Remedial Law Case Doctrines — Leonen [4f1920] (1).pdf

CIVIL PROCEDURE MWSS v. LGU Quezon City

DOCTRINE: It is doubtful whether the Court of Appeals could apply the same G.R. No. 194388, rationale when the doctrine of the hierarchy of courts is invoked. In November 7, 2018 any case, it has full discretion on whether to give due course to any petition for certiorari directly filed before it. In this case, it allowed petitioner's direct resort to it on the ground that the issue presented was a pure question of law. No error can be ascribed to it for passing upon the issue. Marantan v. Department of DOCTRINES: Justice Direct invocation of this Court's original jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari is allowed only for special and important reasons that must G.R. No. 206354, Date:13 be clearly and specifically set out in the Petition. Grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction is precisely the March 2019 scope of a petition for certiorari. This case is no such exception that it would merit a direct resort to this Court. This Court fails to see how public welfare, public policy, or the broader interest of justice demands the exercise of our jurisdiction here. In the same vein, this Court does not see why petitioner's prayer could not have been granted by the Court of Appeals, which has concurrent original jurisdiction over petitions for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. Thus, this case is dismissible due to petitioner's failure to adhere to the rule on judicial hierarchy. A petition for certiorari, pertaining to the regularity of a preliminary investigation, becomes moot after an information is filed and a trial court issues an arrest warrant upon finding probable cause against the accused. Intramuros Administration v. DOCTRINE: Offshore Construction The doctrine of hierarchy of courts is not inviolable, and the SC has Development Co. provided several exceptions to the doctrine. One of these exceptions is the exigency of the situation being litigated. G.R. No. 196795, March 7, 2018

Chiquita Omelito

Brands,

G.R. 189102; June 7, 2017

| 4F – 19’20 |

Inc

Physical possession, or de facto possession, is the sole issue to be resolved in ejectment proceedings. Regardless of the claims or defenses raised by a defendant, a MeTC has jurisdiction over an ejectment complaint once it has been shown that the requisite jurisdictional facts have been alleged. vs DOCTRINE: The doctrine on hierarchy of courts prohibits "parties from directly resorting to this Court when relief may be obtained before the lower courts." This rule is founded upon judicial economy and practical considerations. On the one hand, it allows this Court to devote its time and attention to those matters falling within its exclusive jurisdiction. It also "prevent[s] the congestion of th[is] Court's dockets." On the other hand, it "ensures that every level of the

1

judiciary performs its designated roles in an effective and efficient manner." The doctrine on hierarchy of courts was designed to promote order and efficiency. Aala v. Uy DOCTRINE: Concurrence of jurisdiction does not give parties unfettered discretion as to the choice of forum. The doctrine on hierarchy of G.R. No. G.R. No. 202781, courts is determinative of the appropriate venue where petitions for Date:January 10, 2017 extraordinary writs should be filed. Parties cannot randomly select the court or forum to which their actions will be directed. Quezon City PTCA v. DOCTRINE: Department of Education The Supreme Court is a court of last resort, and must so remain if it is to satisfactorily perform the functions assigned to it by the fundamental charter and immemorial tradition. It cannot and G.R. No. 188720, should not be burdened with the task of dealing with causes in the February 23, 2016 first instance. Presidential Decree No. 1271 DOCTRINE: Committee v. De Guzman The doctrine of the “law of the case” provides that questions of law previously determined by a court will generally govern a case through all its subsequent stages where “the determination has G.R. No. 187291 & 187334, already been made on a prior appeal to a court of last resort.” December 5, 2016 Amoguis v. Ballado

DOCTRINE: Jurisdiction over the subject matter of a complaint is conferred by law. It cannot be lost through waiver or estoppel. It can be raised at G.R. No. 189626, any time in the proceedings, whether during trial or on appeal. The August 20, 2018 edict in Tijam v. Sibonghanoy is not an exception to the rule on jurisdiction. A court that does not have jurisdiction over the subject matter of a case will not acquire jurisdiction because of estoppel. Rather, the edict in Tijam must be appreciated as a waiver of a party's right to raise jurisdiction based on the doctrine of equity. It is only when the circumstances in Tijam are present that a waiver or an estoppel in questioning jurisdiction is appreciated. Philippine National DOCTRINES: Construction Corp. v. Forum non conveniens literally translates to 'the forum is Asiavest Merchant Bankers inconvenient.'" This doctrine applies in conflicts of law cases. It gives (M) Berhad courts the choice of not assuming jurisdiction when it appears that it is not the most convenient forum and the... parties may seek redress in another one. On the other hand, courts may choose to assume G.R. No. 172301 jurisdiction subject to the following requisites: "(1) that the Philippine August 19, 2015 Court is one to which the parties may conveniently resort to; (2) that the Philippine Court is in a position to make an intelligent decision as to the law... and the facts; and (3) that the Philippine Court has or is likely to have power to enforce its decision."

Rule 1 – General Provisions Dela Cruz v. National Police DOCTRINE: Commission Procedural rules, we must stress, should be treated with utmost respect and due regard since they are designed to facilitate the adjudication of cases to remedy the worsening problem of delay in the resolution of G.R. No. 215545,

| 4F – 19’20 |

2

January 7, 2019

rival claims and in the administration of justice. There have been some instances wherein this Court allowed a relaxation in the application of the rules, but this flexibility was "never intended to forge a bastion for erring litigants to violate the rules with impunity." A liberal interpretation and application of the rules of procedure can be resorted to only in proper cases and under justifiable causes and circumstances.

Rule 2 – Cause of Action Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas DOCTRINE: v. Spouses Ledesma A cause of action is "the delict or wrongful act or omission committed by the defendant in violation of the primary rights of the plaintiff." Elements of Causes of Action are: (1) [T]he existence of a legal right G.R. No. 211176, in the plaintiff; (2) a correlative legal duty on the part of the defendant; February 6, 2019 and (3) an act or omission of the defendant in violation of plaintiffs right with consequential injury or damage to the plaintiff for which he may maintain an action for the recovery of damages or other appropriate relief. Guillermo v. Philippine DOCTRINE: Information Agency To determine the sufficiency of a cause of action in a motion to dismiss, only the facts alleged in the complaint should be considered, in relation to whether its prayer may be granted. Additionally, in order G.R. No. 223751, to sufficiently state a cause of action, the Complaint should have March 15, 2017 alleged facts showing that the trial court could grant its prayer based on the strength of its factual allegations.

Rule 3 – Parties to Civil Actions Marcelino Florete, Jr., and Maria and Raul Muyco v. Rofelio Florete, Imelda Florete, Diamel Corporation, Rogelio Florete, Jr., and Margaret Florete

DOCTRINE: There are two consequences of a finding on appeal that indispensable parties have not been joined. First, all subsequent actions of the lower courts are null and void for lack of jurisdiction. Second, the case should be remanded to the trial court for the inclusion of indispensable parties. It is only upon the plaintiff’s refusal to comply with an order to join indispensable parties that the case may be dismissed.

G.R. No. 174909 and 177275, January 20, 2016 GSIS Family Bank Employees Union vs. Villanueva G.R. No. 210773,: January 23, 2019

Roxas v. Republic Real Estate Corp

| 4F – 19’20 |

DOCTRINE: The Governance Commission was created under Republic Act No. 10149 and it is attached to the Office of the President. The Governance Commission possesses neither judicial nor quasi-judicial powers thus, it cannot review or settle actual controversies or conflicting rights between dueling parties and enforce legally demandable rights. It is not a tribunal or board exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions that may properly be the subject of a petition for certiorari. Section 7, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court provides that parties in interest without whom no final determination can be had of an action shall be joined either as plaintiffs or defendants. DOCTRINE:

3

G.R. No. 208205, June 1, 2016

Law Firm of Laguesma Magsalin Consulta and Gastardo vs. Commission on Audit G.R. No. 185544, January 13, 2015

Upon execution, this Court's decision cannot be amended by the trial court or the sheriff. Absent an order of remand, we cannot allow attempts to substantially or materially alter the terms of our final and executory judgment.

DOCTRINE: Ordinarily, a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court has a reglementary period of 60 days from receipt of denial of the motion for reconsideration. The Constitution, however, specifies that the reglementary period for assailing the decisions, orders, or rulings of the constitutional commissions is thirty (30) days from receipt of the decision, order, or ruling. A real party in interest is the party who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit, or the party entitled to the avails of the suit. Unless otherwise authorized by law or these Rules, every action must be prosecuted or defended in the name of the real party in interest.

Caravan Travel and Tours DOCTRINE: International, Inc. v. A plaintiff exercising substitute parental authority, and who suffered Ermilinda Abejar actual loss, is a real party in interest in a complaint for damages for the death of her niece.

G.R. No. 170631, February 10, 2016

Rule 4 – Venue of Actions Pilipinas Shell Petroleum DOCTRINE: Corp. v. Royal Ferry Wrong venue is merely a procedural infirmity, not a jurisdictional Services, Inc. impediment. Jurisdiction is a matter of substantive law, while venue is a matter of procedural law. To determine the venue of an insolvency proceeding, the residence of a corporation should be the G.R. No.188146, actual place where its principal office has been located for six (6) February 1, 2017 months before the filing of the petition. Hygienic Packaging Corp. vs. DOCTRINE: Nutri-Asia, Inc. The venue for the collection of sum of money case is governed by Rule 4, Section 2 of the Rules of Court. Unless the parties enter into a written agreement on their preferred venue before an action is instituted, the G.R. No. 201302, plaintiff may commence his or her action before the trial court of the January 23, 2019 province or city either where he or she resides, or where the defendant resides. If the party is a corporation, its residence is the province or city where its principal place of business is situated as recorded in its Articles of Incorporation.

Rule 6 – Kinds of Pleadings DOCTRINE: Development Bank of the Philippines v. Clarges Realty The admission of a third-party complaint lies within the sound discretion Corporation of the trial court. If leave to file a third-party complaint is denied, then

G.R.No. 170060; August 17, 2016

| 4F – 19’20 |

the proper remedy is to file a separate case, not to insist on the admission of the third-party complaint all the way up to the Supreme Court.

4

Rule 7 – Parts of Pleading Malixi v. Baltazar G.R. No. 208224, November 22, 2017

Commissioner of Revenue v. Apo Corp.

Internal Cement

G.R. No. 193381, :February 8, 2017

City of Taguig vs City of Makati G.R. No. 208393; June 15, 2016

In Re: Ferrer A.C. No. 8037, February 17, 2016

Ortigas & Co., Limited Partnership v. Velasco G.R. Nos. 109645, 112564, 128422 & 128911, : January 21, 2015 Stronghold Insurance Company, Inc. v. Spouses Stroem

| 4F – 19’20 |

DOCTRINE: Forum shopping exists whenever a party repetitively avails of several judicial remedies in different courts, simultaneously or successively, all substantially founded on the same transactions and the same essential facts and circumstances, and all raising substantially the same issues either pending in, or already resolved adversely by, some other court. Forum shopping, in the concept of res judicata, is also applicable to judgments or decisions of administrative agencies performing judicial or quasi-judicial functions DOCTRINE: Verification; The amendment to Section 4, Rule 7 entirely removed any reference to “belief” as basis.—The amendment to Section 4, Rule 7 entirely removed any reference to “belief” as basis. This is to ensure that the pleading is anchored on facts and not on imagination or speculation, and is filed in good faith. In Go v. Court of Appeals, 531 SCRA 158 (2007): Mere belief is insufficient basis and negates the verification which should be on the basis of personal knowledge or authentic records. Verification is required to secure an assurance that the allegations of the petition have been made in good faith, or are true and correct and not merely speculative. DOCTRINE: Forum shopping is committed by a party who institutes two or more suits in different courts, either simultaneously or successively, in order to ask the courts to rule on the same or related causes or to grant the same or substantially the same reliefs, on the supposition that one or the other court would make a favorable disposition or increase a party's chances of obtaining a favorable decision or action. DOCTRINE: There is forum shopping when a party repetitively avails of several judicial remedies in different courts, simultaneously or successively, all substantially founded on the same transactions and the same essential facts and circumstances, and all raising substantially the same issues either pending in or already resolved adversely by some other court. DOCTRINE: Forum shopping is defined as, “when a party repetitively avails of several judicial remedies in different courts, simultaneously or successively, all substantially founded on the same transactions and the same essential facts and circumstances, and all raising substantially the same issues either pending in or already resolved adversely by some other court.” DOCTRINE: There is forum shopping when: as a result of an adverse opinion in one forum, a party seeks a favorable opinion (other than by appeal or certiorari) in another. The principle applies not only with respect to suits filed in the courts but also in connection with litigations

5

G.R. No. 204689, January 21, 2015

Date: commenced in the courts while an administrative proceeding is pending.

