBP. In 1980, DBP advertised to sell some of its acquired assets, including the subject residential properties previously owned by petitioners Camacho, Castro and Taroja. Petitioners filed for annulment of real estate mortgages and foreclosure sale and the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction to enjoin the sale of the residential properties. The Trial Court issued an order restraining the bidding of the individual properties of the petitioners. After the expiration of the restraining order the petitioners moved for its extension.

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Decano vs. Edu

No L-30070. August 29 1980. Main Topic – Rule 58 FACTS Frederico Decano was temporarily appointed to the position of janitor in the Motor Vehicles Office  in Dagupan City by Undersecretary of Public Works and Communications. The appointment was approved by the Commissioner of Civil Service and Decano served therein for almost four years. In 1966, C. Posadas, as Acting Registrar – Land Transportation Commission (LTC) – Dagupan City , received a telegram from R. Edu, as Acting Commissioner of Land Transportation Commission (LTC), terminating Decano’s services effective as of the close of business on that day.   Decano filed a petition for “Mandamus and Injunction” with the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan, claiming that the officials of the LTC acted without power and in excess of authority in removing him from the service. He prayed for the annulment of the dismissal order issued. The Court granted the writ of preliminary injunction and ordered the respondents to “to desist and refrain from disturbing, molesting or otherwise ousting the petitioner from his position as janitor and to pay Decano his corresponding salary from the date of notice of said preliminary injunction, until further orders from the Court.

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Magaling vs. Ong

G.R. No. 173333. August 13, 2008. Main Topic – Rule 57. FACTS Ong instituted a Complaint for the collection of the sum of money with prayer for issuance of a writ of preliminary attachment against Spouses Magaling and Termo Loans Corporation for its failure to pay its signed promissory note. The RTC granted the issuance of a writ of preliminary attachment grounded on the allegation that Spouses Magaling and Termo Loans  “were guilty of fraud in contracting the obligation subject of the complaint for sum of money”. The RTC also issued an Order directing the issuance of the writ prayed for upon the filing of a bond in the amount of P390,000.00. 

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Consolidated Plywood Industries, Inc. vs. Breva

No. L-82811. October 18, 1988. Main Topic – Rule 57. FACTS Consolidated Plywood Industries (CPI) filed a suit for collection for reimbursement for the repairs, improvements and guard fees it allegedly spent in the co-owned parcel of land against its co-owner, MHEC. Summons were not served for the reason that MHEC is no longer doing business at said address and nobody around the place knows the present whereabouts of said defendant. The Trial Court ordered the service of summons by publication. Publication was effected in the newspaper, Philippine Daily Inquirer and copy of the alias summons was also sent by registered mail addressed to MHEC. No answer being filed within the sixty-day period after last publication prescribed in the alias summons, MHEC was declared in default and CPII thereafter presented its evidence ex parte. 

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Sps. Padua vs. Court of Appeals

G.R. No. 152150. December 10, 2008. Main Topic – Rule 50. FACTS Unibandcard, engaged in the business of extending credit accommodations, instituted a collection suit against Spouses Padua. During the pre-trial, petitioners filed a motion to declare Unibancard non-suited due to insufficiency of the Special Power of Attorney (SPA) executed by Unibancard to authorize Atty. Noel Mingoa to appear in its behalf. The RTC granted the motion and dismissed the case.  Unibancard filed a Notice of Appeal Ad Cautelam with the Court of Appeals, however, they failed to file appellant’s brief within the period provided by the Court. They explained that a computer virus plagued all the computers of its counsel’s law firm and rendered the file containing its appellant’s brief inaccessible. Spouses Padua filed a Motion to Dismiss Appeal on the ground that the Notice of Appeal was filed beyond the 15-day reglementary period to appeal under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. The CA denied motion to dismiss appeal and Motion for reconsideration for the denial the dismissal of appeal.

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Leynes vs. Former Tenth Division of the Court of Appeals

G.R. No. 154462. January 19, 2011. Main Topic – Rule 45. FACTS Spouses Superales filed a complaint for forcible entry, damages, and attorney’s fees against the Spouses Leynes before the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC). However, Spouse Leynes filed their Answer with Counterclaim and Motion to Admit Belatedly Filed Answer after the 10-day period for the filing of answer prescribed. Spouses Superales subsequently filed an Ex Parte Motion for Judgment, in which they prayed that since the spouses Leynes failed to file their answer to the Complaint within the prescribed period, then judgment could now be rendered based on the evidence and allegations contained in the Complaint. The MCTC rendered its Judgment denying the Spouses Leynes’ Motion to Admit Belatedly Filed Answer and resolving the case entirely in the Spouses Superales’ favor.

Law School Notes - Case Digest

De Liano vs. Court of Appeals

G.R. No. 142316, November 22, 2001. Main Topic – Rule 44. FACTS Petitioners filed an appeal with the CA with regard to the decision of RTC – Quezon City granting the release of duplicate copy of TCT and the originals of REM contracts in favor of B. Tango. The appellee filed a “Motion to Dismiss Appeal” on the ground that the Appellants’ Brief failed to comply with Section 13, Rule 44 of the Rules of Court.  In defense, petitioners argued that the omissions were only the result of oversight or inadvertence and as such could be considered “harmless” errors. They prayed for liberality in the application of technical rules, adding that they have a meritorious defense. 

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Luzon Development Bank vs. Association of Luzon Development Bank Employees

G.R. No. 120319. October 6, 1995. Main Topic – Rule 43. FACTS Atty. Ester S. Garcia, in her capacity as Voluntary Arbitrator, received ALDBE’s Position Paper, on the other hand, LDB failed to submit its Position Paper despite a letter from the Voluntary Arbitrator reminding them to do so. Without LDB’s Position Paper, the Voluntary Arbitrator rendered decision that LDB has not adhered to the Collective Bargaining Agreement provision nor the Memorandum of Agreement on promotion.  LDB filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition seeking to set aside the decision of the Voluntary Arbitrator and to prohibit her from enforcing the same with the Supreme Court. 

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Neypes vs. Court of Appeals

G.R. No. 141524, September 14, 2005. Main Topic – Rule 40. FACTS The petitioners filed a filed an action for annulment of judgment and titles of land before the RTC – O. Mindoro. The petitioners filed various motions including (a) dismissal of motion and (d) declaration of default of respondents. On February 12, 1998 the trial court upon motion for reconsideration by the respondents granted the dismissal of  petitioners’ complaint on the ground that the action had already prescribed. Petitioners allegedly received a copy of the order of dismissal on March 3, 1998 and, on the 15th day thereafter or on March 18, 1998, filed a motion for reconsideration. On July 1, 1998, the trial court issued another order dismissing the motion for reconsideration which petitioners received on July 22, 1998. Five days later, on July 27, 1998, petitioners filed a notice of appeal and paid the appeal fees on August 3, 1998. On August 4, 1998, the court a quo denied the notice of appeal, holding that it was filed eight days late.  

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Mijares vs. Ranada

G.R. No. 139325. April 12, 2005. MAIN TOPIC – Rule 39. FACTS Petitioners, prominent victims of human rights violations during Marcos Regime, filed a Complaint with the Regional Trial Court – Makati for the enforcement of the Final Judgment. They alleged that they are members of the plaintiff class in whose favor the US District Court awarded damages. The US District Court rendered a Final Judgment awarding the plaintiff class a total of 1,964,005,859.90.  They argued that since the Marcos Estate failed to file a petition for certiorari with the US Supreme Court after the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals had affirmed the Final Judgment, the decision of the US District Court had become final and executory, and hence should be recognized and enforced in the Philippines, pursuant to Section 50, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court then in force. 

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Mocorro vs. Ramirez

G.R. No. 178366. July 28, 2008 MAIN TOPIC – Rule 39. FACTS The Philippine Gamefowl Commission (PGC), declare and recognize D. Mocorro to be the rightful cockpit operator in the Municipality of Caibiran, Leyte. In 1992, Mocorro applied  for the renewal of the registration of his cockpit however, for some reason, Mayor Ramirez refused to issue him a business permit. There is also showing that respondent issued a special permit holding of cockfight in Caibiran in favor of Rosario and Azur. In 1992, petitioner filed with the RTC – Biliran a suit for injunction against the respondent. The RTC issued a writ of preliminary injunction enjoining respondent from holding any cockfight within Caibiran until further orders of the court. Despite the injunction, cockfights continued to be staged which prompted the petitioner to file a motion to cite respondent in contempt of court. The RTC held that the defendants are guilty of indirect contempt for contumacious disobedience of and resistance to writ of preliminary injunction issued by this court and was ordered to pay actual damages of P38,000.00 plus 2,000 every Sunday of each week form the date the defendants started to cause the holding of the cockfight. On June 22, 2001, the CA’s May 31, 2001 Decision became final and executory as evidenced by the corresponding Entry of Judgment. In 2002, the sheriff issued a Notice of Sale on Execution of Real Properties and set a date for public auction.

Law School Notes - Case Digest

City of Manila vs. Court of Appeals

G.R. No. 100626. November 29,1991 MAIN TOPIC – Rule 38 FACTS The City of Manila filed a complaint for unlawful detainer against Army and Navy Club (ANC) for violation of the lease agreement between them over a parcel of land on Roxas Boulevard.  A summary judgment was decided in favor of City of Manila by the Metropolitan Trial Court which is affirmed by the Regional Trial Court. ANC then filed a supersedeas bond and subsequently appealed from the judgment.  The petitioner filed an ex parte motion for execution on the ground that the judgment had already become final and executory under RA 6031. Judge Reyes granted the motion the same day and at 4:00 o’clock that afternoon the writ of execution was served on ANC.

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Cayetano vs. Ceguerra

No. L-18831. January 30, 1965. MAIN TOPIC – Rule 38 FACTS Catalina Cayetano filed a case for Foreclosure of Real Estate Mortgage against Spouses Ceguerra. Within the reglementary period, the defendants filed an Answer in the form of a letter, which provided that the mortgage was deliberately planned. The Court granted the foreclosure instituted on the ground that Spouses Ceguerra was in default due to their failure to file a responsive pleading to the complaint within the reglementary period. It appears that this decision never became known to appellants-spouses, the same having been returned to the Court, as unclaimed.  