Fuji Television Network, Inc. DOCTRINE: vs. Arlene S. Espiritu The requirement regarding verification of a pleading is formal, not jurisdictional. Such requirement is simply a condition affecting the form G.R. No. 204944-45, Date: of pleading, the non-compliance of which does not necessarily render the pleading fatally defective. Verification is simply intended to secure December 3, 2014 an assurance that the allegations in the pleading are true and correct and not the product of the imagination or a matter of speculation, and that the pleading is filed in good faith. Garcia v. Ferro Chemicals Inc. DOCTRINES: The trial court's lack of jurisdiction cannot be cured by the parties' G.R. No. 172505, Date: October silence on the matter. The failure of the parties to raise the matter of jurisdiction also cannot be construed as a waiver of the parties. 1, 2014 Jurisdiction is conferred by law and cannot be waived by the parties. The assailed decision is void, considering that it originates from a void decision of the Regional Trial Court for lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter. The test for determining the existence of forum shopping is whether the elements of litis pendentia are present, or whether a final judgment in one case amounts to res judicata in another. Thus, there is forum shopping when the following elements are present: (a) identity of parties, or at least such parties as represent the same interests in both actions; (b) identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for, the relief being founded on the same facts; and (c) the identity of the two preceding particulars, such that any judgment rendered in the other action will, regardless of which party is successful, amount to res judicata in the action under consideration; said requisites are also constitutive of the requisites for auter action pendant or lis pendens.

Rule 9 – Effect of Failure to Plead Spouses Manuel vs. Ong

DOCTRINE: A sheriff’s return, if complete on its face, must be accorded the G.R. No. 205249, October 15, presumption of regularity and, hence, taken to be an accurate and exhaustive recital of the circumstances relating to the steps 2014 undertaken by a sheriff. Three requisites must be satisfied by a motion in order "to warrant the setting aside of an order of default for failure to file answer and these are: 1. it must be made by motion under oath by one that has knowledge of the facts; 2. it must be shown that the failure to file answer was due to fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence; and

| 4F – 19’20 |

6

3. there must be a proper showing of the existence of a meritorious defense. Aboitiz Equity Ventures, Inc. v. DOCTRINE: Chiongbian Dismissal on the ground of "failure to state a cause of action" may operate as res judicata on a subsequent case involving the same G.R. No. 197530, Date: July 9, parties, subject matter, and causes of action, provided that the order of dismissal actually ruled on the issues raised. What appears to be 2014 essential to a judgment on the merits is that it be a reasoned decision, which clearly states the facts and the law on which it is based.

Moncayo Integrated SmallScale Miners Association, DOCTRINE: Inc. vs. Southeast Litis pendencia exists when the following elements are present: (a) the identity of parties, or at least such as representing the same interests in Mindanao Gold Mining both actions; (b) the identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for, the G.R. Nos.149638 & 149916, relief being founded on the same facts; and (c) the identity of the two Date: December 10, 2014 cases such that judgment in one, regardless of which party is successful, would amount to res judicata in the other. The existence of litis pendencia also means that the rule against forum shopping was violated.

Rule 10 – Amended and Suplemental Pleadings Republic of the Philippines v. DOCTRINE: Sandiganbayan, Et. al. Procedural rules are not mere technicalities that can be disregarded at whim by the parties or by our courts. Neither should they be G.R. No. 195295, Date: applied so mechanically without any appreciation of their purpose October 5, 2016 and object.

Rule 13 – Filing and Service of Pleadings Bracero v. Arcelo

DOCTRINE: Rule 13, Section 2 of the Rules of Court states in part that "[i]f any G.R. No. 212496, March 18, party has appeared by counsel, service upon him shall be made upon his counsel or one of them, unless service upon the party 2015 himself is ordered by the court." Notice sent directly to the client is not notice in law. Nevertheless, this rule admits of exceptions.

Rule 14 - Summons Aurora N. De Pedro vs. Romasan Development Corporation G.R. No. 194751, Date: November 26, 2014

| 4F – 19’20 |

DOCTRINE: Regardless of the type of action - whether it is in personam, in rem or quasi in rem - the preferred mode of service of summons is personal service. To avail themselves of substituted service, courts must rely on a detailed enumeration of the sheriff's actions and a showing that the defendant cannot be served despite diligent and reasonable efforts. The sheriff's return, which contains these details, is entitled to a presumption of regularity, and on this basis, the court may allow substituted service. Should the sheriff's return be wanting of these details, substituted service will be irregular if no other evidence of the efforts to serve summons was presented. Failure to serve summons will mean

7

that the court failed to acquire jurisdiction over the person of the defendant. However, the filing of a motion for new trial or reconsideration is tantamount to voluntary appearance. Spouses Manuel vs. Ong DOCTRINE: A sheriff’s return, if complete on its face, must be accorded the G.R. No. 205249, October 15, presumption of regularity and, hence, taken to be an accurate and exhaustive recital of the circumstances relating to the steps 2014 undertaken by a sheriff.

Gatmaytan v. Dolor G.R. No. 198120, February 20, 2017

People's General Insurance Corporation (PGIC) v. Guansing G.R. No. 204759, November 14, 2018

Date:

Three requisites must be satisfied by a motion in order "to warrant the setting aside of an order of default for failure to file answer and these are: 1. it must be made by motion under oath by one that has knowledge of the facts; 2. it must be shown that the failure to file answer was due to fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence; and 3. there must be a proper showing of the existence of a meritorious defense. DOCTRINE: When a party is represented and has appeared by counsel, service shall, as a rule, be made upon his or her counsel. Moreover, when a party's counsel serves a notice of change in address upon a court, and the court acknowledges this change, service of papers, processes, and pleadings upon the counsel's former address is ineffectual. Service is deemed completed only when made at the updated address. DOCTRINE: Personal service is the preferred mode of service of summons and Substituted service is the exception to this general rule. For the sheriff to avail of substituted service, there must be a detailed enumeration of the sheriff's actions showing that a defendant cannot be served despite diligent and reasonable efforts. These details are contained in the sheriff's return and the sheriff's return is entitled to a presumption of regularity. Courts may allow substituted service based on what the sheriff's return contains.

Cathay Metal Corporation v. DOCTRINE: Laguna West Multi-Purpose A Cooperative Code provision requiring cooperatives to have an official Cooperative Inc. address to which all notices and communications shall be sent cannot take the place of the rules on summons under the Rules of Court G.R. No. 172204, Date: July 2, concerning a court proceeding. Notices may be sent to a cooperative's official address. However, service of notices sent to the official address 2014 in accordance with the Cooperative Code may not be used as a defense for violations of procedures, especially when such violation affects another party's rights.

Rule 15 – Motions In re: Resolution dated DOCTRINE: August 14, 2013 of the Court A motion prays for a relief other than by a pleading. As the court may of Appeals in CA-GR CV No. either grant or deny a motion, or otherwise defer action on it until

| 4F – 19’20 |

8

94656, Mortel

vs.

Atty.

Gideon certain conditions are met, lawyers have the obligation to apprise themselves of the court’s resolution, and not to simply second-guess it.

A.C. No. 10117 (Resolution); July 25, 2016 Laude v. Ginez-Jabalde DOCTRINES: While the general rule is that a motion that fails to comply with the G.R. No. 217456 November requirements of Rule 15 is a mere scrap of paper, an exception may be made and the motion may still be acted upon by the court, 24, 2015 provided doing so will neither cause prejudice to the other party nor violate his or her due process rights.v Valderrama v. People DOCTRINE: Motion to Reconsider must be filed with the conformity of the public G.R. No. 220054, March 27, prosecutor. Moreover, the Motion to Reconsider’s Notice of Hearing must be directed to the adverse party and must inform him or her of 2017 the time and date of the hearing. Failure to comply with these mandates renders the motion fatally defective, equivalent to a useless scrap of paper.

Rule 16 – Motion to Dismiss Alvarado v. Ayala Land, Inc., DOCTRINE: et al. Two (2) categories of motions to dismiss may be recognized under the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure: first, those that must be filed G.R. No. 208426, September ahead of an answer, and second, those that may be entertained even after an answer has been filed. Motions to dismiss under the 20, 2017 first category may plead any of the 10 grounds under Rule 16, Section 1. Those under the second category may only plead four (4) of Rule 16, Section 1's 10 grounds: lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter, litis pendentia, res judicata, and prescription. In addition to these four (4) grounds, motions to dismiss under the second category may also plead lack of cause of action and other grounds that may only be made known after the answer was filed. [Please see discussion of Revised Rules on Civil Procedure in the Ruling portion, as provisions on Rule 16 are either deleted or transposed.] Tuano y Hernandez v. People DOCTRINE: Although Rule 3, Section 16 of the Rules of Court is directly applied G.R. No. 205871 (Resolution), more often in civil actions for the substitution of the deceased party, the rule that the counsel of the deceased party must inform the court Date: September 28, 2016 of the death of his or her client also properly applies in criminal actions. Regardless of the nature of the action, courts cannot be expected to assume the death of the party without the counsel's proper manifestation. Pilipinas Shell Foundation v. DOCTRINE: Fredeluces, et. al. When there is more than one suit pending between the same parties for the same cause of action, litis pendentia exists and a motion to dismiss

G.R. No. 174333, Date: April may be filed on this ground. 20, 2016

| 4F – 19’20 |

9

In filing a motion to dismiss on the ground of failure to state a cause of action, a defendant hypothetically admits the truth of the facts alleged in the complaint.

Rule 17 – Dismissal of Action Ching vs. Cheng G.R. No. 175507, October 8, 2014

DOCTRINE: As a general rule, dismissals under Section 1 of Rule 17 are without prejudice except when it is the second time that the plaintiff caused its dismissal. Parties resort to forum shopping when they file several actions of the same claim in different forums in the hope of obtaining a favorable result. It is prohibited by the courts as it “trifles with the orderly administration of justice”.

Rule 18 – Pre - Trial Commissioner of Internal DOCTRINE: Revenue v. San Miguel Corp. The allowance of a motion for production of document rests on the sound discretion of the court where the case is pending, with due G.R. No.205045 & 205723, regard to the rights of the parties and the demands of equity and justice Date: January 25, 2017 Bank of the Philippine DOCTRINE: Islands v. Spouses Genuino A.M. No. 03-1-09-SC1 does not remove the plaintiff's duty under Rule 18, Section 1 of the Rules of Court to promptly move ex-parte to set his G.R. No. 208792, July 22, 2015 or her case for pre-trial after the last pleading has been served and filed. While pre-trial promotes efficiency in court proceedings and aids in decongesting dockets, A.M. No. 03-1-09-SC did not give sole burden on the courts to set cases for pre-trial. A.M. No. 03-1-09-SC, providing that "[wjithin five (5) days from date of filing of the reply, the plaintiff must promptly move ex parte that the case be set for pre-trial conference [and] [i]f the plaintiff fails to file said motion within the given period, the Branch COC shall issue a notice of pre-trial," must be read together with Rule 17, Section 3 of the Rules of Court on dismissals due to plaintiff's fault. Plaintiff should thus sufficiently show justifiable cause for its failure to set the case for pre-trial; otherwise, the court can dismiss the complaint outright.

Rule 23 – Depositions Pending Action Santamaria vs. Clearly GR No. 197122; June 15 2016

| 4F – 19’20 |

DOCTRINE: The Section 1, Rule 23 of the 1997 Rules of Court is clear that as regards the taking of depositions, the testimony of any person may be taken by deposition upon oral examination or written interrogatories at the instance of any party. Such provision does not make any distinction or restriction as to who can avail of deposition. Thus, the Supreme Court found it immaterial that the plaintiff was a non-resident foreign corporation and that all its witnesses were Americans residing in the United States.

10

Rule 27 – Production or Inspection of Documents or Things Eagleridge Development DOCTRINE: Corp. vs. Cameron Granville 3 The availment of a motion for production, as one of the modes of discovery, is not limited to the pre-trial stage. Rule 27 does not Asset Management, Inc. G.R. No. 204700, November 24, 2014

provide for any time frame within which the discovery mode of production or inspection of documents can be utilized. Date: What is forbidden under the parol evidence rule is the presentation of oral or extrinsic evidence, not those expressly referred to in the written agreement.

Rule 32 – Trial by Commissioner National Power Corporation DOCTRINE: (NPC) v. Spouses Asoque In case of a taking without the proper expropriation action filed, the and Trina Asoque property owner may file its own action to question the propriety of the taking or to compel the payment of just compensation, i.e. inverse G.R. No. 172507, Date: condemnation. Should the owner file a case for recovery of compensation, Rule 32 would apply and not Rule 67. In this light, the September 14, 2016 appointment of the branch clerk of court as the commissioner is proper since the appointment in this case is dispensable and discretionary only.

Rule 33 – Demurrer to Evidence Republic vs. Gimenez

DOCTRINE Sandiganbayan cannot just arbitrarily disregard evidence especially G.R. No. 174673, Janury 11, when resolving a motion to dismiss on the ground of demurrer to evidence, which tests the sufficiency of the plaintiff’s evidence. The 2016 Sandiganbayan should have considered Atienza v. Board of Medicine, et al. where the Supreme Court held that it is better to admit and consider evidence for determination of its probative value than to outright reject it based on very rigid and technical grounds. A liberal application of the Rules is in line with the state’s policy to recover ill-gotten wealth.

Rule 35 – Summary Judgments Olivarez Castillo

Realty

Corp.

v. DOCTRINE: If the issue of fact requires the presentation of evidence, it is a genuine issue of fact. However, if the issue could be resolved judiciously by plain G.R. No. 196251, Date: July 9, resort to the pleadings, affidavits, depositions, and other papers on file, the issue of fact raised is sham, and the trial court may resolve the 2014 action through summary judgment.

Rule 38 – Relief from Judgments, Orders, or Other Proceedings MADARANG MORALES

SPS. DOCTRINE: A petition for relief from judgment is an equitable relief granted only under exceptional circumstances. To set aside a judgment through G.R. No. 199283; June 9, 2014 a petition for relief, parties must file the petition within 60 days from notice of the judgment and within six (6) months after the judgment or final order was entered; otherwise, the petition shall be dismissed

| 4F – 19’20 |

vs

11

outright. If the petition for relief is filed on the ground of excusable negligence of counsel, parties must show that their counsel’s negligence could not have been prevented using ordinary diligence and prudence.2 The mere allegation that there is excusable negligence simply because counsel was 80 years old is a prejudicial slur to senior citizens. It is based on an unwarranted stereotype of people in their advanced years. It is as empty as the bigotry that supports it. The double period required under Section 3, Rule 38 is jurisdictional and should be strictly complied with. A petition for relief from judgment filed beyond the reglementary period is dismissed outright. This is because a petition for relief from judgment is an exception to the public policy of immutability of final judgments.A party filing a petition for relief from judgment must strictly comply with two (2) reglementary periods: (a) the petition must be filed within sixty (60) days from knowledge of the judgment, order or other proceeding to be set aside; and (b) within a fixed period of six (6) months from entry of such judgment, order or other proceeding. Strict compliance with these periods is required because provision for a petition for relief from judgment is a final act of liberality on the part of the State, which remedy cannot be allowed to erode any further the fundamental principle that a judgment, order or proceeding must, at some definite time, attain finality in order at last to put an end to litigation. City of Dagupan v. Maramba

DOCTRINE: Mistake as used in Rule 38 means mistake of fact and not mistake of G.R. No. 174411, Date: July 2, law. A wrong choice in legal strategy or mode of procedure will not be considered a mistake for purposes of granting a petition for relief from 2014 judgment. Mistake as a ground also does not apply and was never intended to apply to a judicial error which the court might have committed in the trial since such error may be corrected by means of an appeal. Mistake can be of such nature as to cause substantial injustice to one of the parties. It may be so palpable that it borders on extrinsic fraud. The 60-day period to file a petition for relief from judgment is reckoned from actual receipt of the denial of the motion for reconsideration when one is filed.

Rule 39 – Execution, Satisfaction, and Effect of Judgment Republic v. Fetalvero G.R. No. 198008, February 4, 2019

| 4F – 19’20 |

DOCTRINE: Money claims against the government cannot be the subject of writs Date: of execution absent any showing that they have been brought before the Commission on Audit, under the Supreme Court (SC) Administrative Circular No. 10-2000 and Commission on Audit (COA) Circular No. 2001-002

12

Mercury Drug Corporation v Spouses Huang G.R. No.197654 Date: August 30, 2017 Land Bank of the Philippines vs. Manzano G.R. No. 188243, Date January 24, 2018

Therefore, government funds cannot be seized under writ of execution or garnishment as Fetalvero dis not go through the appropriate procedure. DOCTRINE: A judgment that lapses into finality becomes immutable and unalterable. It can neither be modified nor disturbed by courts in any manner even if the purpose of the modification is to correct perceived errors of fact or law. Parties cannot circumvent this principle by assailing the execution of the judgment. What cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly. DOCTRINE: Under Rule 39, Section 2(a), a judgment appealed before the Court of Appeals may still be executed by the RTC, provided there are good reasons for the judgment's execution. The RTC found that respondents have been deprived of their land since 1999. They were dispossessed of the beneficial use, fruits, and income of their properties, which were taken from them more than 20 years ago without compensation. Thus, the denial of the execution pending appeal will infringe on their constitutional right against taking of private property without compensation. In their motion for execution pending appeal, respondents indicated their willingness to return any amount in the event that the just compensation fixed by the RTC is modified by the Court of Appeals. Under Rule 67, Section 8 of the Rules of Court, the RTC may accept Commissioners' Report, recommit it to the same commissioners for further report, set it aside and appoint new commissioners, or accept only a part of it and reject the other parts. In addition, judgment may be executed pending appeal for good reasons. The delay in payment likewise requires the imposition of legal interest by way of damages

Hubert Webb vs. NBI Director DOCTRINE: Magtanggol Gatdula The principle of res judicata, a civil law principle, is not applicable in criminal cases. This Court has clarified that intent is necessary element only in criminal contempt cases. G.R. No. 194469, September 18, 2019

Mabugay-Otamias Republic

v. DOCTRINE: A writ of execution lies against the pension benefits of a retired officer of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, which is the subject of a deed G.R. No.189516, Date: June 8, of assignment drawn by him granting support to his wife and five (5) children. The benefit of exemption from execution of pension benefits 2016 is a statutory right that may be waived, especially in order to comply with a husband's duty to provide support under Article XV of the 1987 Constitution and the Family Code.

APPEALS Rule 40 – Appeal from MTC to RTC Cruz v. Souses Christensen

| 4F – 19’20 |

DOCTRINE:

13

G.R. No. 205539, October 04, Procedural rules of even the most mandatory character may be 2017 suspended upon a showing of circumstances warranting the exercise of liberality in its strict application. The prior service and receipt of a demand letter is unnecessary in a case for unlawful detainer if the demand to vacate is premised on the expiration of the lease, not on the non-payment of rentals or noncompliance of the terms and conditions of the lease. Failure to comply will result in the dismissal of the appeal. Rule 40, Sec. 7 is likewise jurisdictional since the RTC can only resolve errors that are specifically assigned and properly argued in the memorandum. Thus, dismissals based on this rule are premised on the non-filing of the memorandum. A trial court does not acquire jurisdiction over an appeal where the errors have not been specifically assigned.

Rule 41 – Appeal from RTC Republic vs. Ortigas & Co., DOCTRINE: Ltd. Partnership Appeals from the decisions of the Regional Trial Court, raising purely questions of law must, in all cases, be taken to the Supreme Court on a G.R. No.171496, March 3, 2014 petition for review on certiorari in accordance with Rule 45. An appeal by notice of appeal from the decision of the Regional Trial Court in the exercise of its original jurisdiction to the Court of Appeals is proper if the appellant raises questions of fact or both questions of fact and questions of law.

Spouses Robert Alan and Nancy Lee Limso v. Philippine National Bank and the Register of Deeds of Davao City G.R. No. 158622, 169441, 172958, 173194, 196958, 197120, and 205463, January 27, 2016

A motion for reconsideration may be considered a final decision, subject to an appeal, if “it puts an end to a particular matter,” leaving the court with nothing else to do but to execute the decision. DOCTRINE: The difference between an interlocutory order and a final order are as follows; the word interlocutory refers to something intervening between the commencement and the end of the suit which decides some point or matter but is not a final decision of the whole controversy; on the other hand, a "final" judgment or order is one that finally disposes of a case, leaving nothing more to be done by the Court in respect thereto, e.g., an adjudication on the merits which, on the basis of the evidence presented on the trial, declares categorically what the rights and obligations of the parties are and which party is in the right; or a judgment or order that dismisses an action on the ground, for instance, of res judicata or prescription.

Rule 43 - Appeals from CTA & Quasi-Judicial Agencies to CA Cortal v. Inaki A. Larrazabal DOCTRINE: Enterprises Procedural rules must be faithfully followed and dutifully enforced. Still, their application should not amount to "plac[ing] the

| 4F – 19’20 |

14

G.R. No. 199107, Date: August administration of justice in a straightjacket." An inordinate fixation on 30, 2017 technicalities cannot defeat the need for a full, just, and equitable litigation of claims. Rule 43, Section 6 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure states that a verified petition for review must "be accompanied by a clearly legible duplicate original or a certified true copy of the award, judgment, final order or resolution appealed from, together with certified true copies of such material portions of the record referred to therein and other supporting papers." Here, petitioners' failure to attach a copy of the complaint originally filed by Larrazabal Enterprises before the DARAB should not have been fatal to their Rule 43 petition. Its inclusion was not absolutely required, as it was certainly not the award, judgment, final order or resolution appealed from. If, in the Court of Appeals' judgment, it was a material document, the more prudent course of action would have been to afford petitioners time to adduce it, not to make a justification out of it for dispossessing petitioners of relief. Metropolitan Bank & Trust DOCTRINES: Co. v. G & P Builders, Inc. The court has laid down the test to determine whether an order is final or merely interlocutory: "Does it leave something to be done in G.R. No. 189509 November the trial court with respect to the merits of the case? If it does, it is interlocutory; if it does not, it is final." The remedy against 23, 2015 interlocutory order is petition for certiorari under Rule 65. Metro Bottled Water Corp. v. DOCTRINE: Andrada Construction & Generally, judicial review of arbitral awards is permitted only on very Development Corp., Inc. narrow grounds. Republic Act No. 876, or the Arbitration Law, does not allow an arbitral award to be revisited without a showing of G.R. No. 202430, Date: March specified conditions, which must be proven affirmatively by the party seeking its review. The Special Rules of Court on Alternative Dispute 6, 2019 Resolution, implementing the Alternative Dispute Resolution Act of 2004, mandate that arbitral awards will not be vacated "merely on the ground that the arbitral tribunal committed errors of fact, or of law, or of fact and law, as the court cannot substitute its judgment for that of the arbitral tribunal.” Parties are even "precluded from filing an appeal or a petition for certiorari questioning the merits of an arbitral award.” The general rule is that appeals of arbitral awards by the Construction Industry Arbitration Commission may only be allowed on pure questions of law. Even the Construction Industry Arbitration Law does not provide for any instance when an arbitral award may be vacated. Exceptions are conduct of the arbitral tribunal and the qualifications of the arbitrator. Office of the Ombudsman v. Delos Reyes, Jr.

| 4F – 19’20 |

DOCTRINE: Appeals of decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative disciplinary cases should be appealed to the Court of Appeals under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court.

15

G.R. No. 208976, Date: February 22, 2016 Viva Shipping Lines v. Keppel Philippines G.R. No. 177382, Date: February 17, 2016

DOCTRINE: Rule 43 of the Rules of Court prescribes the procedure to assail the final orders and decisions in corporate rehabilitation cases filed under the Interim Rules of Procedure on Corporate Rehabilitation. Liberality is an extreme exception, justifiable only when equity exists.