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Magno vs. Court of Appeals

No. L-28486. September 10, 1981. MAIN TOPIC – Rule 37. FACTS D.Vergara filed an action for annulment of judgment and of Writ of Execution before the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija against Magno and the Nueva Ecija Provincial Sheriff on the ground that judgment in the Bulacan Case was procured by means of extrinsic fraud. Vergara insisted that he was lured into inaction because of the assurances made by Magno that he will be excluded from the suit. Additionally, he alleged that he was never informed of the pre-trial thereby misleading the Bulacan Court into believing certain false allegations. Magno moved to dismiss the Annulment Suit on the principal ground that the Nueva Ecija Court had no jurisdiction to interfere by Injunction and to nullify a final judgment of the Bulacan Court, which is a Tribunal of concurrent and coordinate jurisdiction.

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Heirs of Amparo del Rosario vs. Santos

No. L-46892. September 30, 1981. MAIN TOPIC – Rule 35 FACTS A complaint for specific performance and damages was filed by Amparo del Rosario for failure of Spouses Santos to execute the Deed of Confirmation of Sale of an undivided 20,000 square meters of land.  The defendants filed a motion to dismiss on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, lack of cause of action and prescription. They also claimed the deed of sale was “only an accommodation graciously extended, out of close friendship which is a mere tentative agreement which was never intended nor meant to be ratified by and acknowledged before a notary public.

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Roque vs. Encarnacion, etc. and Reyes

No. L-6505. August 23, 1954 MAIN TOPIC – Rule 34 FACTS Asuncion Roque, due to alleged infidelity of Francisco Reyes, prays for (a) legal separation, (b) legal custody of the children, (c) liquidation of the conjugal property, and (d) alimony and support for the children.  Reyes denied all the allegations and presented a counterclaim alleging that Asuncion was already a married woman when they contracted the marriage and has been squandering money from him. He also filed a motion for summary judgment and submitted the deposition of former husband of the Asuncion in support of the action. Asuncion filed an opposition on the ground that an action for annulment cannot be a ground for summary judgment.

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Capitol Hills Golf Country Club

G.R. No. 182738. February 24, 2014. MAIN TOPIC – Rule 29. FACTS Manuel Sanchez, stockholder of Capitol Hills filed a (1) petition for nullification of the annual meeting of stockholders  and the special meeting of stockholders and (2) Motion for Production and Inspection of Documents which includes: list of stockholders, all proxies, specimen signatures of all stockholder and tape recordings of the stockholders’ meeting. The production, inspection and photocopying must be undertaken in the office premises of Capitol within reasonable business hours of a business day before the pre-trial. Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration, however, the Court denied the MR and ordered the immediate implementation of inspection and production of documents.

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Metro Manila Shopping Mecca Corp. vs. Toledo

G.R. No. 190818. November 10, 2014. MAIN TOPIC – Rule 26 FACTS Petitioners filed a Manifestation and Motion seeking the approval of the terms and conditions of the Universal Compromise Agreement (UCA) dated June 1, 2012 in lieu of the Court’s Decision dated June 5, 2013 which denied petitioners’ claim for tax refund/credit of their local business taxes.  In accordance with the UCA, petitioners alleged that they agreed to amicably settle all cases between them involving claims for tax refund/credit. The UCA provides that there shall be no refunds/tax credit certificates to be given or issued by the City of Manila. City of Manila confirmed the authenticity and due execution of the UCA however, they submitted that the UCA had no effect with the current decision since the taxes involved in the instant case was not included in the agreement

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Marcelo vs. Sandiganbayan

G.R. No. 156605. August 28, 2007. MAIN TOPIC – Rule 25 FACTS The PCGG, on behalf of the Republic, filed a Complaint for the recovery of ill-gotten wealth with the Sandiganbayan against Marcelo who allegedly took advantage of he’s relationship with the Marcoses to obtain the “favored contract”. The Republic, though the Philippine Navy (PN) entered into a contract with Marcelo Fiberglass Corporation (MFC) for the construction of 55 units of 16.46 fiberglass high-speed boats, at the unit price of P7,200,000.00. The Republic served a Request for Admission on Marcelo, and in response, Marcelo included his own counter-request for admission on matters stated in his response. Republic filed a Third Amended Complaint impleading additional (16) corporations which allegedly are beneficially owned and are dummies of Marcelo. In defense, the other petitioner corporations denied that they are owned, controlled or were acquired by Marcelo who is merely an officer/stockholder.

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Santamaria vs. Cleary

G.R. No. 197122. June 15, 2016. MAIN TOPIC – Rule 23 FACTS Thomas Cleary, an American citizen and Los Angeles resident filed a complaint for specific performance and damages against Miranila Land Development Corporation (MLDC) involving shares of stock.  Cleary moved for court authorization to take deposition before the Consulate-General of the Philippines in Los Angeles and be used as his direct testimony. The respondents  argued that the right to take deposition is not absolute and since Cleary chose the Philippine system to file his suit, the court and the parties must have opportunity to observe his demeanor and directly propound questions on him. The trial court denied Cleary’s Motion and held that depositions are not meant to be a substitute for actual testimony in open court. Cleary elevated the case to the Court of Appeals.

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Lozada, Jr. vs. Macapagal-Arroyo

G.R. Nos. 184379-80. April 24, 2012 MAIN TOPIC – Rule 21 FACTS The Senate of the Philippines Blue Ribbon Committee conduct an investigation and issued a subpoena directing Lozada to appear and testify for the alleged anomalies in the NBN-ZTE corruption scandal. Lozada left the country for a purported official trip to London. In effect, Senate issued an Order (a) citing Lozada for contempt; (b) ordering his arrest and detention; and (c) directing the Senate Sergeant-at-Arms to implement the Order and make a return thereon. When Lozada decided to go back to the Philippines however, he was allegedly held and restrained by several men from government. Violeta   filed   a Petition   for   Habeas   Corpus and Arturo likewise filed a Petition for a Writ of Amparo and prayed for the issuance of  (a) the  writ  of  amparo;  (b)  a  Temporary Protection  Order  (TPO);  and  (c)  Inspection and Production Orders as regards documents related to the authority ordering custody  over  Lozada,  as  well  as any  other document that would show responsibility for his alleged abduction. After Lozada was made to sign a  typewritten,  antedated  letter  requesting police     protection, he was drove back to his place.

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Republic vs. Sandiganbayan

G.R. No. 112710. May 30, 2001 MAIN TOPIC – Rule 23 FACTS Petitioner Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Philippine Commission for Good Government, filed before the Sandiganbayan a complaint for “Reversion, Reconveyance, Restitution, Accounting and Damages”, against group of individuals ( Lucio C. Tan, Ferdinand E. Marcos, Imelda R. Marcos, Carmen Khao Tan, Florencio T. Santos et al).Petitioner filed a “Motion for Leave to Amend and for Admission of Second Amended Complaint” and attached thereto a “Second Amended Complaint.” Petitioner sought to substitute defendant Ferdinand Marcos with his estate, President Marcos having died pendente lite, and include as additional defendants three (3) individuals  and (42) corporations who allegedly participated in the Marcoses’ accumulation of ill-gotten wealth.

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Abenion vs. Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation

G.R. No. 200749. February 6, 2017 FACTS In 1996, Plaintiffs identified themselves as a group of banana plantation worker, filed a case for damages against Shell Oil and other foreign corporations that manufactured, sold, distributed, or used the parasite nematode which caused their sterility and other serious and permanent health injuries. During the pendency of Civil Case No. 95-45, Shell Oil entered into a compromise agreement with its claimants for a total consideration of US$17 Million. The copy submitted to the court did not bear the agreement’s exhibits which, according to Shell Oil, indicated the list of 26,328 “worldwide plaintiffs” intended to be covered by the compromise. In view of the compromise, the complaint against Shell Oil was dismissed.  Civil Case No. 95-45 was later transferred to the RTC of Davao City, and the plaintiffs prayed for the enforcement of judgment based on the Compromise Agreement since Shell Oil allegedly failed to fully satisfy its obligations to them. Shell Oil argued that it had fully complied with the terms of the compromise agreement. The approved compromise and amount stated therein covered 26,328 agricultural workers from across the globe who filed various cases against it and not just the 1,843 plaintiffs in Civil Case No. 95-45. The RTC resolved the motion in favor of the plaintiffs.

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Agulto vs. Tecson

G.R. No. 145276. November 29, 2005. FACTS RTC ordered the revival of the complaint priorly decided and required the parties to appear during the pre-trial conference scheduled on April 29, 1999. During the scheduled pre-trial, petitioner Rolando Agulto and his counsel were informed by an employee of the RTC that the presiding judge was on leave. The petitioners suggested that pre-trial to be rescheduled on June 17, 1999, however, the RTC employee informed them that the suggested setting was not yet official since it would depend on the calendar of the court and the counsel of respondent. The pre-trial proceeded on June 17, 1999. For failure of petitioners to appear at the pre-trial and to submit their pre-trial brief, the RTC issued an order allowing the respondent to present his evidence ex parte. Petitioners motion for reconsideration on the ground that they were not notified of the pre-trial was denied by the Court. 

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Pinga vs. Heirs of German Santiago

G.R. No. 170354. June 30, 2006. FACTS The Heirs of German Santiago filed a complaint for injunction against Edgardo Pinga and Vicenta Saavedra for unlawfully entering the coco lands of the respondent, cutting wood and bamboos and harvesting the fruits of the coconut trees therein. The petitioners in their Amended Answer with Counterclaim, asserted that the properties in question had been in possession thereof since the 1930s.

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Bautista vs. Causapin, Jr.

A.M. No. RTJ-07-2044. June 22, 2011. FACTS Plaintiffs through counsel, Atty. Bautista, filed a Complaint for Partition before the RTC, which is raffled to Judge Causapin’s branch. Defendants filed a motion for an extension  to file an answer for 3 times which were all granted by Judge Causapin.  Atty. Bautista filed a comment on defendants’ motions for extension and asserted that all three motions did not contain a notice of the time and place of hearing, thus, these should be considered mere scraps of paper. Finally, defendants filed their joint Answer with Counterclaim and Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiffs countered by filing a motion to declare defendants in default.  During the hearing,  in the Resolution of Motion to Hold Defendants in Default, Judge Causapin dismissed the complaint without prejudice on the ground that plaintiffs R. Mesina and N. Polangco did not sign the verification and certification on non-forum shopping attached to the complaint, in violation of Rule 7, Section 5 of the Rules of Court. Judge Causapin held that defendants could not be declared in default for not answering a defective complaint, which in law does not exist.