Magat v Corporation

Tantrade DOCTRINE: The grants of both first and second extensions are addressed to the sound discretion of the Court of Appeals. Mere compliance with the G.R. No. 205483, August 23, requirements of timely filing a proper motion, tendering payment and making a deposit, and averring compelling reasons does not 2017 guarantee the Court of Appeals' solicitude. The general rule remains to be the filing of a verified petition "within fifteen (15) days from notice of the decision sought to be reviewed or of the denial of petitioner's motion for new trial or reconsideration." Extensions are proper only under exceptional circumstances. CE Construction Corp. v. DOCTRINE: Araneta Center, Inc. When the arbitral tribunal’s awards become the subject of judicial review, courts must defer to the factual findings borne by arbitral tribunals' technical expertise and irreplaceable experience of G.R. No. 192725 presiding over the arbitral process. Exceptions may be availing but only in instances when the integrity of the arbitral tribunal itself has been put in jeopardy. Office of the Ombudsman vs. Delos Reyes Jr. G.R. No. 208976, October 13, 2014

DOCTRINE: The prevailing view is that the remedy of certiorari under Rule 65 from an unfavorable decision or resolution of the Office of the Ombudsman is available only in the following situations: a) in administrative cases that have become final and unappealable where respondent is exonerated or where respondent is convicted and the penalty imposed is public censure or reprimand, suspension of not more than one month, or a fine equivalent to a one-month salary; and b) in criminal cases involving the Office of the Ombudsman’s determination of probable cause during preliminary investigation.

Rule 44 – Ordinary Appealed Cases Sindophil, Inc. v. Republic of DOCTRINE: the Philippines Technically, the CA may dismiss an appeal for failure of the appellant to file the appellants' brief on time. But, the dismissal is directory, not G.R. No. 204594, Date: mandatory. Hence, the court has discretion to dismiss or not to dismiss the appeal. It is a power conferred on the court, not a duty. October 3, 2018 The discretion, however, must be a sound one, to be exercised in accordance with the tenets of justice and fair play, having in mind the circumstances obtaining in each case.

Rule 45 – Appeals by Certiorari or Final Orders and Resolutions Claret School of Quezon City DOCTRINE: vs. Madelyn Sinday

| 4F – 19’20 |

16

Judicial review in labor cases may also resolve questions of facts “when the factual findings and conclusions of the labor tribunals are G.R. No. 226358, October 9, contradictory or inconsistent with those of the CA. 2019

Manalo v. Ateneo de Naga DOCTRINES: University As clarified in St. Martin Funeral Homes v. National Labor Relations Commission, judicial review of decisions of the National Labor G.R. No. 185058 November Relations Commission is permitted. However, this review is through a petition for certiorari (i.e., special civil action for certiorari) under 09, 2015 Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, rather than through an appeal. Moreover, although this court has concurrent jurisdiction with the Court of Appeals as regards petitions for certiorari, such petitions are filed before the Court of Appeals (following, of course, the National Labor Relations Commission's denial of the appropriate Motion for Reconsideration), rather than directly before this court. This is consistent with the principle of hierarchy of courts. It is only from an adverse ruling of the Court of Appeals that a party may come to this court, which shall then be by way of a petition for review on certiorari (i.e., appeal by certiorari) under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. Mendoza v. Valte DOCTRINES: A petition for review filed under Rule 45 may raise only questions of G.R. No. 172961 September law. The factual findings by the Court of Appeals, when supported 07, 2015 by substantial evidence, are generally conclusive and binding on the parties and are no longer reviewable unless the case falls under the recognized exceptions. This court is not a trier of facts and we are not duty bound to re-examine evidence. Pascual vs Burgos DOCTRINE: The Court should not review factual findings of the CA unless the G.R. No. 171722 January 11, case was one of the 10 recognized exceptions to the general rule 2016 that require that only questions of law should be raised in petitions filed under Rule 45. The Court of Appeals' reversal or modification of the factual findings of the trial court does not automatically mean that it gravely abused its discretion and warrant this Court’s review of the same. Villamor Jr. v. Umale

DOCTRINES: Under Rule 45, only questions of law may be raised. There is a question G.R. No. 172843, Date: of law "when there is doubt or controversy as to what the law is on a certain [set] of facts." The test is "whether the appellate court can September 24, 2014 determine the issue raised without reviewing or evaluating the evidence." Esteva vs. Wilhelmsen Smith DOCTRINE: Bell Manning, Inc. The Court of Appeals can grant a petition for certiorari when it finds that the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion by disregarding G.R. No. 225899, July 10, 2019 evidence material to the controversy. To make this finding, the Court of Appeals necessarily has to look at the evidence and make its own factual determination. Toquero vs. Crossworld DOCTRINE: Marine Services, Inc. Only questions of law should be raised in petitions for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. Nevertheless, the

| 4F – 19’20 |

17

G.R. No. 213482. June 26, 2019 Supreme Court admits of exceptions subject to its sound judicial discretion. For the Supreme Court to review the facts of the case, these exceptions must be alleged, substantiated, and proved by the parties. De Lima vs. Gatdula DOCTRINE: The privilege of the Writ of Amparo should be distinguished from the G.R. No. 204528, Date: actual order called the Writ of Amparo. The privilege includes availment of the entire procedure outlined in A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC, the Rule on the February 19, 2013 Writ of Amparo.

Lao Jr. v LGU of Cagayan De DOCTRINE: Oro Section 3 of RA 8975 expressly prohibits the issuance by all courts, other than this Court, of any temporary restraining orders, G.R. No. 187869, Date: preliminary injunctions, or preliminary mandatory injunctions against national government projects. Among the "national government September 13, 2017 projects" covered by the prohibition in Section 3 of Republic Act No. 8975 are projects covered by Republic Act No. 6957, as amended, otherwise known as the Build-Operate-Transfer Law. Fil-Estate Properties, Inc. vs. DOCTRINE: Paulino Reyes The Rules of Agrarian Law Implementation Cases, both past and present, provide a mode of appeal from the decisions of the Secretary to the Office of the President. On the other hand, the Rules of Procedure G.R. No. 152797, September 18, of DARAB states that appeals therefrom may be brought before the 2019 Court of Appeals pursuant to the Rules of Court. The evil sought to be avoided by the rule on forum shopping is the proliferation of contradictory decisions on the same controversy. This is the critical factor that courts must consider in determining whether forum shopping exist. Cordillera Global Network v. DOCTRINE: Paje The general rule is that non-signing petitioners will be dropped as parties to the case. Nonetheless, there is an exception: when all petitioners share a common interest, the signature of one (1) petitioner G.R. No. 215988, Date: April 10, in the certification against forum shopping is enough to satisfy the 2019 substantial compliance rule. Constantino v. People

DOCTRINE: Appeals of criminal cases confer upon the reviewing court full jurisdiction and render it competent to examine the records, revise the G.R. No. 225696, Date: April 8, judgment from which an appeal arose, increase the penalty, and cite 2019 the appropriate penal law provision. Thus, in a petition for review on certiorari, the Court may still review the factual findings of the trial court "if it is not convinced that [such findings] are conformable to the evidence of record and to its own impressions of the credibility of the witnesses." BNL Management Corp. v. Uy DOCTRINE: The Court in a petition for review on certiorary can no longer review this finding, being a question of fact. Questions of fact are not reviewable in G.R. No. 210297, Date: April 3, a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, 2019 as they dwell on the truth or falsity of facts.

| 4F – 19’20 |

18

Terp Construction DOCTRINE: Corporation vs Banco Filipino The Court of Appeals reversal of the trial court’s factual findings, Savvings and Mortgage Bank however, is not sufficient reason to warrant this Court’s review. G.R. No. 221771, September 18,2019

Dee Hwa Liong Foundation DOCTRINE: Medical Center v AsiaMed Only questions of law are allowed in a petition for review under Rule Supplies and Equiment 45 of the Rules of Court. It is a general rule that factual findings of Corporation the Regional Trial Court are conclusive, especially when they have been affirmed by the Court of Appeals. The factual findings of the G.R. No. 205638, August 23, Court of Appeals bind this Court. Although jurisprudence has provided several exceptions to this rule, exceptions must be alleged, 2017 substantiated, and proved by the parties so this Court may evaluate and review the facts of the case. Whessoe, Inc. v. DOCTRINE: Independent Testing As a general rule, only questions of law can be raised in a petition Consultants, Inc. et.al. for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. The distinction between a question of fact and a question of law is settled. G.R. No. 199851, Date: There is a question of law if the issue can be determined without reviewing or evaluating the evidence on record. Otherwise, the issue November 7, 2018. raised is a question of fact. Department of Agrarian DOCTRINE: Reform Multi-Purpose A liberal construction of the rules of procedure, including the period Cooperative v. Diaz within which a petition for review must be filed, requires justifiable reasons or at least a reasonable attempt at compliance with them. G.R. No. 206331, June 4, 2018

Failure to file a petition for review on certiorari, or a motion for extension to file it, within the period prescribed under Rule 45, Section 2 results in a party's loss of right to appeal. It is settled that appeal, being a mere statutory right, must be exercised in the manner and according to procedures laid down by law. E.I Dupont de Nemours and DOCTRINE: Co. v. Francisco The test of relevancy of an attachment under Rule 45, Section 4 of the Rules of Court pertains to whether the document in question will G.R. No. 174379, Date: August support the material allegations in the petition, whether said document will make out a prima facie case of grave abuse of 31, 2016 discretion as to convince the court to give due course to the petition. Even if a document is relevant and pertinent to the petition, it need not be appended if it is shown that the contents thereof can also be found in another document already attached to the petition. Padilla v. Malicsi DOCTRINE: The Rules of Court require that only questions of law should be G.R. No. 201534, Date: raised in petitions filed under Rule 45 since it is not the SC's function to analyze or weigh all over again evidence that has already been September 21, 2016 considered in the lower courts. However, these rules admit exceptions and the presence of these exceptions must be proven by convincing evidence to warrant a review of facts under a Rule 45 petition.

| 4F – 19’20 |

19

Heirs of Loyola v. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 188658, Date:January 11, 2017

Sps. Miano v. Meralco G.R. No. 205035, November 16, 2016

Date:

Metropolitan Bank and Trust Co. v. Liberty Corrugated Boxes Manufacturing Corp. G.R. No. 184317, Date:January 25, 2017 Cascayan Gumallaoi

v.

Spouses

G.R. No. 211947, July 3, 2017 Granada v. People

DOCTRINE:

As a general rule, only matters assigned as errors in the appeal may be resolved. The Court of Appeals is allowed to go beyond the assignment by discretion if it “finds that their consideration is necessary in arriving at a complete and just resolution of the case.” Ordinarily, this case should have been remanded to the RTC to make the proper factual determination. However, due to judicial economy, or “the goal to have cases prosecuted with the least cost to the parties,” the Court of Appeals correctly reviewed the case DOCTRINE: The review of appeals filed before the Supreme Court is "not a matter of right, but of sound judicial discretion." The Rules of Court requires that only questions of law should be raised in petitions filed under Rule 45. DOCTRINE: A question of fact requires this court to review the truthfulness or falsity of the allegations of the parties. This review includes assessment of the “probative value of the evidence presented.” There is also a question of fact when the issue presented before this court is the correctness of the lower courts’ appreciation of the evidence presented by the parties. DOCTRINE: The Rules of Court require that only questions of law should be raised in petitions filed under Rule 45. This court is not a trier of facts. It will not entertain questions of fact as the factual findings of the appellate courts are "final, binding, or conclusive on the parties and upon this Court" when supported by substantial evidence. DOCTRINE: The special civil action of certiorari is not the proper remedy to challenge a judgment conviction rendered by the Sandiganbayan. The proper remedy to take from a judgment of conviction by the Sandiganbayan is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45.

G.R. Nos. 184092, 186084, 186272, 186488 & 186570, February 22, 2017 Rodriguez v. Park N Ride, DOCTRINE: Inc. In a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, only questions of law may be raised. Factual findings of the G.R. No. 222980, March 20, Labor Arbiter and the National Labor Relations Commission, if supported by substantial evidence and when upheld by the Court of 2017 Appeals, are binding and conclusive upon this Court when there is no cogent reason to disturb the same. Chinatrust Commercial Bank DOCTRINE: vs Turner Issues that were not alleged or proved before the lower court cannot be decided for the first time on appeal. G.R. No. G.R. No. 191458: July 03, 2017 Malabanan v. Malabanan, Jr. DOCTRINE:

| 4F – 19’20 |

20

G.R. No. 187225, Date: March A question of fact exists when there is doubt on the truth of the 6, 2019 allegations and the issue entails a review of the evidence presented. Moreover, the findings of the CA are generally binding on this Court. These rules allow certain exceptions enumerated in Pascual v. Burgos: (7) The findings of the Court of Appeals are contrary to those of the trial court.