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Philippine Commercial International Bank vs. Alejandro

G.R. No. 175587. September 21, 2007. FACTS Alejandro, a Hong Kong resident, executed a promissory note in favor of PCIB for the amount of P249,828,588.90. PCIB filed a complaint for sum of money with prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary attachment due to the alleged withdrawal of unassigned deposits. The trial court granted the application and the bank deposits of respondent with RCBC were garnished. Alejandro, through counsel, filed a manifestation informing the court that he is voluntarily submitting to its jurisdiction. He also filed a motion to quash the writ contending that the withdrawal of his unassigned deposits was approved by the PCIB. He also alleged that petitioner knew that he maintains a permanent residence in Quezon City and an office address in Makati City. He posits that there was  a regular communication with PCIB since he frequently travels back to the Philippines. Alejandro also filed a claim for damages in the amount of P25 Million on account of the wrongful garnishment of his deposits.

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Trimica, Inc. vs. Polaris Marketing Corporation

No. L-29887. October 28,1974 FACTS Polaris instituted a case for the recovery of the price of foam products against Fine Furnitures in the municipal court of Makati however, Fine Furnitures denied all the allegations. The Municipal Court rendered a decision in favor of Polaris. Fine Furnitures appealed to the Court of First Instance of Rizal  and presented storekeeper of Trimica, Inc. as witnesses. Torre testified that the foam products were received by Trimica Inc. and the two companies have same office address.  Polaris filed its amended complaint impleading Trimica, Inc. as a defendant and by alleging that Trimica, Inc. and Fine Furnitures were solidarily liable for the price of the foam products. The court absolved Fine Furnitures from any liability and ordered Trimica, Inc. to pay Polaris’ claim Trimica filed a motion to set aside the judgment on the ground that the judgment was void for lack of due process since it was never summoned. The court denied the motion since it had been given its day in court through Capistrano’s admission, its president, that the company used the foam products.

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Valley Golf and Country Club, Inc. vs. Reyes

G.R. No. 190641. November 10, 2015. FACTS Victor Reyes (Reyes) subscribed and purchased one share in the capital stock of Valley Golf which entitled him exclusive membership to the golf club including playing rights. Reyes’ playing privileges were assigned from 1979 – 1986, wherein the assignee obligated themselves to pay the monthly membership fees for and on behalf of Reyes. However, the payment was discontinued and resulted for the delinquency of Reyes’ account.  Due to delinquency in the payment of monthly membership fees, Valley Golf sold his share at a public auction.  Reyes filed an action for Reinstatement of Playing Rights and Re-issuance of New Certificate of Share of Stocks against Valley Golf before the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). He claimed that he was not notified of the delinquency of his account not the sale of his share. Valley Golf insisted that a Notice of Due Account was sent to Reyes which is evidenced by Registry Receipt No. 3384. It further alleged that prior to the scheduled sale, it also published with Philippine Daily Express as evidenced by the Publisher’s Affidavit. Valley Golf argued that Reyes has no right to claim that he was not duly notified and prayed that his complaint be dismissed for evident lack of cause of action.

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Ilano vs. Español

G.R. No. 161756. December 16, 2005 MAIN TOPIC – Rule 12, Section 1 – Bill of Particulars FACTS Amelia Alonzo, private respondent, is a trusted employee of Victoria Ilano. When Ilano left for the United States for medical check-up, Alonzo was entrusted with Ilano‘s Metrobank Check Book which contains both signed and unsigned blank checks. Ilano contends that Alonzo, by means of deceit and abuse of confidence succeeded in procuring Promissory Notes and signed blank checks. She further alleged that there is no consent in the issuance of the PN’s thus must be declared null and void. She also impleaded ESTELA CAMACLANG, ALLAN CAMACLANG and ESTELITA LEGASPI as co-defendants who likewise was able to induce plaintiff to sign several undated blank checks for the total amount of Php 3,031,600.00. A Complaint for Revocation/Cancellation of Promissory Notes and Bills of Exchange (Checks) with Damages and Prayer for Preliminary Injunction or Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) against Alonzo et al. before the Regional Trial Court of Cavite.

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Central Bank Board of Liquidators vs. Banco Filipino Savings and Mortgage Bank

G.R. No. 173399. February 21, 2017. FACTS Central Bank (CB)  issued a resolution placing Banco Filipino under conservatorship. Banco Filipino filed a complaint with the RTC against  the CB for the annulment of MB Resolution No. 955 (Civil Case No. 8108). In 1985, CB issued another ordering the closure of Banco Filipino and placing the latter under receivership. Banco Filipino filed a Complaint with the RTC questioning the act of it placing the bank under receivership (Civil Case No. 9675).  CB issued another Resolution placing Banco Filipino under liquidation. Respondent then filed another Complaint with the RTC to question the propriety of the liquidation. (Civil Case No. 10183). The Court En Banc consolidated the cases and ordered the CB and its MB to reorganize the bank and allow Banco Filipino to resume business. In 1994, Banco Filipino filed a Motion to Admit Attached Amended/ Supplemental Complaint in the three consolidated cases. It sought to substitute the CB-BOL for the defunct CB and its MB. Respondent also aimed to recover at least P18 billion representing damages and fees against petitioner who had allegedly acted with malice and bad faith in placing the bank under conservatorship and eventually closing it down in 1985. The trial court granted the Motion to Admit filed by Banco Filipino and accordingly admitted the latter’s Amended/Supplemental Complaint.

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Frilou Construction Inc. vs. Aegis Integrated Structure Corp.

G.R. No. 191088, 2016. FACTS Frilou Construction engaged the services of Aegis Integrated to supply and fabricate structural steel requirements. Aegies instituted a suit against Frilou for its failure to pay the balance despite of repeated demands.The complaint includes four (4) material averments: (1) petitioner contracted with respondent to fabricate and deliver the former’s structural steel requirements in amount of P6,024,306.00; (2) respondent completely performed the agreement under the Purchase Orders; (3) petitioner has only paid the amount of P4,490,014.32; and (4) thus, petitioner had an unpaid balance to respondent in the amount of P1,534,291.68. Petitioner did not make specific denial of each material averments but a general one to the effect that it no longer has any remaining liability to respondent. It asserted that respondent failed to show evidence of its supposed remaining liability.

Law School Notes - Case Digest

BP Oil vs. Total Distribution

G.R. No. 214406.  February 6, 2017. FACTS BP Oil filed a Complaint for Sum of Money against Total Distribution & Logistic Systems, Inc. (TDLSI) seeking to recover the sum of P3, 6440,351.79. The amount represents the total  value of the moneys, stock and accounts receivables that TDLSI has allegedly refused to return to BP Oil arising from the termination of the Agency Agreement.  The RTC ruled in favor of BP Oils. The CA, reversed and set aside the decision on the ground that the admission made by TDLSI in Exhibit “J,” that it was withholding moneys, receivables and stocks from petitioner, has no evidentiary weight, thus, petitioner was not able to preponderantly establish its claim.

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Uy vs. Evangelista

G.R. No. 140365. July 11, 2001. FACTS San Roque Purok Onse Neighborhood Association , et al., filed a complaint for specific performance and damages against petitioners. In the complaint, private respondents alleged four causes of action. They stated that Spouses Uy for no apparent reason, balked and reneged from their original commitment for plaintiffs to acquire their property at the price fixed by and in accordance with CMP rules and guidelines. Spouses Uy filed a motion to dismiss the complaint stressing (a) that the complaint did not state a valid cause of action (b) that the claim on which the action had been founded was unenforceable and (c) that respondents were not the real parties-in-interest. The Regional Trial Court of Quezon City denied the motion to dismiss of petitioners finding a sufficient basis on the allegations with respect to the first, second and third causes of action as embodied in the complaint.

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Raymond vs. Court of Appeals

No. L-80380. September 28, 1988. FACTS Santiago Bitera filed  a complaint for damages against Raymond and Alba with the Regional Trial Court of Iloilo. The petitioners move for the dismissal of the action on the ground of improper venue. They argued that although Bitera’s complaint includes his address in Ilo-ilo City, he has actually residing for many years in Bais City, Dumaguete.  The Trial Court however denied their motion to dismiss. The Court of Appeals affirmed RTC’s decision on the ground that it is the plaintiff who is given the right to elect where to bring his action.

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Private Enterprise Corporation vs. Magada

G.R. No. 149489. June 30, 2006. FACTS In 1990, Private Enterprise and Valentina Magada entered into a lease contract for 1 year with monthly rental of P3,000. The lessor allowed the petitioner to introduce and/or construct any structure of light materials on the leased premises provided the lessee shall remove the same not later than 30 days after the expiration of the contract. In case, where the petitioner failed to remove the structure, the removal shall be done by the lessor at the expense of lessee. Upon the expiry of the lease, Magada asked for the removal of the improvements but the petitioner refused and claimed that it entered a new lease contract with the heirs of Maria Bacud, who is allegedly the real owner of the subject premise. The respondent and his hired men demolished the bunkhouse which petitioner introduced on the leased premises.

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Ochoa vs. China Banking Corporation

G.R. No. 192877. March 23, 2011. FACTS Spouses Ochoa mortgaged their real properties located in Paranaque City in favor of China Banking Corporation. The parties agree that the necessary action for the foreclosure  of the mortgage shall be instituted at China Banking’s option which is in the RTC  – Makati City. However, Petitioners insist that it was error for the CA to rule that the stipulated exclusive venue of Makati City is binding only on petitioners’ complaint for Annulment of Foreclosure, Sale, and Damages filed before the Regional Trial Court of Parañaque City, but not on respondent bank’s Petition for Extrajudicial Foreclosure of Mortgage, which was filed with the same court.

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Lafarge Cement Phil, Inc. vs. Continental Cement Corp

G.R. No. 155173. November 23, 2004 FACTS Petitioner Lafarge Cement Philippines  agreed to purchase the cement business of Respondent Continental Cement Corporation (CCC). Both parties entered into a Sale and Purchase Agreement (SPA). At the time of the foregoing transactions, petitioners were well aware that CCC had a case pending with the Supreme Court (Asset Privatization Trust (APT) v. Court of Appeals and Continental Cement Corporation).Under Clause 2 (c) of the SPA, the parties allegedly agreed to retain from the purchase price a portion of the contract price in anticipation of the liability related to the pending case of CCC. However, upon the finality of the decision, Lafarge refused to apply the sum to the payment to APT.

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Anama vs. Citibank, N.A. (formerly First National City Bank)

G.R. No. 192048. December 13, 2017. FACTS Douglas F. Anama obtained a loan and executed a promissory note in the amount of P418,000 and a chattel mortgage in favor of Citibank. Due to the failure of Anama to pay the monthly installments, in 1974, Citibank filed a complaint for sum of money and replevin with the Court of First Instance of Manila. Anama filed his answer with counterclaim alleging that his failure to pay was due to the fault of Citibank as it refused to receive the checks he issued, and that the chattel mortgage was defective and void.  The Regional Trial Court (RTC) issued an Order of Replevin over the machineries and equipment covered by the chattel mortgage.  In 1982, the CA rendered a decision in favor of Anama and nullified RTC’s orders of seizure. However, during the pendency of the case in the CA, the court’s records including the records of the subject case was destroyed by fire. 