Paringit v. Global Gateway Crewing Services, Inc. G.R. No. 217123, February 6, 2019

Date:

Presidential Commission on Good Government v. Office of the Ombudsman G.R. No. 187794, November 28, 2018 Ebuenga v. Agencies, Inc.

Date:

Southfield

G.R. No. 208396, March 14, 2018

While the factual findings of the Court of Appeals are contrary to those of the trial court, this alone does not automatically warrant a review of factual findings by this court. The lower courts' disagreement as to their factual findings, at most, presents only prima facie basis for recourse to the SC. DOCTRINE: In other words, we have to be keenly aware that the CA undertook a Rule 65 review, not a review on appeal, of the NLRC decision challenged before it. This is the approach that should be basic in a Rule 45 review of a CA ruling in a labor case. In question form, the question to ask is: Did the CA correctly determine whether the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in ruling on the case? DOCTRINE: 1. A court or tribunal is said to have committed grave abuse of discretion if it performs an act in "a capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment amounting to lack of jurisdiction." 2. The Office of the Ombudsman's power to determine probable cause is executive in nature, and with its power to investigate, it is in a better position than the Supreme Court to assess the evidence on hand to substantiate its finding of probable cause or lack of it. DOCTRINE: This Court is duty-bound to respect the consistent prior findings of the Labor Arbiter, of the National Labor Relations Commission, and of the Court of Appeals. It must be cautious not to substitute its own appreciation of the facts to those of the tribunals which have previously weighed the parties' claims and personally perused the evidence. It will not discard consistent prior findings and award disability benefits to a seafarer who fails to adduce even an iota of evidence, let alone substantial evidence, and fails to draw a causal connection between his or her alleged ailment and working conditions.

Visayan Electric Co., Inc. v. DOCTRINE: Alfeche Ordinarily, it is not for this Court to review factual issues in petitions such as the present Rule 45 Petition which may only raise questions of law. G.R. No. 209910, Date This rule, however, admits certain exceptions such as when the factual findings of the Court of Appeals and the trial court are contradictory. November 29, 2017

ORIENT FREIGHT DOCTRINE: INTERNATIONAL, INC. V. Failure to implead the lower court as respondent in a petition for KEIHIN-EVERETT review is a mere formal defect and does not automatically mean the dismissal of the appeal.

| 4F – 19’20 |

21

FORWARDING COMPANY, INC. G.R. No. 191937, 9 August 2017 CE Luzon Geothermal Power DOCTRINE: Co., Inc. v. Commissioner of In a Rule 45 Petition, only questions of law may be raised. "This Internal Revenue Court is not a trier of facts." Unless a case falls under any of the exceptions, this Court will not undertake a factual review and look G.R. Nos. 197526 & 199676- into the parties' evidence and weigh them anew. 77, July 26, 2017 Republic v. Moldex Realty

DOCTRINE: A case becomes moot and academic when, by virtue of supervening G.R. No. 171041, Date: events, the conflicting issue that may be resolved by the court ceases February 10, 2016 to exist. Benito v. People DOCTRINE: A question of fact exists “when the doubt or difference arises as to the G.R. No. 204644, Date: truth or the falsehood of alleged facts.” On the other hand, a question of February 11, 2015 law exists “when the doubt or difference arises as to what the law is on a certain state of facts.” Protective Maximum Security DOCTRINE: Agency, Inc. v. Fuentes The general rule is that in a Rule 45 petition for review on certiorari, the Supreme Court (SC) will not review the factual determination of the G.R. No. 169303, Date: administrative bodies governing labor, as well as the findings of fact by February 11, 2015 the Court of Appeals (CA).

Republic of the Philippines v. DOCTRINE: Bayao, et.al. In a petition for certiorari, the failure to file a Motion for Reconsideration is not fatal if the questions raised in the certiorari G.R. No. 179492, Date: June proceedings have already been duly raised and passed upon by the 5, 2013 lower court. Loria vs. Munoz

DOCTRINE: In a Rule 45 petition, the SC does not address questions of fact, G.R. No. 187240 , October 15, questions which require us to rule on “the truth or falsehood of alleged 2014 facts.” Under Section 1, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, the SC only entertain questions of law — questions as to the applicable law given a set of facts — in a petition for review on certiorari. Erwin Libo-ON Dela Cruz v. DOCTRINE: People It is settled that in petitions for review on certiorari, only questions of law are reviewed by this court. The rule that only questions of law may G.R.No. 209387, January 11, be raised in a petition for review under Rule 45 is based on sound and 2016 practical policy considerations stemming from the differing natures of a question of law and a question of fact. Bases Conversion DOCTRINE: Development Authority v. Rule 45 is applicable when the issues raised before this court involved DMCI Project Developers, purely questions of law. There is a question of law when there is doubt

| 4F – 19’20 |

22

Inc. G.R. No. 173137 and 173170, January 11, 2016

or controversy as to what the law is on a certain [set] of facts. The test is "whether the appellate court can determine the issue raised without reviewing or evaluating the evidence."

Rule 47 – Annulment of Judgments or Final Orders and Resolutions Tortal v. Taniguchi G.R. No. 212683, November 12, 2018

DOCTRINE: Rule 47, Section 3 then provides that an action for annulment of Date: judgment, if based on extrinsic fraud, should be filed within four (4) years from discovery of the fraud, or if based on lack of jurisdiction, then before the action is barred by laches or estoppel.

Castro vs. Gregorio

DOCTRINE: Lack of jurisdiction under Rule 47 means lack of jurisdiction over the G.R. No. 188801, October 15, nature of the action or subject matter, or lack of jurisdiction over the 2014 parties. Extrinsic fraud, on the other hand, is that which prevents a party from having a trial or from presenting his entire case to the court, or that which operates upon matters pertaining not to the judgment itself but to the manner in which it is procured. Santos vs. Santos DOCTRINE: Annulment of judgment is the remedy when the Regional Trial Court’s G.R. No. 187061, October 08, judgment, order, or resolution has become final, and the “remedies of 2014 new trial, appeal, petition for relief (or other appropriate remedies) are no longer available through no fault of the petitioner.” The grounds for annulment of judgment are extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction.

Rule 51 – Judgments Magsaysay Maritime Corporation/Eduardo Manese and Princess Cruise Lines, LTD v Cynthia De Jesus

DOCTRINE: A conditional settlement of a judgment award may be treated as a compromise agreement and a judgment on the merits of the case if it turns out to be highly prejudicial to one of the parties.

G.R. No. 203943, August 30, 2017 Oriental Assurance v Ong DOCTRINE: This Court recognized the appellate courts' ample authority to G.R. No. 189524, Date: consider errors that were not assigned. This is in accord with the October 11, 2017 liberal spirit of the Rules of Court with a view to securing a ''just, speedy and inexpensive disposition" of every case. In Mendoza v. Bautista: [A]n appellate court is clothed with ample authority to review rulings even if they are not assigned as errors in the appeal in these instances: (a) grounds not assigned as errors but affecting jurisdiction over the subject matter; (b) matters not assigned as errors on appeal but are evidently plain or clerical errors within contemplation of law; (c) matters not assigned as errors on appeal but consideration of which is necessary in

| 4F – 19’20 |

23

arriving at a just decision and complete resolution of the case or to serve the interests of justice or to avoid dispensing piecemeal justice; (d) matters not specifically assigned as errors on appeal but raised in the trial court and are matters of record having some bearing on the issue submitted which the parties failed to raise or which the lower court ignored; (e) matters not assigned as errors on appeal but closely related to an error assigned; and (f) matters not assigned as errors on appeal but upon which the determination of a question properly assigned, is dependent. Gadrinab v. Salamanca

DOCTRINE: A judgment on compromise agreement is a judgment on the merits. It G.R. No. 194560, Date: June 11, has the effect of res judicata, and is immediately final and executory 2014 unless set aside because of falsity or vices of consent. The doctrine of immutability of judgments bars courts from modifying decisions that have already attained finality, even if the purpose of the modification is to correct errors of fact or law.

PRYCE Corporation v China DOCTRINE: Banking Corporation [W]ell–settled is the principle that a decision that has acquired finality becomes immutable and unalterable and G.R. No. 172302, Date: may no longer be modified in any respect even if the February 18, 2004 modification is meant to correct erroneous conclusions of fact or law and whether it will be made by the court that rendered it or by the highest court of the land. The reason for this is that litigation must end and terminate sometime and somewhere, and it is essential to an effective and efficient administration of justice that, once a judgment has become final, the winning party be not deprived of the fruits of the verdict. Courts must guard against any scheme calculated to bring about that result and must frown upon any attempt to prolong the controversies. The only exceptions to the general rule are the correction of clerical errors, the so–called nunc pro tunc entries which cause no prejudice to any party, void judgments, and whenever circumstances transpire after the finality of the decision rendering its execution unjust and inequitable. Ong Lay Hin v. Court of Appeals

DOCTRINE: The registry return card is the “official record evidencing service by mail.” It “carries the presumption that it was prepared in the course of G.R. No. 191972, Date: January official duties that have been regularly performed and, therefore, it is 26, 2015 presumed to be accurate, unless proven otherwise.”

Piedad v. Bobilles G.R. No. 208614, November 27, 2017

| 4F – 19’20 |

DOCTRINE: If manifest wrong or injustice would result with the strict adherence Date to the statute of limitations or doctrine of laches, it would be better for courts to rule under the principle of equity. This Court, in a long

24

line of cases, has allowed for the execution of a final and executory judgment even if prescription has already set in, if the delay was caused by the judgment obligor for his or her benefit or advantage. De Ocampo vs Radio DOCTRINE: Philippines Network Inc. It is basic that a judgment can no longer be disturbed, altered, or modified as soon as it becomes final and executory; "[n]othing is GR No. 192947 ; December 09, more settled in law." Once a case is decided with finality, "the 2015 controversy is settled and the matter is laid to rest." Accordingly, a final judgment may no longer be modified in any respect "even if the modification is meant to correct what is perceived to be an erroneous conclusion of fact or law, and regardless of whether the modification is attempted to be made by the court rendering it or by the highest court of the land." Once a judgment becomes final, the court or tribunal loses jurisdiction, and any modified judgment that it issues, as well as all proceedings taken for this purpose, is null and void.

Rule 52 – Motion for Reconsideration National Power Corporation DOCTRINE: vs Southern Philippines It is a basic tenet that procedural rules are necessary to facilitate an Power Corp. orderly and speedy adjudication of disputes. Thus, courts and litigants alike are enjoined to strictly abide by the rules. Nonetheless, GR. No. 219627, July 04, 2016 this Court has, in exceptionally meritorious cases, suspended the technical rules of procedure "in order that litigants may have ample opportunity to prove their respective claims, and that a possible denial of substantial justice, due to legal technicalities, may be avoided. Club Filipino, Inc. vs. Bautista DOCTRINE: For this court to entertain second Motions for Reconsideration, the G.R. No. 168406, Date: January second Motions must present "extraordinarily persuasive reasons and only upon express leave first obtained." Once leave to file is 14, 2015 granted, the second Motion for Reconsideration is no longer prohibited. Res judicata has two (2) aspects. The first is bar by prior judgment that precludes the prosecution of a second action upon the same claim, demand or cause of action. The second aspect is conclusiveness of judgment, which states that "issues actually and directly resolved in a former suit cannot again be raised in any future case between the same parties involving a different cause of action." Heirs of Dragon v. The Manila DOCTRINE: Banking Corp. Payment of correct docket fees cannot be made contingent on the result of the case. Otherwise, the government and judiciary would G.R. No. 205068, Date: March sustain tremendous losses, as these fees "take care of court 6, 2019 expenses in the handling of cases in terms of cost of supplies, use of equipmen[t], salaries and fringe benefits of personnel, etc., computed as to man hours used in handling of each case.

| 4F – 19’20 |

25

Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Avon Products Manufacturing, Inc. G.R. No. 201398-99, Date: October 3, 2018 Philippine National Bank v. Heirs of the Late Ireneo and Caridad Entapa G.R. No. 215072, September 7, 2016

However, the rule on after-judgment liens applies to instances of incorrectly assessed or paid filing fees, or where the court has discretion to fix the amount to be awarded. DOCTRINE: The importance of providing the taxpayer with adequate written notice of his or her tax liability is undeniable. Under Section 228, it is explicitly required that the taxpayer be informed in writing of the law and of the facts on which the assessment is made; otherwise, the assessment shall be void. DOCTRINE: The Constitution requires that a court must state the factual and legal grounds on which its decisions are based. Any decision that fails to adhere to this mandate is void.