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Forest Hills Golf and Country Club, Inc. vs. Fil-Estate Properties, Inc.

G.R. No. 206649. July 20, 2016 FACTS Fil-Estate Properties, Inc. (FEPI) entered into an agreement to finance the development of several parcels of land owned by Kingsville Construction and Development Corporation (Kingsville).  Respondent FEPI was tasked to incorporate petitioner Forest Hills Golf and Country Club, Inc. (FHGCCI), a first-class residential area/golf course/commercial center. Due to delayed construction of the golf course, Rainier Madrid on behalf FHGCCI instituted a derivative suit for specific performance in order to enforce the project agreement between KPC, Kingsville, and respondents FEPI and FEGDI. The complaint was filed with RTC – Antipolo City. However, RTC dismissed the case on the ground of lack of jurisdiction and refer that the case must be refiled in proper special commercial court sitting at Binangonan, Rizal.

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Filinvest Credit Corporation vs. Relova

No. L-50378. September 30, 1982. FACTS  Filinvest Credit Corporation (FILINVEST) filed a complaint against Rallye Motor Co. (RALLYE) for the collection of a sum of money with damages and preliminary writ of attachment. Judge Coquia granted the prayer for a writ of attachment on the ground that defendants have committed fraud in securing the obligation and are now avoiding payment of the same. Salazar, one of the defendants, filed Urgent Motion that the writ of preliminary attachment issued ex parte and implemented solely against his property be recalled and/or quashed since he did not committed fraud when he contracted the obligation. Justice Relova ordered the dissolution and setting aside of the writ of preliminary attachment issued and the return to Salazar of all his properties attached by the Sheriff by virtue of the said writ. FILINVEST filed a Motion for Reconsideration to be allowed to adduce evidence to prove that Salazar committed fraud but the respondent Judge denied the Motion. 

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Yngson, Jr. vs. Philippine National Bank

G.R. No. 171132. August 15, 2012 FINANCIAL REHABILITATION AND INSOLVENCY ACT OF 2010 FACTS ARCAM & Company, Inc.  obtained a loan by respondent Philippine National Bank (PNB).To secure the loan, ARCAM executed a eal Estate Mortgage and a Chattel Mortgage. However, ARCAM defaulted on its obligations to PNB. Thus, PNB initiated extrajudicial foreclosure proceedings of the Real Estate Mortgage and Chattel Mortgage.

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Miles vs. Lao

G.R. No. 209544. November 22, 2017. MAIN TOPIC – Real Estate Mortgage FACTS Petitioners claimed that on March 28, 1983, they became registered owners in fee simple of a parcel of land in Makati City by TCT No. 120427. They averred that before they left for the United States, they entrusted the duplicate of the TCT of the subject property to their niece, defendant Rodora Jimenez (Rodora) so that she may offer it to interested buyers. 

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Cavite Development Bank vs. Lim

G.R. No. 131679. February 1, 2000. MAIN TOPIC – Real Security FACTS Rodolfo Guansing obtained a loan in the amount of P90,000.00 from Cavite Development Bank, to secure which he mortgaged a parcel of land situated in Quezon City and covered by TCT No. 300809 registered in his name. As Guansing defaulted in the payment of his loan, CDB foreclosed the mortgage. Guansing failed to redeem, and the mortgaged property was sold to CDB as the highest bidder. TCT No. 300809 in the name of Guansing was cancelled and, in lieu thereof, TCT No. 355588 was issued in the name of CDB.

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Republic vs. Court of Appeals

G.R. No. 103073. March 13, 2001. MAIN TOPIC – Credit Card FACTS This case is a motion for reconsideration of the decision, dated 14 September 1999, of the Court.See earlier case: Endelo Manufacturing Corporation (Endelo) is a domestic corporation engaged in the manufacture of embroidery and apparel articles for export using imported raw materials. To release said materials from the customs warehouse, Endelo secured embroidery re-export bonds from the Communications Insurance Company, Inc. (CICI), and R & B Surety Company and Insurance Co., Inc. (R & B Surety). However, Endelo’s license to operate was subsequently suspended by the Embroidery and Apparel Control and Inspection Board on the ground of alleged pilferage of the imported materials. The suspension of its license resulted in its failure to re-export the imported materials or the finished goods.As a consequence, the Commissioner of Customs filed a case against  Endelo, CICI and R & B Surety, for the payment of the customs duties and taxes due to the Bureau of Customs.

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Bankard, Inc. v. Feliciano

G.R. No. 141761. July 28, 2006 MAIN TOPIC – Credit Card FACTS Respondent Feliciano is the holder of PCIBank Mastercard  issued and managed by petitioner Bankard, Inc. An extension of the card  was issued to his wife, Mrs. Feliciano.In 1995, respondent used his PCIBank Mastercard to pay a breakfast bill in Toronto, Canada. The card was, however, dishonored for payment. Respondent’s guest had to pay for the bill. Respondent immediately called the Bankard Inc., to inquire on the cause of dishonor and was informed that the reason was the nonpayment of his last billing statement. Respondent denied that he failed to pay, and requested the person on the line to verify the correct status of his credit card again. Respondent likewise called his secretary

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Gilat Satellite Networks, Ltd. v. United Coconut Planters Bank Insurance Co.

G.R. No. 189563. April 7, 2014 MAIN TOPIC – Interest FACTS One Virtual purchased from Gilat various telecommunications equipment at a total purchase price of US$2,128,250.00. To ensure the prompt payment of this amount, it obtained defendant UCPB General Insurance Co., Inc.’s surety bond in favor of Gilat.GILAT shipped and delivered to One Virtual the purchased products and equipment for which payment was secured by the surety bond.

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Spouses Ramon Sy and Anita Ng v. Westmont Bank

G.R. No. 201074. October 19, 2016 MAIN TOPIC – CONTRACT OF LOAN – General Concepts FACTS Petitioners, under the trade name and style of “Moondrops General Merchandising,” obtained a loan from Westmont Bank. They signed blank forms of promissory notes, disclosure statements and continuing suretyship agreements for the purpose of securing any future indebtedness of Moondrops.Westmont filed a complaint because the petitioners allegedly defaulted in the payment of the loan obligation in the amount of P4,000,000.00. Demand letter was sent to them, but it was unheeded. 

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Boston Equity Resources, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals

G.R. No. 173946. June 19, 2013. MAIN TOPIC – Different Kind Of Obligations FACTS In 1997, Boston Equity filed a complaint for sum of money with a prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary attachment against the spouses Manuel and Lolita Toledo. Respondent (Lolita Toledo) filed an Answer and later filed a Motion for Leave to Admit Amended Answer in which she alleged, among others, that her husband and co-defendant, Manuel Toledo, is already dead. The death certificate of Manuel states “13 July 1995” as the date of death. As a result, petitioner filed a motion to require respondent to disclose the heirs of Manuel. In compliance, Toledo submitted the required names and addresses of the heirs. 

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Domingo vs. Manzano

G.R. No. 201883. November 16, 2016. MAIN TOPIC – Suspensive Condition FACTS Respondents Emmanuel and Tita Manzano (the Manzanos) were the registered owners of a 35,281-square-meter parcel of land with improvements in Bagong Barrio, Caloocan City , through their duly appointed attorney-in­-fact Franklin Estabillo (Estabillo), executed a notarized agreement of contract to sell with petitioners Desiderio and Teresa Domingo. However, they failed to tender full payment of the balance when the March 2001 deadline came. In December 2001, petitioners offered to pay the remaining P555,000.00 balance, but Estabillo refused to accept payment; instead, he advised petitioners to await respondent Tita Manzano’s (Tita) arrival from abroad.

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Bachrach Motor Co. vs. Espiritu

52 Phil. 346 [1928] MAIN TOPIC – Obligations with a Penal Clause FACTS Bachrach Motor Co., filed two cases – Nos. 28497 and 28498 which were tried together, against defendants. The cases involve an action for the recovery of total amount of P11,940.37 representing the unpaid balance of White truck purchases within the periods agreed upon. To secure the payment, defendant executed mortgage deeds and promissory note. In both sales it was agreed that 12% interest would be paid upon the unpaid portion of the price at the execution of the contracts, and in case of non-payment of the total debt upon its maturity, 25% thereon, as penalty. The trial courts rendered judgments in favor of the plaintiff. However, the defendants contended that the 25 % penalty upon the debt, in addition to the interest of 12% per annum makes the contract usurious.

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Citibank vs. Sabeniano

G.R. No 156132. October 12, 2006 MAIN TOPIC – Extinguishment of Obligations – Compensation FACTS Modesta R. Sabeniano was a client of both petitioners Citibank and FNCB Finance. Unfortunately, the business relations among the parties subsequently went awry. In 1985, Sabeniano filed a civil case for “Accounting, Sum of Money and Damages”, alleging that petitioners refused to return her deposits and the proceeds of her money market placements despite her repeated demands. Petitioners admitted that respondent had deposits and money market placements with them, including dollar accounts. However, they also alleged that the respondent obtained several loans aggregating to ₱1,920,000.00, for which she executed Promissory Notes and secured by a pledge on her dollar accounts and money market placements. That despite of the repeated demands, respondent failed to pay her outstanding loans. Thus, petitioner Citibank used respondent’s deposits and money market placements to off set and liquidate her outstanding obligations. RTC declared this illegal, null and void and to pay Sabeniano with legal interest, while Sabeniano was ordered to pay her loans.

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Andreas vs. Bank of the Philippine Islands

No. 23836. September 9, 1925 MAIN TOPIC – Contracts – Interpretation Of Documents FACTS The plaintiff applied to the defendant for a foreign credit to enable him to purchase coal in  Sydney, Australia, to be shipped to Manila. In connection therewith, plaintiff signed a written  “request for foreign credit” for the sum of 5,050.00 pounds, payable to the order of the bank of  New South Wales. It appears that in addition to the ¼ of one per cent commission specified in  the contract, that the defendant charged the plaintiff interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum  on the amount of each of said drafts. It is admitted that such charge was made by the defendant  bank without the authority or knowledge of the Australian bank. Plaintiff not only paid the full  amount of the drafts drawn by the Australian bank, but he also paid the 9 per cent interest  charges which the defendant made where he did not know or understand the nature of them or  for whose benefit the charges were made. The plaintiff alleges that through an error, paid to  defendant interest and no part of such money paid has been returned or refunded by the  defendant. For answer the defendant denied the allegations and sought to prove that there was  an established usage and custom of the banks in Manila in like cases of charging and collecting  such interest from the time the draft is paid here, until the money is remitted by the local bank,  in the ordinary course of business, to the London bank. 