Date:

Saudi Arabian Airlines DOCTRINE: (Saudia) vs. Rebesencio Neither the mere invocation of forum non conveniens nor the averment of foreign elements operates to automatically divest a court of G.R. No. 198587, Date: January jurisdiction. Rather, a court should renounce jurisdiction only “after 'vital 14, 2015 facts are established, to determine whether special circumstances' require the court's desistance.”

DPWH v DOCTRINE: CMC/Monark/Pacific/Hi-Tri As the administrative agency tasked with resolving issues pertaining Joint Venture to the construction industry, the Construction Industry Arbitration Commission enjoys a wide latitude in recognition of its technical G.R. No. 179732, Date: expertise and experience. Its factual findings are, thus, accorded September 13, 2017 respect and even finality, particularly when they are affirmed by an appellate court. DOCTRINE: All complaints, petitions, answers and other similar pleadings should specify the amount of damages being prayed for not only in the body of G.R. No. 193551, November 19, the pleading but also in the prayer, and said damages shall be 2014 considered in the assessment of the filing fees in any case.

Cotoner- Zacarias vs. Spouses Revilla

Lanuza vs. BF Corporation

DOCTRINE: Consistent with the policy of encouraging alternative dispute resolution G.R. No. 174938, October 1, methods, courts should liberally construe arbitration clauses. Provided such clause is susceptible of an interpretation that covers the asserted 2014 dispute, an order to arbitrate should be granted. Any doubt should be resolved in favor of arbitration

Biado v. Brawner-Cualing

DOCTRINE: An issue of jurisdiction is a judicial matter, which can only be decided A.M. No. MTJ-17-1891, upon through judicial remedies. A party's recourse, if prejudiced by February 15, 2017 a judge's orders in the course of a trial, is with the proper reviewing court and not with the Office of the Court Administrator, through an administrative complaint. Thus, an administrative complaint is not

| 4F – 19’20 |

26

the proper remedy for every action of a judge considered "aberrant or irregular" especially when a judicial remedy exists.

Rule 56 – Original Cases / Appealed Cases ABS-CBN Corp. v. Gozon G.R. No. 195956, March 11, 2015

Date:

DOCTRINE: In the executive’s finding of probable cause, a review of the Department of Justice Secretary’s decision or resolution will be allowed only when grave abuse of discretion is alleged.

PROVISIONAL REMEDIES Rule 58 – Preliminary Injunction Department of Public Works DOCTRINE: and Highways v. City For a writ of preliminary injunction to be issued, the applicant must Advertising Ventures Corp. show, by prima facie evidence, an existing right before trial, a material and substantial invasion of this right, and that a writ of preliminary injunction is necessary to prevent irreparable injury. G.R. No. 182944, December 05, 2016 Philippine Associated DOCTRINE: Smelting and Refining The requisites for preliminary injunctive relief are: (a) the invasion of Corporation v. Pablito O. the right sought to be protected is material and substantial; (b) the Lim, et. al. right of the plaintiff is clear and unmistakable; and (c) there is an urgent and paramount necessity for the writ to prevent serious damage. The right to inspect corporate books is not subject to an G.R. No. 172948, injunctive relief against the stockholders as the proper remedy since October 5, 2016 the Corporation Code expressly states that the corporation may only raise the reasons for denial of the right as a defense in an action filed by the stockholders before the court and not by raising the reasons as a ground for an injunctive relief. Sunrise Garden Corp. v. DOCTRINES: Court of Appeals Writ of Preliminary Injunction cannot be enforced against a non-party to the case G.R. Nos. 158836, 158967, 160726 & 160778 September 20, 2015 PCSO V De Leon DOCTRINE: In Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) v. City Advertising Ventures Corporation, this Court held that "[f]or a writ of G.R. No. 236511, preliminary injunction to be issued, the applicant must show, by August 15, 2018 prima facie evidence, an existing right before trial, a material and substantial invasion of this right, and that a writ of preliminary injunction is necessary to prevent irreparable injury." Evy Construction and DOCTRINE: Development Corp. v. Valiant In every application for provisional injunctive relief, the applicant Roll Forming Sales Corp. must establish the actual and existing right sought to be protected. The applicant must also establish the urgency of a writ's issuance to prevent grave and irreparable injury. Failure to do so will warrant the G.R. No. 207938, court's denial of the application. Moreover, the application for the October 11, 2017 issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction may be denied in the same summary hearing as the application for the issuance of the

| 4F – 19’20 |

27

temporary restraining order if the applicant fails to establish requisites for the entitlement of the writ. * Bicol Medical Center v. Botor DOCTRINE: Writs of preliminary injunction are granted only upon prior notice to the party sought to be enjoined and upon their due hearing. Rule 58 G.R. No. 214073. requires a full and comprehensive hearing for the determination of October 4, 2017 the propriety of the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction, giving the applicant an opportunity to prove that great or irreparable injury evidence will result if no writ is issued and allowing the opposing party to comment on the application. Power Generation DOCTRINE: Employees Association-NPC Provisional reliefs, such as a temporary restraining order or a writ of v. National Power Corp. preliminary injunction, are ancillary writs issued by the court to protect the rights of a party during the pendency of the principal action. G.R. No. 187420, 9 August 2017

Rule 60 – Replevin Enriquez v The Mercantile DOCTRINE: Insurance Corporation Forfeiture of the replevin bond, therefore, requires first, a judgment on the merits in the defendant's favor, and second, an application by the defendant for damages. G.R. No. 210950, August 15, 2018

SPECIAL CIVIL ACTIONS Rule 62 - Interpleader Lui Enterprises, Inc. v. Zuellig Pharma Corp. G.R. No. 193494, March 12, 2014

DOCTRINE: An adverse claimant in an interpleader case may be declared in default. Under Rule 62, Section 5 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, a claimant who fails to answer within the required period may, on motion, be declared in default. The consequence of the default is that the court may render judgment barring [the defaulted claimant] from any claim in respect to the subject matter.

Rule 63 – Declaratory Relief and Similar Remedies City of Philippine Authority

Lapu-Lapu vs. DOCTRINE: Economic Zone Where the law or contract has already been contravened prior to the

G.R. No. 184203 & 187583, November 26, 2014

filing of an action for declaratory relief, the courts can no longer assume jurisdiction over the action. In other words, a court has no more jurisdiction over an action for declaratory relief if its subject has already been infringed or transgressed before the institution of the action. Considering that "the nature of an action is determined by the allegations of the complaint or the petition and the character of the relief sought," a petition which "actually avers errors of judgment rather than errors than that of jurisdiction" may be considered a petition for review.

Rule 64 – Review on Judgments and Final Orders or Resolutions of the COMELEC & COA

| 4F – 19’20 |

28

The Diocese of Bacolod v. Commission on Elections G.R. No. 205728, January 21, 2015

DOCTRINE: Rule 64 is not the exclusive remedy for all acts of the COMELEC. Rule 65 is applicable especially to raise objections relating to a grave abuse of discretion resulting in the ouster of jurisdiction. As a special civil action, there must also be a showing that there be no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law.

Rule 65 – Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus Degamo v. Office of the DOCTRINE: Ombudsman In a special civil action for certiorari, the Court cannot correct errors of fact or law not amounting to grave abuse of discretion. The Court may review public respondent's exercise of its investigative and G.R. No. 212416, prosecutorial powers, but only upon a clear showing that it abused December 5, 2018 its discretion in an arbitrary, capricious, whimsical, or despotic manner.

Lihaylihay v Tan G.R. No. 192223, July 23, 2018

SC has adopted a policy of non-interference with the Office of the Ombudsman's determination of probable cause. The rule on noninterference is based on the respect for the investigatory and prosecutory powers granted by the Constitution to the Office of the Ombudsman. The Office of the Ombudsman is armed with the power to investigate. It is, therefore, in a better position to assess the strengths or weaknesses of the evidence on hand needed to make a finding of probable cause. DOCTRINE: The grant of an informer's reward for the discovery, conviction, and punishment of tax offenses is a discretionary quasi-judicial matter that cannot be the subject of a writ of mandamus. It is not a legally mandated ministerial duty. This reward cannot be given to a person who only makes sweeping averments about undisclosed wealth, rather than specific tax offenses, and who fails to show that the information which he or she supplied was the undiscovered pivotal cause for the revelation of a tax offense, the conviction and/or punishment of the persons liable, and an actual recovery made by the State. Indiscriminate, expendable information negates a clear legal right and further impugns the propriety of issuing a writ of mandamus.

Nonay v. Bahia Shipping DOCTRINE: Services A petition for certiorari assailing a decision of the National Labor Relations Commission is allowed even after the National Labor Relations Commission's Decision has become final and executory, provided that the petition is filed before the expiration of the 60-day reglementary period under Rule 65. In Re Supreme Court Judicial DOCTRINE: Independence v. Judiciary The writ of mandamus will issue when the act sought to be performed Development Fund is ministerial. An act is ministerial when it does not require the exercise of judgment and the act is performed in compliance with a legal UDK-15143 (Resolution), mandate.

G.R. No. 206758, Februrary 17, 2016

| 4F – 19’20 |

29

January 21, 2015 Lim vs. Lim

DOCTRINE: The trial court's noncompliance with procedural rules constitutes grave abuse of discretion, which may be remedied by a petition for certiorari G.R. No. 214163, under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. July 1, 2019 Elenita S. Binay v. Office of the DOCTRINE: Ombudsman, Sandiganbayan, SCA: Grave abuse of discretion is defined as the “capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment on the part of the public officer concerned which is equivalent to an excess or lack of jurisdiction. The G.R. No. 213957-58, abuse of discretion must be so patent and gross as to amount to an August 7, 2019 evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law, or to act at all in contemplation of law as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of passion or hostility." CRIMPRO: Rule 112; Preliminary investigation is not part of trial and is conducted only to establish whether probable cause exists. Consequently, it is not subject to the same due process requirements that must be present during trial. Dynamic Builders & DOCTRINE: Construction Co. (Phil.), Inc. v. Rule 65 requires that there be no appeal or any plain, speedy, or Presbitero, Jr. adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. When the matter is of extreme urgency involving a constitutional issue, even Regional Trial G.R. No. 174202 Courts may grant injunctive reliefs. Considering that petitioner alleges April 7, 2015 that this matter is "of extreme urgency, involving as it does the constitutional rights to due process and equal protection of the law," it should have prayed for injunctive relief before the trial court where its Petition for Certiorari via Rule 65 was pending, together with a bond fixed by the court.

Joson v. Office of Ombudsman JOSON OMBUDSMAN

the DOCTRINE: V. Although a motion for reconsideration is required before this Court can entertain a petition for certiorari this may be relaxed to ensure the realization of substantial justice. Furthermore, appeals from G.R. Nos. 197433 and 197435, decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative disciplinary cases should be taken to the Court of Appeals under the 9 August 2017 provisions of Rule 43 and not under Rule 65.

De Lima, et al v. Reyes DOCTRINE: G.R. No. 209330, January 11, 2016

Tankeh v. Development Bank of the Phils.

| 4F – 19’20 |

Any question on whether the Secretary of Justice committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in affirming, reversing, or modifying the resolutions of prosecutors may be the subject of a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. Also, a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 questioning the regularity of preliminary investigation becomes moot after the trial court completes its determination of probable cause and issues a warrant of arrest.

DOCTRINE: In any case, even if the Petition is one for the special civil action of certiorari, this Court has the discretion to treat a Rule 65 Petition for

30

G.R. No. 171428, November 11, 2013

Certiorari as a Rule 45 Petition for Review on Certiorari. This is allowed if (1) the Petition is filed within the reglementary period for filing a Petition for review; (2) when errors of judgment are averred; and (3) when there is sufficient reason to justify the relaxation of the rules. When this Court exercises this discretion, there is no need to comply with the requirements provided for in Rule 65.

Buena vs. Benito

DOCTRINE: Failure to comply with the Rules or with any order of the court is a ground to dismiss the action.