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Bañez vs. Court of Appeals

No. L-30351. September 11,1974. MAIN TOPIC – Extinguishment of Obligations – Compensation FACTS In 1956 respondent Pio Arcilla occupied a parcel of land, located in East Avenue Subdivision,  Diliman, Quezon City, owned by the People’s Homesite and Housing Corporation (hereinafter  referred to as PHHC). He fenced the lot with wire, and erected a house and made some  plantings thereon. His moves to apply for the acquisition of the lot from the PHHC when the  same became available for disposition came to naught because the employees of the PHHC  whose help he sought merely regaled him with promises that the matter would be attended to. 

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Dizon vs. Gaborro

No. L-36821. June 22, 1978 MAIN TOPIC – Contracts – Classification   FACTS Petitioner Jose P. Dizon was the owner of the three (3) parcels of land situated in Pampanga. He  constituted mortgage lien in favor of the Development Bank of the Philippines and Philippine  National Bank to secure his indebtedness. Petitioner Dizon having defaulted in the payment of  his debt, the Development Bank of the Philippines foreclosed the mortgage and executed  “Certificate of Sale,” in favor of the said bank. Alfredo G. Gaborro became interested in the  lands of Dizon. They entered into a contract of “Deed of sale with assumption of mortgage” and  “Option to Purchase Real Estate” After the execution of said contracts, Alfredo G. Gaborro took  possession of the three parcels of land. Gaborro made several payments to the DBP and PNB and introduced improvements, cultivated the lands, raised sugarcane and other crops and  appropriated the produce to himself. He also paid the land taxes thereon. 

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Ferrazzini vs. Gsell

34 Phil. 697. August 10, 1916 MAIN TOPIC – Contracts – Freedom to Contract  FACTS Gsell, owner of industrial enterprises in the city of Manila employed Ferrazzini for his skilled  service. They entered into a contract wherein as part of their duties and obligations; the master, shall furnish safe place to work, pay his services and not to discharge him until the expiration of  six months after notice. On the part of the servant shall observe loyalty, faithfulness, and  obedience to all reasonable orders. It further stipulates that for the period of 5 years after the  termination of the employment, the plaintiff shall not enter into the employ of any enterprises  in the Philippine Islands, except after obtaining special written permission. It further stipulated  that the defendant shall pay P10,000 as liquidated damages for each and every breach. 

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Figuera vs. Ang

G.R. No. 204264. June 29, 2016. MAIN TOPIC – Extinguishment of Obligations – Consignation FACTS Maria Remedios Ang, owner of business named “Enhance Immigration and Documentation  Consultants” (EIDC), executed a Deed of Assignment transferring all of her business rights to  Figuera for P150,000.00. The parties also agreed that Ang shall pay the bills for electricity,  telephone, office rentals, and the employees’ salaries up to the month of December 2004. Without Ang’s consent, Figuera paid all the utility bills amounting to P107,903.21 and tendered  only the amount of P42,096.79 after deducting the paid expenses.  

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Korean Air Co., Ltd. vs. Yuson

G.R. No. 170369. June 16, 2010. MAIN TOPIC – Contracts – Essential Requisites of Contract FACTS In July 1975, Korean Air Co., Ltd. hired Adelina A.S. Yuson (Yuson) as reservations agent and  was promoted as passenger sales manager in 1999. Korean Air had an International Passenger  Manual (IPM) which contained, among others, travel benefit to its employees. In 2000, Korean  Air suffered a net loss. In 2001, in order to cut costs offered its employees an early retirement   program (ERP). Yuson accepted the offer for early retirement, however she was excluded from  the ERP because she was retiring on 8 January 2002. Yuson claimed that Korean Air was bound  by the perfected contract and accused the company of harassment and discrimination. Korean  Air answered that ERP was not an absolute offer but rather an invitation to possible qualified  employees subject to the approval and acceptance by the Company. 

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Philippine National Construction Corporation vs. Court of Appeals

G.R. No. 116896. May 5, 1997 MAIN TOPIC: Extinguishment of Obligations – Tender of Payment FACTS On November 18, 1985, PNCC entered into the contract of lease with private respondents for  a period of five (5) years commencing on the date of issuance of the industrial clearance by the  Ministry of Human Settlements for P20,000.00 which shall be increased yearly by Five Percent  (5%). On 7 January 1986, petitioner obtained from the Ministry of Human Settlements a  Temporary Use Permit for the proposed rock crushing project.  

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Victorias Planters Assn., Inc., et al. vs. Victorias Milling Co., Inc.

MAIN TOPIC – Different Kind Of Obligations : Resolutionary FACTS The petitioners Victorias Planters Association, Inc. and North Negros Planters Association, Inc. and the respondent Victorias Milling Co., Inc entered into a milling contract whereby they stipulated a 30-year period within which the sugar cane produced by the petitioner would be milled by the respondent central. The parties also stipulated that in the event of force majuere, the contract shall be deemed suspended during this period. 

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Pioneer Insurance & Surety Corporation vs. Court of Appeals

G.R. No. 76509. December 15, 1989 FACTS In 1978, Pioneer Insurance and Surety Corporation issued general warehousing bonds in favor  of the Bureau of Customs for importation of raw materials on behalf of the private respondents  Wearever Textile Mills, Inc. To secure the bonds, the respondents executed jointly and severally  indemnity agreements. The private respondents failed to comply with their commitment by  reason whereof the Bureau of Customs demanded from the petitioner payment of the value of  the said bonds which eventually reached P9,031,000.00 in 1983. Private respondents settled their obligations to Bureau of Customs through staggered monthly installment payments. Other  than the initial payment of P500,000.00, however, respondents have not made any other  payments thereby violating the terms of the said agreement. Bureau of Customs again  demanded from the petitioner payment of its bonds. No payment has been made. 

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Keppel Cebu Shipyard, Inc. vs. Pioneer Insurance and Surety Corporation

G.R. Nos. 180880-81. September 18, 2012. FACTS In 2000, KCSI and WG&A Jebsens entered into Shiprepair Agreement wherein KCSI to carry out renovation and reconstruction of M/V Superferry 3. Prior to the execution of the Shiprepair Agreement, Superferry 3 was already insured by WG&A with Pioneer for US$8,472,581.78. While undergoing repair, Superferry 3 was gutted by fire. WG&A declared the vessel’s damage as a “total constructive loss” and filed an insurance claim with Pioneer. Pioneer paid the insurance claim of WG&A, and in exchange, WG&A executed a Loss and Subrogation Receipt in favor of Pioneer. Pioneer tried to collect the amount of US$8,472,581.78 from KCSI but it was frustrated. Thus, Pioneer sought arbitration with the CIAC, which found that both WG&A and KCSI were equally guilty of negligence which resulted in the fire and loss of Superferry 3. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of CIAC. 

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Federation of United Namarco Distributors, Inc. vs. National Marketing Corporation

No. L-17819. March 31, 1962. FACTS NAMARCO and the FEDERATION entered into a Contract of Sale for the importation of USD2M worth of controlled goods. Pursuant to the terms, Federation deposited 200,000.00 as partial payment. The new Board of Directors and General Manager of NAMARCO decided to discontinue compliance of the contract of sale. NAMARCO contends that the contract lacks the approval of that body; that it was not approved by the Auditor General; that the contract of sale is inconsistent with Resolution No. 530. The FEDERATION, filed a complaint to compel the latter to perform the Contract of Sale as to what was left after the aforementioned releases of nearly over one-half of the entire quantity of the commodities. After trial, the court rendered judgment obliging NAMARCO to specifically perform the contract of sale to plaintiff FEDERATION’, upon the payment of the procurement cost, plus 5% mark-up.

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Rellosa vs. Gaw Chee Han

No. L-1411. September 29, 1953 FACTS On February 2, 1944, Dionisio Rellosa sold to Gaw Chee Hun a parcel of land, together with the  house erected thereon, for the sum of P25,000. The vendor remained in possession of the  property under a contract of lease entered into on the same date between the same parties.  Rellosa instituted action seeking the annulment of the sale and the lease. The Petitioner  contends that the sale in question cannot have any validity under Seirei No. 6 in view of the  failure of respondent to obtain the requisite approval by the Japanese authorities. And Even if  said requirement were met, the sale would at all events be void under article XIII, section 5, of  our Constitution which provides that “no private agricultural land shall be transferred or  assigned except to individuals, corporations, or associations qualified to acquire or hold lands  of the public domain in the Philippines”. 

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Secretary of the Department of Public Works and Highways vs. Tecson

G.R. No. 179334. April 21, 2015 FACTS In 1940, the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) took respondents movants’ subject property without the benefit of expropriation proceedings for the construction  of the MacArthur Highway. In 1994, respondents-movants demanded the payment of the fair  market value of the subject parcel of land. DPWH, offered to pay for the subject land at the rate  of Seventy Centavos (P0.70) per square meter. Unsatisfied with the offer, respondents-movants  demanded the return of their property, or the payment of compensation at the current fair  market value. Hence, the complaint for recovery of possession with damages filed by  respondents-movants. 

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Uson vs. Del Rosario, et al.

No. L-4963. January 29, 1953 FACTS This is an action for the recovery of the ownership and possession of five (5) parcels of land  situated in the municipality of Labrador, Province of Pangasinan, filed by Maria Uson against  Maria del Rosario and her four children.  Maria Uson, plaintiff-appellee, the lawful wife of Faustino Nebreda, who upon his death in 1945  left the lands involved in this litigation. However, Maria del Rosario, a common law wife of the  late Faustino Nebreda took possession of the said lands. Del Rosario claimed that in 1931, Uson and the late Faustino, executed a public document whereby they agreed to separate as husband  and wife and, in consideration of their separation, Maria was given a parcel of land by way of  alimony and in return she renounced her right to inherit any other property that may be left by  her husband upon his death. Del Rosario also contends that her children are given the status  and rights of natural children and are entitled to the successional rights, and because these  successional rights were declared for the first time in the new code, they shall be given  retroactive effect. 

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Uy Soo Lim vs. Tan Unchuan

No. 12605. September 7, 1918 FACTS  Santiago Pastrano, a Chinese national, is married to Candida Vivares, wherein they have 2  daughters – Francisca and Concepcion. At the time of this marriage, Santiago possessed very  little property and the large estate left by him at his death was acquired by him during his  marriage with Candida Vivares. When Santiago returned to China, he had an illicit relationship  with Chan Quieng. He returned to the Philippines and never saw Chan Quieg again, but  received letters from her informing him that she had borne him a son, Uy Soo Lim, the present  plaintiff. Santiago died without even seeing his son and with the belief that he is his  only son, he dictated the provisions of his will disposing a greater part of his properties to  his son. A couple of suits were filed questioning the distribution of the estate. Francisca and  Concepcion filed that Uy Soo Lim should not be entitled under law to the amount assigned  to him for the reason that the marriage of Chan Quieg with Santiago was null and void and  that Uy Soo Lim was not a son of Santiago, either legitimate or illegitimate 

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Evangelista vs. Alto Surety & Ins. Co., Inc.

No. L-11139. April 23, 1958Concepcion, J., Ponente FACTS In 1949, Santos Evangelista, instituted Civil Case for a sum of money in CFI – Manila. He obtained a writ of attachment, which was levied upon a house, built by Rivera on a land situated in Manila and leased to him, and filed a copy with the Office of the Register of Deeds of Manila. The  judgment was rendered in favor of Evangelista, who bought the house at public auction in 1951. The deed of sale was issued to him in October 1952, after expiration of redemption period. 

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Raul V. Arambulo And Teresita A. Dela Cruz vs. Genaro Nolasco And Jeremy Spencer Nolasco

G.R. No. 189420. March 26, 2014Ponente: Perez, J., FACTS Petitioners Raul V. Arambulo and Teresita A. Dela Cruz, along with their mother Rosita Vda. De Arambulo, and siblings Primo V. Arambulo, Ma. Lorenza A. Lopez, Ana Maria V. Arambulo, Maximiano V. Arambulo, Julio V. Arambulo and Iraida Arambulo Nolasco (Iraida) are co-owners of two (2) parcels of land located in Tondo, Manila, with an aggregate size of 233 square meters. When Iraida passed away, she was succeeded by her husband, respondent Genaro Nolasco and their children. 

Law School Notes - Case Digest

City of Batangas vs. Philippine Shell Petroleum Corporation

G.R. No. 195003. June 7, 2017Ponente: Caguioa, J., FACTS On May 28, 2001, the Sangguniang Panlungsod enacted Ordinance No. 3, Series of 2001 which requires heavy industries operating along the portions of Batangas Bay within the territorial jurisdiction of Batangas City to construct desalination plants to facilitate the use of seawater as coolant for their industrial facilities instead of underground fresh water.

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Vda. de Bogacki vs. Inserto

No. L-39187. January 30, 1982Ponente: Concepcion JR, J., FACTS The private respondent, Maria Emma Luz Bogacki (Maria Emma), is the owner of four parcels of land situated in Iloilo City over which her mother, herein petitioner Anulina Ledesma Vda. de Bogacki (Anulina) has a usufruct of one-sixth (1/6) each of the said parcels of land. Due to a misunderstanding, Maria Emma left the home of her mother and the latter took possession of all these properties exclusively for herself, without sharing with Maria Emma the rentals she obtained from the said properties. 

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Reyes vs. Valentin

G.R. No. 194488. February 11, 2015.Leonen, J., Ponente FACTS Petitioner Alicia B. Reyes, filed a complaint with RTC – Malolos for easement of right of way against respondents, Spouses Francisco S. Valentin and Anatalia Ramos. She alleged that respondents’ 1,500-square-meter property surrounded her property, and that it was the only adequate outlet from her property to the highway. She also insisted that her property was not isolated because of her own acts but because her uncle, Dominador, who was her mother’s caretaker of property allegedly with fraud caused the titling of the whole 1,500-square-meter property instead of just the 500-square-meter portion under his name.

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Adasa vs. Abalos

G.R. No. 168617. February 19, 2007. FACTS Respondent Cecille S. Abalos filed 2 complaints against petitioner for Estafa before the Office of City Prosecutor of Iligan. Adasa allegedly through deceit, received and encashed two checks issued in the name of respondent without respondent’s knowledge and consent. Petitioner filed a counter-affidavit admitting that she received and encashed the two checks issued in favor of respondent. However, after 6 days, she recanted and alleged instead that it was a certain Bebie Correa who received and encashed the two checks; Correa left the country after misappropriating the proceeds of the checks.

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Perez vs. Office of the Ombudsman

G.R. No. 131445. May 27, 2004. FACTS Petitioners, members of the Kilusang Bayan ng mga Magtitinda ng Bagong Pamilihang Bayan ng Muntinlupa, Inc. (KBMBPM), instituted two complaints at the Office of the Ombudsman against several respondents, one of whom was then Mayor Ignacio R. Bunye, for violation of RA 3019 (also known as the “Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act”). 

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Banal vs. Tadeo, Jr.

G.R. Nos. L-78911-25. December 11, 1987 FACTS It appears that fifteen (15) separate information for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 or the Bouncing Checks Law, were filed against respondent Rosario Claudio before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City and originally assigned to Branch 84. The presiding judge of Branch 84 inhibited himself when respondent Claudio, through counsel, filed a petition for recuse dated May 19,1986. 

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Sevilla v. The Court of Appeals

G.R. Nos. L-41182-3. April 15, 1988 FACTS: In 1960, the Tourist World Services Inc. (TWS) and Sevilla entered into  a lease contract for the use as branch office. In the said contract, both parties were held solidarily liable for the prompt payment of the monthly rental agreed on. When the branch office was opened, it was run by appellant Sevilla wherein any airline fare brought in on her efforts, 4% of that would go to her and 3% was to be withheld by TWS.

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Pahud vs Court of Appeals

G.R. No. 160346               August 25, 2009 FACTS: The (8) children : respondents Eufemia, Raul, Ferdinand, Zenaida, Milagros, Minerva, Isabelita and Virgilio, were left a 246-square meter parcel of land. Sometime in 1992, Eufemia, Ferdinand and Raul executed a Deed of Absolute Sale of Undivided shares in favor of Pahuds for their respective shares from the lot they inherited from their deceased parents. Eufemia also signed the deed on behalf of her four (4) other co-heirs, namely: Isabelita on the basis of a special power of attorney  and also for Milagros, Minerva, and Zenaida but without their apparent written authority. The deed of sale was also not notarized.

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Lim vs Saban

G.R. No. 163720             December 16, 2004 FACTS: Ybañez owner of a 1,000-square meter lot in Cebu City, entered into an Agency Agreement with Saban. Under the Agreement,  Ybañez authorized Saban to look for a buyer of the lot for P200,000 and to mark up the selling price to include the amounts needed for payment of taxes, transfer of title and other expenses incident to the sale, as well as Saban’s commission for the sale.

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Chua vs The Intermediate Appellate Court

G.R. No. 70909. January 5, 1994 FACTS: Herrera executed a Contract of Lease in favor of  Tian On, whereby the former leased to the latter lots located in Cebu City for a term of 10 years, renewable for another 5 years. The contract contains a stipulation giving the lessee an option to buy the he leased property after the lease period as long as the lessee faithfully fulfills the terms and conditions of their contract

Law School Notes - Case Digest

In Re: Application For Land Registration, Suprema T. Dumo, Petitioner, V. Republic Of The Philippines, Respondent.

G.R. No. 218269, June 06, 2018 Carpio, J., FACTS:             The Heirs of Espinas filed a Complaint for Recovery of Ownership, Possession and Damages with Prayer for Writ of Preliminary Injunction against the Heirs of Trinidad. They alleged that the they are the heirs of Marcelino Espinas and the Subject Property was purchased by Espinas from Carlos Calica through a Deed of Absolute Sale dated 19 October 1943. That it had exercised acts of dominion & had also been paying realty taxes.

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Bel Air Village Association, Inc. vs. Dionisio

G.R. No. 38354. June 30, 1989 Gutierrez, Jr., J . FACTS:             In 1972, Bel Air filed a complaint for the collection of the amount of P2,100 plus penalty which represent the unpaid association dues on the lot owned by Dionisio, as member of the plaintiff association. The dues collected are intended for garbage collection, salary of security guards, cleaning and maintenance of streets and street lights and establishments of parks.

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Jose Modequillio vs. Hon. Augusto V. Breva

G.R. No. 86355. May 31, 1990.* GANCAYCO, J.: FACTS: On January 1988, Court of Appeals rendered a final and executory judgment on a case arising from a vehicular accident finding the petitioner liable to damages.The sheriff levied on a parcel of residential land and a parcel of agricultural land registered in his name.

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Florante F. Manacop, petitioner, vs. Court of Appeals

G.R. No. 97898. August 11, 1997.* PANGANIBAN, J.: FACTS: In 1972, petitioner Florante F. Manacop and his wife purchased a residential lot. The petitioner was later sued by E & L Mercantile, Inc for collection of  indebtedness which instead of filing an answer, petitioner and his company entered into a compromise agreement. On July 15, 1986, private respondent filed a motion for execution which the lower court granted. The sheriff levied and sold several vehicles and other personal properties of petitioner in partial satisfaction of the judgment debt.

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Spouses Eduardo vs. Hon. Court of Appeals

G.R. No. 164740. July 31, 2006.* CHICO-NAZARIO, J.: FACTS: In 1993, Private respondent Dr. Victoria Ong granted a P1,000,000.00 loan to Dolores Ledesma and as a security for said loan, the latter issued a check and executed a deed of real estate mortgage over her house and lot. Thereafter, Ledesma sold the said house and lot to Versola spouses for P2,500,000.00. The petitioner spouses paid P1,000,000 as down payment however, they were only able to pay P50,000 for the remaining amount. To raise the full amount, petitioners spouses applied for a loan with Asiatrust Bank, Inc. The parties convened at a scheme wherein petitioner spouses will pay for obligation of Ledesma to Dr. Ong. However, when Asia­trust tried to register the Real Estate Mortgage there was an existing obligation to a certain Miladay’s Jewels, Inc., in the amount of P214,284.00 that caused the refusal to release the loan.

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Jose E. Honrado vs. Court of Appeals

G.R. No. 166333. November 25, 2005.* CALLEJO, SR., J.: FACTS: In 1997, Premium Agro-Vet Products, Inc. (Premium) filed a complaint for sum of money against Jose Honrado, who was doing business  for failure to pay veterinary products purchased on credit amounting to P240,765.00. For failure of Honrado, as well as his counsel, to appear at the pre-trial conference, he was declared in default. Premium filed a writ of execution for the sale of property in public auction which was later sold to the private respondent. The corresponding Certificate of Sale was issued and annotated at the dorsal portion of the title.