G.R. No. 181760, October 14, 2014

For mandamus to lie, the act sought to be enjoined must be a ministerial act or duty. An act is ministerial if the act should be performed under a given state of facts, in a prescribed manner, in obedience to the mandate of a legal authority, without regard to or the exercise of the tribunal or corporation’s own judgment upon the propriety or impropriety of the act done.

Cruz v. People G.R. No. 224974, July 3, 2017 Taar v. Lawan G.R. No. 190922, February 26, 2018

Heirs of Zoleta v. Land Bank of the Philippines G.R. No. 205128, 9 August 2017 Canlas v. Bongolan

G.R. NO. 199625, June 6, 2018

Crispino v. Tansay G.R. No. 184466, December 05, 2016

| 4F – 19’20 |

DOCTRINE: The trial court's failure to comply with procedural rules constitutes grave abuse of discretion and may be the subject of a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals. DOCTRINE: As a rule, a petition for certiorari brought under Rule 65, Section 1 of the Rules of Court is specifically required to have "no appeal, or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law." Ordinarily, if an appeal can be taken from a judgment or order, then the remedy of certiorari will not lie. The mere possibility of delay arising from an appeal does not warrant direct recourse to a petition for certiorari. However, as an exception, the availability of an appeal does not necessarily proscribe the institution of a petition for certiorari if it is shown that an appeal is inadequate, slow, insufficient and will not promptly relieve a party from the injurious effects of the order complained of. DOCTRINE: The power to issue writs of certiorari is an incident of judicial review. Thus, administrative agencies may not issue writs of certiorari to annul acts of officers or state organs even when they exercise supervisory authority over these officers or organs. DOCTRINE: The decision of the Ombudsman may be reviewed, modified or reversed via petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, on a finding that it had no jurisdiction over the complaint, or of grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction. DOCTRINE: The CA’s power to receive evidence to resolve factual issues in cases falling within its original and appellate jurisdiction is qualified by its internal rules. In an ordinary appeal, the Court of Appeals may

31

receive evidence when a motion for new trial is granted based on newly discovered evidence. A special civil action for certiorari is not the only remedy that aggrieved parties may take against an interlocutory order, since an interlocutory order may be appealed in an appeal of the judgment itself. David v. Senate Electoral DOCTRINE: Tribunal and Mary Grace The judgments of the SET are not beyond the scope of any review. Poe-Llamanzares Article VI, Section 17's stipulation of electoral tribunals' being the "sole" judge must be read in harmony with Article VIII, Section 1's G.R. No. 221538 express statement that "judicial power includes the duty of the courts September 20, 2016 of justice . . . to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government." DOCTRINE: Bagumbayan-VNP Movement v. Commission on A petition for mandamus may be granted and a writ issued when an Elections agency "unlawfully neglects the performance of an act which the law specifically enjoins as a duty resulting from an office."

G.R. No. 222731, March 8, 2016 MONICO A. ABOGADO DOCTRINE: ET.AL. V. DENR, DA, BFAR The Writ of Kalikasan is categorized as a special civil action and was, thus, conceptualized as an extraordinary remedy, which G.R. No. 246209, Date: aims to provide judicial relief from threatened or actual violation/s September 3, 2019 of the constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology of a magnitude or degree of damage that transcends political and territorial boundaries.

On the other hand, a Writ of Continuing Mandamus is a special civil action that may be availed of 'to compel the performance of an act specifically enjoined by law. This writ is essentially a continuing order of the court, as it: . . . "permits the court to retain jurisdiction after judgment in order to ensure the successful implementation of the reliefs mandated under the court's decision" and, in order to do this, "the court may compel the submission of compliance reports from the respondent government agencies as well as avail of other means to monitor compliance with its decision." Kilusang Mayo Uno v. Aquino DOCTRINE: III Rule 65, Sections 1 and 2 of the Rules of Court provides remedies to address grave abuse of discretion by any government branch or instrumentality, particularly through petitions for certiorari and G.R. No. 210500, prohibition. While these provisions pertain to a tribunal's, board's, or an April 2, 2019 officer's exercise of discretion in judicial, quasi-judicial, or ministerial functions, Rule 65 still applies to invoke the expanded scope of judicial power.

| 4F – 19’20 |

32

Office of the Ombudsman vs. Delos Reyes Jr. G.R. No. 208976, October 13, 2014

DOCTRINE: The prevailing view is that the remedy of certiorari under Rule 65 from an unfavorable decision or resolution of the Office of the Ombudsman is available only in the following situations: a) in administrative cases that have become final and unappealable where respondent is exonerated or where respondent is convicted and the penalty imposed is public censure or reprimand, suspension of not more than one month, or a fine equivalent to a one-month salary; and b) in criminal cases involving the Office of the Ombudsman’s determination of probable cause during preliminary investigation.

Ornales v. Office of the DOCTRINE: Deputy Ombudsman Orders and decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman in criminal cases may be elevated to the Supreme Court via a Rule 65 petition, G.R. No. 214312, Date: while its orders and decisions in administrative disciplinary cases may be appealed to the Court of Appeals via a Rule 43 petition. September 5, 2018 Rule 67 – Expropriation National Power Corp. v. DOCTRINE: Posada I. When the taking of private property is no longer for a public purpose,

G.R. No. 191945, March 11, 2015

the expropriation complaint should be dismissed by the trial court. The case will proceed only if the trial court's order of expropriation became final and executory and the expropriation causes prejudice to the property owner. II. Expropriation proceedings for national infrastructure projects are governed by Rule 67 of the Rules of Court and Republic Act No. 8974.

Rule 68 – Foreclosure of Real Estate Mortgage Gotesco Properties, Inc. v. DOCTRINE: Solidbank Corp. The requirement for publication of a Notice of Sale in an extrajudicial foreclosure is complied with when the publication is circulated at least in the city where the property is located. G.R. No. 209452, July 26, 2017

MAHINAY v. DURA TIRE & DOCTRINE: RUBBER INDUSTRIES, INC. The period to redeem a property sold in an extrajudicial foreclosure sale is not extendible. A pending action to annul the foreclosure sale G.R. No. 194152, June 05, does not toll the running of the one (1)-year period of redemption under Act No. 3135. 2017 Metropolitan Bank and Trust DOCTRINE: Company v. S.F. Naguiat Act No. 1956 impliedly requires a secured creditor to ask the permission Enterprises, Inc. of the insolvent court before said creditor can foreclose the mortgaged property. G.R. No. 178407, March 18, 2015

Rule 70 – Forcible Entry and Unlawful Detainer Eversley Childs Sanitarium DOCTRINE: v. Spouses Barbarona A case for unlawful detainer must state the period from when the occupation by tolerance started and the acts of tolerance G.R. No. 195814, exercised by the party with the right of possession. If the

| 4F – 19’20 |

33

April 4, 2018

possession was illegal from the start, the proper remedy is to file an accion publiciana, or a plenary action to recover the right of possession. While an ejectment case merely settles the issue of the right of actual possession, the issue of ownership may be provisionally passed upon if the issue of possession cannot be resolved without it . Any final disposition on the issue of ownership must be resolved in the proper forum.

Philippine Long Distance DOCTRINE: Telephone Company vs. Citi The precedent set in Tijam is based on the doctrine of equity, which Appliance M.C. Corporation applies only in cases “where jurisdiction was raised at the very last minute when the parties have already gone through long years of litigation.” G.R. No. 214546, October 9, 2019 If forcible entry is done through stealth, the period is counted from the time the plaintiff discovered the entry.It merely submitted proof of ownership over the property, which is not sufficient to prove prior physical possession.

Rule 71 - Contempt Polo Plantation Agrarian Reform Multipurpose Cooperative (POPARMUCO) v. Inson G.R. No. 189162, January 30, 2019

Date:

Steamship Mutual Underwriting Association (Bermuda) Limited v. Sulpicio Lines, Inc. G.R. No.196071, September 20, 2017

DOCTRINE: In contempt, the intent goes to the gravamen of the offense. Thus, the good faith or lack of it, of the alleged contemnor is considered. Where the act complained of is ambiguous or does not clearly show on its face that it is contempt, and is one which, if the party is acting in good faith, is within his rights, the presence or absence of a contumacious intent is, in some instances, held to be determinative of its character. To constitute contempt, the act must be done willfully and for an illegitimate or improper purpose. DOCTRINE: An insured member may be compelled to arbitration pursuant to the Rules of the Protection and Indemnity Club, which were incorporated in the insurance policy by reference. Where there are multiple parties, the court must refer to arbitration the parties covered by the agreement while proceeding with the civil action against those who were not bound by the arbitration agreement.

Hubert Webb vs. NBI Director DOCTRINE: Magtanggol Gatdula The principle of res judicata, a civil law principle, is not applicable in criminal cases. This Court has clarified that intent is necessary element only in criminal contempt cases. G.R. No. 194469, September 18, 2019

Oca v. Custodio G.R. No. 199825, July 26, 2017

| 4F – 19’20 |

DOCTRINE: 1. Contempt of court is willful disobedience to the court and disregard or defiance of its authority, justice, and dignity. It constitutes conduct which "tends to bring the authority of the court and the administration of law into disrepute or in some manner to impede the due administration of justice" or "interfere with or prejudice parties litigant or their witnesses during litigation."

34

2. The punishment for contempt is classified into two (2): civil contempt and criminal contempt. Civil contempt is committed when a party fails to comply with an order of a court or judge "for the benefit of the other party." A criminal contempt is committed when a party acts against the court's authority and dignity or commits a forbidden act tending to disrespect the court or judge. 3. A non-litigant may be cited in contempt if he or she acted in conspiracy with the parties in violating the court order Yu Kimteng v. Young

DOCTRINE: A disbarred lawyer's name cannot be part of a firm's name. A lawyer who appears under a firm name that contains a disbarred lawyer's name commits indirect contempt of court.

G.R. No. 210554, August 5, 2015

SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS Settlement of Estate of Deceased Capablanca vs Heirs of Bas G.R. No. 224144; June 28, 2017

DOCTRINE: The right to assert a cause of action as an heir, although he has not been judicially declared to be so, if duly proven, is well settled in this jurisdiction. This is upon the theory that the property of a deceased person, both real and personal, becomes the property of the heir by the mere fact of death of his predecessor in interest, and as such he can deal with it in precisely the same way in which the deceased could have dealt, subject only to the limitations which by law or by contract may be imposed upon the deceased himself. Thus, it has been held that there is no legal precept or established rule which imposes the necessity of a previous legal declaration regarding their status as heirs to an intestate on those who, being of age and with legal capacity, consider themselves the legal heirs of a person, in order that they may maintain an action arising out of a right which belonged to their ancestor.

General Guardians and Guardianship Rule 102 – Habeas Corpus In re Salibo v. Warden G.R. No. 197597, April 8, 2015

Osorio v. Navera G.R. No. 223272, February 26, 2018

DOCTRINE: Habeas corpus is the proper remedy for a person deprived of liberty due to mistaken identity. In such cases, the person is not under any lawful process and is continuously being illegally detained.

DOCTRINE: Kidnapping should never be part of the functions of a soldier. It cannot be done in a soldier's official capacity. If a soldier nonetheless proceeds allegedly on the orders of a superior officer, the soldier shall be tried before the civil courts. The remedy of habeas corpus, on the argument that only courts-martial have jurisdiction over members of the Armed Forces, will not lie.

Rule 108 – Correction of Entries in the Civil Registry Glenn M. Miller v. Joan E. DOCTRINE: Miller and the Local Civil The summary procedure for correction of entries in the civil registry under article 412 of the Civil Code and Rule 108 of the

| 4F – 19’20 |

35

Registrar Sorsogon

of

Gubat, Rules of Court is confined to "innocuous or clerical errors, such as misspellings and the like, errors that are visible to the eyes or obvious to the understanding" or corrections that are not G.R. No. 200344, Date: controversial and are supported by indubitable evidence.” August 28, 2019

R.A. NO. 9048 Republic vs. Gallo G.R. No. 207074, January 17, 2018

DOCTRINE: Republic Act No. 9048 defines a clerical or typographical error as a recorded mistake, "which is visible to the eyes or obvious to the understanding. By qualifying the definition of a clerical, typographical error as a mistake "visible to the eyes or obvious to the understanding," the law recognizes that there is a factual determination made after reference to and evaluation of existing documents presented. Thus, corrections may be made even though the error is not typographical if it is "obvious to the understanding," even if there is no proof that the name or circumstance in the birth certificate was ever used.