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Vilma G. Arriola vs. John Nabor C. Arriola

G.R. No. 177703. January 28, 2008.* John Nabor C. Arriola, the son of  decedent Fidel Arriola on his first wife for judicial partition of the properties against Vilma G. Arriola and Anthony Ronald G. Arriola, the second wife and their son. RTC granted the petition and among the properties subject to partition is a land which sought it sale through public auction which the both parties agreed. But it has to be reset due to the petitioners refusal to include the disposal of subject house which is standing on the subject land, the plaintiff argued that it should be considered accessory to the land on which it is built and the subject house was built by the deceased.

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Susan Nicdao Cariño, vs. Susan Yee Cariño

G.R. No. 132529. February 2, 2001.* YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.: FACTS: SPO4 Santiago S. Cariño, contracted two marriages, the first was on June 20, 1969, with petitioner Susan Nicdao Cariño , with whom he had two offspring and the second was on November 10, 1992, with respondent Susan Yee Cariño, with whom he had no children in their almost ten year cohabitation starting way back in 1982. In 1992,Santiago died under the care of Susan Yee, who spent for his medical and burial expenses. Both petitioner and respondent filed claims for monetary benefits and financial assistance pertaining to the deceased from various government agencies. The first wife, petitioner was able to collect a total of P146,000.00 while respondent Susan Yee received a total of P21,000.00. Respondent Susan Yee filed the instant case for collection of sum of money against petitioner be ordered to return to her at least one-half of the “death benefits” which she received.

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Antonio A.S. Valdes, vs. Regional Trial Court

G.R. No. 122749. July 31, 1996.* FACTS: Antonio Valdes and Consuelo Gomez were married and begotten five children. Valdes sought the declaration of nullity of the marriage pursuant to Article 36 of the Family Code which was granted. The judgment rendered includes the custody of children and liquidation of  their common properties as defined by Article 147 of the Family Code, and to comply with the provisions of Articles 50, 51 and 52. Consuelo Gomez sought a clarification and asserted that the Family Code contained no provisions on the procedure for the liquidation of common property in “unions without marriage.”

Law School Notes - Case Digest

In re: Voluntary Dissolution of the Conjugal Partnership of Jose Bermas, Sr. and Filar Manuel Bermas

No. L-20379. June 22, 1965. CONCEPCION, J.: FACTS: In 1962, an Agreement for Dissolution of Conjugal Partnership and Separation of Property was jointly executed by petitioners states that they are and have been legally married since December 24, 1932, that they have two children and during their marriage  have acquired twelve (12) parcels of land and two (2) buildings. Petitioners have mutually agreed to dissolve their conjugal partnership, and to the establishment of a separation of properties in the manner specified in the contract to prevent friction, dissension and confusion among their respective heirs in the future, particularly because petitioner Jose Bermas, Sr. has two (2) sets of children, one by a former marriage, and another by his present wife, the other petitioner. After publication and hearing, the court rendered the appealed decision, denying the petition upon the ground that, under Article 192 of the Civil Code of the Philippines. Consequently, said children by first marriage of petitioner Jose Bermas, Sr. do not appear to have been notified personally of the filing of the petition and of the date of the hearing thereof, although the danger of substantial injury to their rights would seem to be remote.

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Alice Reyes Van Dorn vs. Hon. Manuel V. Romillo, Jr

No. L-68470, October 8, 1985.* MELENCIO-HERRERA, J.: FACTS: Petitioner, Alicia, is a citizen of the Philippines while private respondent is a citizen of the United States; that they were married in Hongkong in 1972; that, after the marriage, they established their residence in the Philippines; that they begot two children; that the parties were divorced in Nevada, United States, in 1982; and that petitioner has re-married also in Nevada, this time to Theodore Van Dorn.

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Pastor B. Tenchavez, vs. Vicenta F. Escaño

No. L-19671. November 29, 1965. REYES, J.B.L., J.: FACTS: On Feburary 24, 1948, 27 years old Vicenta Escano who belong to a prominent Filipino Family of Spanish ancestry got secretly married with Pastor Tenchavez, 32 years old engineer, and ex-army officer. Parents of Vicenta were disgusted because of the great scandal that the clandestine marriage would provoke so they decided for re-celebration to validate what he believed to be an invalid marriage, from the standpoint of the Church. A letter was handed disclosing an amorous relationship between Pastor Tenchavez and Pacita Noel; Vicenta translated the letter to her father, and thereafter would not agree to a new marriage. June 1948, the newlyweds were already estranged Vicenta had gone to Misamis Occidental, to escape from the scandal that her marriage stirred in Cebu society. There, a lawyer filed for her a petition to annul her marriage. She did not sign the petition and was dismissed without prejudice because of her non-appearance at the hearing.

Law School Notes - Case Digest

International Corporate Bank v. Court of Appeals and Philippine National Bank

G.R. No. 129910. September 5, 2006. Ponente: CARPIO, J. FACTS: The Ministry of Education and Culture issued 15 checks drawn against PNB which International Corporate Bank accepted for deposit on various dates. After 24 hours from submission of the checks to PNB for clearing, petitioner paid the value of the checks and allowed the withdrawals of the deposits. However, PNB returned all the checks to the petitioner on the ground that they were materially altered.

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Associated Bank vs. Court of Appeals

(G.R. No. 107382. January 31, 1996) FACTS: A portion of the funds of the Province of Tarlac is allocated to the Concepcion Emergency Hospital. The checks were payable to the order of the hospital. The allotment checks were released by the Provincial Treasurer and received by the hospital’s admin officer or cashier. During the audit, it was discovered that  the hospital did not receive 30 allotment checks drawn from the province’s current account with PNB. They learned that the checks were encashed by Faustino, a retired admin officer and cashier of payee hospital.  He was able to withdraw the money by forging the signature of Dr. Canlas, the chief of the payee hospital. All the checks bore the stamp of Associated Bank which reads “All prior endorsements guaranteed ASSOCIATED BANK.”

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Jai-Alai Corp. of the Phil. vs. Bank of the Phil.

No. L-29432. August 6, 1975 FACTS: Jai – Alai deposited 10 checks with a total face value of P8,030.58 with BPI. All checks were acquired by the petitioner from one Antonio J. Ramirez, a sales agent of the Inter-Island Gas and a regular bettor at jai-alai games. Inter-Island Gas discovered that all the indorsements made on the checks purportedly by its cashiers were forgeries.  In due time, the Inter-Island Gas advised the petitioner, the respondent, the drawers and the drawee-banks of the said checks about the forgeries, and filed a criminal complaint against Ramirez.

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Republic Bank Vs. Mauricia T. Ebrada

G.R. No. L-40796         July 31, 1975 FACTS: Mauricia Ebrada encashed a check issued by the Bureau of Treasury for the sum of P1246.08 at Republic Bank in 1963. Then, the Bureau of Treasury informed Republic Bank that the alleged indorsement on the reverse side of the check by the payee named Martin Lorenzo was forged because the latter had died last 1952. As a result, the Bureau of Treasury requested Republic Bank to refund the proceeds of the check. After, Republic Bank made verbal demands to Ebrada to account for the sum of P1246.08 in order for the bank to receive a refund of the amount, but she refused to do so.

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Philippine National Bank vs. Quimpo

G.R. No. L-53194, March 14, 1988; FACTS: Francisco S. Gozon II, went to PNB – Caloocan Branch in his car accompanied by his friend Ernesto Santos. He left Santos and transacted his business in the Bank. Santos saw that Gozon left his check book he took a check therefrom, filled it up for the amount of P5,000.00, forged the signature of Gozon, and thereafter he encashed the check in the bank on the same day.

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Philippine Commercial and International Bank vs. Court of Appeals

G.R. No. 121413. January 29, 2001. – Philippine Commercial International Bank (Formerly Insular Bank Of Asia And America) Vs. Court Of Appeals And Ford Philippines, Inc. And Citibank,G.R. No. 121479. January 29, 2001. – Ford Philippines, Inc., Vs. Court Of Appeals And Citibank, N.A. And Philippine Commercial International Bank.G.R. No. 128604. January 29, 2001 – Ford Philippines, Inc., Vs. Citibank, N.A., Philippine Commercial International Bank And The Court Of Appeals. FACTS: This case is composed of three consolidated petitions involving several checks, payable to the Bureau of Internal Revenue, but was embezzled allegedly by an organized syndicate.

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company vs. Renato D. Cabilzo

[G.R. No. 154469. December 6, 2006.] FACTS: Cabilzo a client of Metrobank, issued a Metrobank Check payable to “CASH” and postdated on 24 November 1994 in the amount of  P1,000.00. The check was drawn against Cabilzo’s Account with Metrobank under Current Account  and was paid by Cabilzo to a certain Mr. Marquez, as his sales commission.

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Far East Realty Investment Inc. vs. Court of Appeals

No. L-36549. October 5, 1988 FACTS: Private Respondents Tat, Chee and An asked petitioner Far East Realty Investment Inc. to extend an accommodation loan in the sum of Php 4500 which they needed in their business. They promised to pay, jointly and severally, in one month time; with 14% payment of interest and they delivered China Banking Corporation Check No. VN-915564, dated September 13, 1960, for P4,500.00, drawn by Dy Hian Tat, and signed by them at the back of said check. In 1964, the check was presented for payment to Chinabank but the check bounced and was not cashed by said bank for the reason that the current account of the drawer had already been closed.

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Salas vs. CA and Filinvest Finance Leasing

G.R. No. 76788. January 22, 1990. FACTS: Petitioner bought a motor vehicle from the Violago Motor Sales Corporation (VMS) evidenced by a promissory note (P58,132). The note was subsequently endorsed to Filinvest Finance & Leasing Corporation which financed the purchase. Petitioner defaulted in her installments because VMS delivered a different engine and chassis numbers compared to which indicated in the Invoice, COR and mortgage.

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Ilusorio vs. Court of Appeals

G.R. No. 139130. November 27, 2002 FACTS: Petitioner a businessman was going out of the country, and entrusted to his secretary, Katherine2 E. Eugenio, his credit cards and his checkbook with blank checks. Eugenio was able to encash and deposit to her personal account about seventeen (17) checks drawn against the account of the petitioner at the respondent bank, with an aggregate amount of P119,634.34. One of his business partner apprised him that he saw Eugenio use his credit cards. Petitioner fired Eugenio immediately, and instituted a criminal action against her for estafa thru falsification Petitioner then requested the Manila Banking Corporation to credit back and restore to its account the value of the checks which were wrongfully encashed but respondent bank refused. The Bank contended that they had performed standard operating procedure. Manila Bank also sought the expertise of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) in determining the genuineness of the signatures appearing on the checks. Petitioner claims that Manila Bank is liable for damages for its negligence in failing to detect the discrepant checks. Petitioner further contends that under Section 23 of the Negotiable Instruments Law a forged check is inoperative, and that Manila Bank had no authority to pay the forged checks CA disposed the case held that petitioner’s own negligence was the proximate cause of his loss ISSUE 1) whether or not Manila Bank had no authority to pay the forged checks because under Sec. 23 of NIL HELD Under Sec 23 True, it is a rule that when a signature is forged or made without the authority of the person whose signature it purports to be, the check is wholly inoperative. However, the rule does provide for an exception, namely: “unless the party against whom it is sought to enforce such right is precluded from setting up the forgery or want of authority.” In the instant case, it is the exception that applies. In our view, petitioner is precluded from setting up the forgery, assuming there is forgery, due to his own negligence in entrusting to his secretary his credit cards and checkbook including the verification of his statements of account.

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Heirs of Narvasa vs Imbornal

G.R. No. 182908. August 6, 2014 Perlas-Bernabe,  J. FACTS: Basilia Imbornal had four (4) children namely, Alejandra, Balbina, Catalina, and Pablo. Basilia owned a parcel of land situated at San Fabian, Pangasinan which she conveyed to her three (3) daughters. Petitioners are the heirs and successors-in-interest of Francisco, Pedro, and Petra, who are children of Alejandra and Balbina.  On the other hand, respondents Emiliana, Victoriano, Felipe, Mateo, Raymundo, Maria, and Eduardo, all surnamed Imbornal, are the descendants of Pablo.

Law School Notes - Case Digest

In re Voluntary Dissolution of the Conjugal Partnership of Jose Bermas, Sr. and Filar Manuel Bermas

No. L-20379. June 22, 1965. CONCEPCION, J.: FACTS: In 1962, an Agreement for Dissolution of Conjugal Partnership and Separation of Property was jointly executed by petitioners states that they are and have been legally married since December 24, 1932, that they have two children and during their marriage  have acquired twelve (12) parcels of land and two (2) buildings. Petitioners have mutually agreed to dissolve their conjugal partnership, and to the establishment of a separation of properties in the manner specified in the contract to prevent friction, dissension and confusion among their respective heirs in the future, particularly because petitioner Jose Bermas, Sr. has two (2) sets of children, one by a former marriage, and another by his present wife, the other petitioner. After publication and hearing, the court rendered the appealed decision, denying the petition upon the ground that, under Article 192 of the Civil Code of the Philippines. Consequently, said children by first marriage of petitioner Jose Bermas, Sr. do not appear to have been notified personally of the filing of the petition and of the date of the hearing thereof, although the danger of substantial injury to their rights would seem to be remote.

Law School Notes - Case Digest

PRIMA PARTOSA-JO, petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and JOSE JO, respondents.

G.R. No. 82606. December 18, 1992.* CRUZ, J.: FACTS: Private respondent, Jose Jo is legally married to the petitioner, who admits to having cohabited with three women and fathered fifteen children. The two agreed that Prima would temporarily leave their conjugal home in Dumaguete City to stay with her parents during the initial period of her pregnancy and for Jose to visit and support her. They never agreed to separate permanently. Prima went back to Dumaguete, but she was not accepted by her husband.

Law School Notes - Case Digest

GUILLERMA TUMLOS, petitioner, vs. SPOUSES MARIO FERNANDEZ and LOURDES FERNANDEZ, respondents.

G.R. No. 137650. April 12, 2000.* PANGANIBAN, J.: FACTS: An action for ejectment was filed against petitioners by  Fernandez spouses who allegedly own the building apartment. However, Guillerma Tumlos the petitioner contends that the respondents had no cause of action against her, since she is a co-owner of the subject premises and being named in the Contract to Sell as the wife of [Respondent] Mario Fernandez. She alleged that she cohabited with the petitioner-husband without the benefit of marriage, and that she bore him two (2) children.  The lower court decided that since she failed to prove that she contributed money to the purchase price of the subject apartment building, there is no basis to justify her co-ownership.

Law School Notes - Case Digest

SEA COMMERCIAL COMPANY, INC., petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, JAMANDRE INDUSTRIES, INC. and TIRSO JAMANDRE, respondents.

G.R. No. 122823. November 25, 1999.* GONZAGA-REYES, J.: FACTS: SEACOM is a corporation engaged in the business of selling and distributing agricultural machinery, products and equipment. SEACOM and JII entered into a dealership agreement as its exclusive dealer in the City and Province of Iloilo  and Capiz and to make the dealership agreement on a non-exclusive basis. 

Law School Notes - Case Digest

EDUARDO MAGSUMBOL, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent

G.R. NO 207175 I. Facts: – In 2002, around 11’oclock in the afternoon petitioner, Eduardo Magsumbol, Erasmo Magsino, Apolonio Inanoria, and Bonifacio Ramirez along with unidentified 7 unidentified others  allegedly cut, take, steal and carry away with them thirty-three (33) coconut trees valued (P44,400.00). The unregistered parcel of land was co-owned by Ernesto Caringal and Menandro Avanzado who then charged with the crime of  Theft against the petitioners.

Law School Notes - Case Digest

FRANCISCO HERMOSISIMA, petitioner, vs. THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL., respondents.

No. L-14628. September 30, 1960 CONCEPCIÓN, J.: FACTS: Soledad Cagigas and Francisco Hermosisima, who was almost 10 years younger used to have an intimate relationship. They had sexual intercourse and Soledad then got pregnant, whereupon he promised to marry her. Their child, Chris Hermosisima, was born on June 17, 1954 however, subsequently, or on July 24, 1954, defendant married one Romanita Perez.

Law School Notes - Case Digest

PHILIPPINE BASKETBALL ASSOCIATION vs COURT OF APPEALS

G.R. No. 119122. August 8, 2000 FACTS: On June 21, 1989, the petitioner received an assessment letter from the Commissioner of Internal Revenue for the payment of deficiency amusement tax amounted to P5,864,260.84. Petitioner contested the assessment by filing a protest who denied the same by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue.

Law School Notes - Case Digest

GLOBE MACKAY CABLE AND RADIO CORP., and HERBERT C. HENDRY, petitioners, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and RESTITUTO M. TOBIAS, respondents.

G.R. No. 81262. August 25, 1989.* CORTÉS, J.: FACTS: Restituto M. Tobias was employed by petitioner Globe Mackay who discovered the anomalies and reported them to his immediate superior Eduardo T. Ferraren and to petitioner Herbert C. Hendry who was then the Executive Vice-President and General Manager of GLOBE MACKAY.

Law School Notes - Case Digest

LEOUEL SANTOS, petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS AND JULIA ROSARIO BEDIA-SANTOS, respondents.

G.R. No. 112019. January 4, 1995.* VITUG, J.: FACTS: Leouel and Julia were married in 1986 and had a son. They lived at Julia’s parents which caused their quarrel due to interference of the parents on their affairs. In 1988, Julia went to US to work as a nurse despite Leouel’s pleas to so dissuade her. She promised to return home upon the expiration of her contract in July 1989. She never did. When Leouel got a chance to underwent training in US, he tried to locate, or to somehow get in touch with, Julia but all his efforts were of no avail.

Law School Notes - Case Digest

LEONILO ANTONIO, petitioner, vs. MARIE IVONNE F. REYES, respondent. TINGA, J.:

G.R. No. 155800. March 10, 2006. FACTS: On Dec 1990 Leonilo and Marie barely a year after their first meeting got married and had a child who after 5 months died. On March 1993, Leonilo filed a petition for nullity of their marriage alleging that respondent was psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential obligations of marriage because she persistently lied about herself, the people around her, her occupation, income, educational attainment and other events or things.

Law School Notes - Case Digest

CHI MING TSOI, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and GINA LAO-TSOI, respondents.

G.R. No. 119190. January 16, 1997 FACTS Chi Ming Tsoi and Gina Lao got married and after the reception they went straight ahead to the house of petitioner. According to Gina, contrary to her expectations, that as newly weds they supposed to enjoy making love but the defendant just sleep which repeatedly happened until the fourth night. In an effort to have their honeymoon in private place they went to Baguio City but defendant invited members of the family and there were no sexual intercourse happened due to defendant avoided it by taking a long walk or sleeping on a rocking chair located in the living room. For almost a year of marriage, they slept together in the same room and on the same bed but there was no attempt for sexual intercourse between them and she claims that they even did not saw the private parts of each other. And because of this they went to urologist which the result of examination and medications of Chi Ming Tsoi was kept confidential to her. Gina Lao claims that the defendant is impotent and a closet homosexual and married her to obtain residency status and to publicly maintain the appearance of normal man. She filed for annulment of marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity which was granted by RTC and affirmed by CA.

Law School Notes - Case Digest

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and RORIDEL OLAVIANO MOLINA, respondents.

G.R. No. 108763. February 13, 1997 FACTS: Roridel, respondent, is married to Reynaldo who was born with a son. After a year of marriage Reynaldo showed signs of “immaturity and irresponsibility” as a husband and a father – since he preferred spending time and squandering money on his friends, dependency on parents and dishonesty in regards to their finances. Reynaldo was relieved from his job, and the respondent then became the breadwinner of the family.  They had a huge fight which resulted to Roridel’s resignation and went to Baguio to live with her parents and after few weeks, Reynaldo left and abandoned them.

Law School Notes - Case Digest

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. LIBERTY D. ALBIOS, respondent.

Sharing my personal case digest on Republic vs Albios. FACTS: Petitioner is married to an American citizen, Fringer before MTC- Mandaluyong to enable her to acquire American citizenship; that in consideration thereof, she agreed to pay him the sum of $2,000.00. In 2006, Albios filed with the RTC a petition for declaration of nullity of her marriage with Fringer. She alleged that immediately after their marriage, they separated and never lived as husband and wife because they never really had any intention of entering into a married state or complying with any of their essential marital obligations. She described their marriage as one made in jest and, therefore, null and void ab initio.

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Case Digest: Cabarroguis vs Vicente

Sharing my personal digest on the Cabarroguis vs Vicente case. No. L-14304. March 23, 1960

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Case Digest: ALBENSON ENTERPRISES CORP. vs THE COURT OF APPEALS

Sharing my personal digest on the ALBENSON ENTERPRISES CORP. vs THE COURT OF APPEALS case. 217 SCRA 16, Jan 11, 1993

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Case Digest: COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE vs PRIMETOWN PROPERTY GROUP, INC.

Sharing my personal digest on the COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE vs PRIMETOWN PROPERTY GROUP, INC. case. G.R. No. 162155. August 28, 2007