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE Aquino v. People G.R. No. 217349, November 7, 2018

Rule 110 – Prosecution of Offenses DOCTRINE: Criminal acts are regarded to have been committed within the province or city where the appellant was found and arrested.

People of the Philippines vs. DOCTRINE: Danilo Feliciano, Jr. Failure to state an aggravating circumstance, even if duly proven at trial, will not be appreciated as such. In criminal cases, the exception to the rule that the Court is not a trier of G.R. No. 196735, fact gains even more importance since the presumption is always in May 5, 2014 favor of innocence. When the bystanders’ testimonies are weighed against those of the victim who witnessed the entirety of the incident from beginning to end at close range, the former become merely corroborative of the fact that an attack occurred.

Valderrama v. People

DOCTRINE: Motion to Reconsider must be filed with the conformity of the public G.R. No. 220054, March 27, prosecutor. Moreover, the Motion to Reconsider’s Notice of Hearing must be directed to the adverse party and must inform him or her of 2017 the time and date of the hearing. Failure to comply with these mandates renders the motion fatally defective, equivalent to a useless scrap of paper. People vs Feliciano DOCTRINE: It should be remembered that every aggravating circumstance being alleged must be stated in the information. Failure to state an GR No.196735; aggravating circumstance, even if duly proven at trial, will not be August 3, 2016 appreciated as such. It was, therefore, incumbent on the prosecution to state the aggravating circumstance of “wearing masks and/or other forms of disguise” in the information in order for all the evidence, introduced to that effect, to be admissible by the trial court.

| 4F – 19’20 |

36

Rule 111 – Prosecution of Civil Action Jadewell Parking Systems DOCTRINE: Corporation vs. Lidua Sr. Under the Revised Rules on Summary Procedure, only the filing of an Information tolls the prescriptive period where the crime charged is G.R. No. 169588, October 7, involved in an ordinance. 2013

Rule 112 – Preliminary Investigation DOCTRINE: Trial court judges cannot remand the case for another conduct of preliminary investigation on the ground that the earlier preliminary G.R. No. 187094, investigation was improperly conducted. Moreover, the issue of February 15, 2017 admissibility or inadmissibility of evidence is properly addressed during the trial on the merits of the case and not during the early stage of preliminary investigation. MENDOZA V. PEOPLE DOCTRINE: Once the information has been filed, the judge shall then "personally evaluate the resolution of the prosecutor and its supporting G.R. No. 197293, evidence" to determine whether there is probable cause to issue a 21 April 2014 warrant of arrest. At this stage, a judicial determination of probable cause exists Napoles vs De Lima DOCTRINE: It is not required that the complete or entire records of the case during the preliminary investigation be submitted to and examined GR. No. 213529; by the judge. We do not intend to unduly burden trial courts by July 13, 2016 obliging them to examine the complete records of every case all the time simply for the purpose of ordering the arrest of an accused. What is required, rather, is that the judge must have sufficient supporting documents (such as the complaint, affidavits, counteraffidavits, sworn statements of witnesses or transcripts of stenographic notes, if any) upon which to make his independent judgment or, at the very least, upon which to verify the findings of the prosecutor as to the existence of probable cause. Tupaz v. Office of the DOCTRINE: Deputy Ombudsman for the The determination of probable cause is an executive, not a judicial, Visayas function. It is generally not for a court to disturb the conclusion made by a public prosecutor. This is grounded on the basic principle of separation of powers. However, "grave abuse of discretion taints a G.R. No. 212491-92, public prosecutor's resolution if he [or she] arbitrarily disregards the March 6, 2019 jurisprudential parameters of probable cause." In such cases, consistent with the principle of checks and balances among the three (3) branches of government, a writ of certiorari may be issued to undo the prosecutor's iniquitous determination. Maza v. Turla

Public prosecutors are not bound to adhere to a party's apparent determination of the specific crime for which a person shall stand trial. Their discretion "include[s] the right to determine which laws prosecution will be pursued.

| 4F – 19’20 |

37

REYES VS OMBUDSMAN G.R. 208243; June 5, 2017

Determining probable cause must be made in reference to the elements of the crime charged. "This is based on the principle that every crime is defined by its elements, without which there should be, at the most, no criminal offense." DOCTRINE: The court consistently held that the essence of due process is simply an opportunity to be heard, or an opportunity to explain one's side or an opportunity to seek for a reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of. For as long as the parties are given the opportunity to present their cause of defense, their interest in due course as in this case, it cannot be said that there was denial of due process.

Dichaves v. Office of the DOCTRINE: Ombudsman Only when a person stands trial (not when still under preliminary G.R. No. 206310-11, December 7, 2016 Pemberton v. De Lima G.R. No. 217508, April 18, 2016 Cagang v Sandiganbayan G.R. No. 206438, July 31, 2018

investigation) may he or she demand the right to confront and crossexamine his accusers. Also, the executive finding of probable cause requires only substantial evidence, not absolute certainty of guilt.

DOCTRINE: The Court may act on petitions for the extraordinary writs of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus only when absolutely necessary or when serious and important reasons exist to justify an exception to the policy. DOCTRINE: The period for the determination of whether inordinate delay was committed shall commence from the filing of a formal complaint and the conduct of the preliminary investigation. The periods for the resolution of the preliminary investigation shall be that provided in the Rules of Court, Supreme Court Circulars, and the periods to be established by the Office of the Ombudsman. Failure of the defendant to file the appropriate motion after the lapse of the statutory or procedural periods shall be considered a waiver of his or her right to speedy disposition of cases.

The ruling in People v. Sandiganbayan, Fifth Division that factfinding investigations are included in the period for determination of inordinate delay is ABANDONED. Reynes v. Office of the DOCTRINE: Ombudsman (Visayas) Determining probable cause for the filing of a criminal information is an executive function. Resolutions made by public prosecutors in exercise of this function shall generally not be disturbed by courts. G.R. No. 223405, disregard the jurisprudential parameters for determining probable February 20, 2019 cause are tainted with grave abuse of discretion. Such iniquitous determinations are correctible by certiorari. Securities and Exchange DOCTRINE: Commission v. Price 1. The determination of probable cause for purposes of filing an Richardson Corp. information is lodged with the public prosecutor. It is not reviewable by courts unless it is attended by grave abuse of discretion. 2. Probable cause, for purposes of filing a criminal information, has G.R. No. 197032, been defined as such facts as are sufficient to engender a wellJuly 26, 2017

| 4F – 19’20 |

38

founded belief that a crime has been committed and that the private respondent is probably guilty thereof. Personal Collection Direct DOCTRINE: Selling, Inc. v. Carandang In granting or denying a motion to withdraw an Information, the court must conduct a cautious and independent evaluation of the evidence of the prosecution and must be convinced that the merits of the case G.R. No. 206958, warrant either the dismissal or continuation of the action. If the case November 8, 2017 is dismissed or if there is an acquittal, the appeal of the criminal aspect of the case must be instituted by the Solicitor General on behalf of the State. The capability of the private complainant to question such dismissal or acquittal is limited only to the civil aspect of the case. Pavlow vs Mendenilla DOCTRINE: The mother of a victim of acts of violence against women and their G.R. No. 181489, April 19, children is expressly given personality by Section 9(b) of Republic Act No. 9262, otherwise known as the Anti-Violence Against Women 2017 and Their Children Act of 2004 (the Anti-VAWC Law), to file a civil action petitioning for the issuance of a protection order for her child. In filing such a petition, she avails of a remedy that is distinct from the criminal action under Section 5 of the same law. The mere filing of such a criminal complaint, without the subsequent filing of an information in court, does not occasion litis pendentia or res judicata that precludes the filing of a petition for the issuance of a protection order. Jurisprudence has long settled that preliminary investigation does not form part of trial. Investigation for the purpose of determining whether an actual charge shall subsequently be filed against the person subject of the investigation is a purely administrative, rather than a judicial or quasi-judicial, function. It is not an exercise in adjudication: no ruling is made on the rights and obligations of the parties, but merely evidentiary appraisal to determine if it is worth going into actual adjudication. The dismissal of a complaint on preliminary investigation by a prosecutor "cannot be considered a valid and final judgment." As there is no former final judgment or order on the merits rendered by the court having jurisdiction over both the subject matter and the parties, there could not have been res judicata — actual or looming as to bar one (1) of several proceedings on account of litis pendentia — as to bar Mendenilla's petition for being an act of forum shopping. Rule 113 - Arrest Joseph Villasana y Cabahug DOCTRINE: vs People of the Philippines It is settled that “reliable information” provided by police assets alone is not sufficient to justify a warrantless arrest. G.R. No. 209078, September 4, 2019 People v. Cogaed DOCTRINE: Normally, "stop and frisk" searches do not give the law enforcer an G.R. No. G.R. No. 200334, opportunity to confer with a judge to determine probable cause. The

| 4F – 19’20 |

39

July 30, 2014

Manibog v. People G.R. No. 211214, March 20, 2019

Veridiano vs People G.R. No. 200370; June 7, 2017

court approximated the suspicious circumstances as probable cause. Nevertheless, mere suspicion or a hunch will not validate a "stop and frisk." A genuine reason must exist, in light of the police officer's experience and surrounding conditions, to warrant the belief that the person detained has weapons concealed about him. DOCTRINE: To sustain the validity of a stop and frisk search, the arresting officer should have personally observed two (2) or more suspicious circumstances, the totality of which would then create a reasonable inference of criminal activity to compel the arresting officer to investigate further.

DOCTRINE: Failure to timely object to the illegality of an arrest does not preclude an accused from questioning the admissibility of evidence seized. The inadmissibility of the evidence is not affected when an accused fails to question the court's jurisdiction over his or her person in a timely manner. Jurisdiction over the person of an accused and the constitutional inadmissibility of evidence are separate and mutually exclusive consequences of an illegal arrest.

For a warrantless arrest of in flagrante delicto to be affected, "two elements must concur: (1) the person to be arrested must execute an overt act indicating that he [or she] has just committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit a crime; and (2) such overt act is done in the presence or within the view of the arresting officer." Failure to comply with the overt act test renders an in flagrante delicto arrest constitutionally infirm. Lapi y Mahipus v. People DOCTRINE: The right to question the validity of an arrest may be waived if the accused, assisted by counsel, fails to object to its validity before G.R. No.210731, arraignment. February 13, 2019 Aparente y Vocalan v. People DOCTRINE: As a rule, the arrest must precede the search and that the process cannot be reversed. However, a search substantially G.R. No. 205695. contemporaneous with an arrest can precede the arrest if the police March 7, 2018 have probable cause to make the arrest at the outset of the search. The Court stresses that where miniscule amounts of drugs are involved, trial courts require more exacting compliance with the requirements under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165. Consequently, the failure of the apprehending team to mark the seized drugs immediately after seizure and confiscation casts a shadow of doubt on the integrity of the operation. People v. Leonardo Yanson, DOCTRINE: Jaime Sison and Rosalie A search of a moving vehicle is one of the few permissible exceptions Bautista where warrantless searches can be made. However, there must be probable cause. Probable cause does not demand moral certainty, or evidence sufficient to justify conviction, it requires the existence of "a G.R. No. 238453, reasonable ground of suspicion supported by circumstances sufficiently July 31, 2019

| 4F – 19’20 |

40

strong in themselves to warrant a cautious man to believe that the person accused is guilty of the offense with which he is charged." Therefore, law enforcers "must not rely on a single suspicious circumstance." Lack of probable cause constitutes an illegal search which would result in the inadmissibility in evidence of whatever items were seized. As a rule, the effects of an appeal can only bind the accused who appealed his or her conviction. However, when an appellate court renders a favorable judgment, the effects of such favorable judgment extends even to those who did not appeal, to the extent that such effects apply to their specific contexts.

Rule 114 - Bail Mario Reyes vs. People of the DOCTRINE: Philippines The presence of even one of the enumerated circumstances in Rule 114, Section 5 of the Rules of Court is sufficient cause to deny or cancel bail. G.R. No. 237172, September 18, 2019

Tejano v. Marigomen

DOCTRINE: Without a standing warrant of arrest, a judge not assigned to the province, city, or municipality where the case is pending has no authority to grant bail. To do so would be gross ignorance of the law. DOCTRINE: Res judicata applies only in a final judgment in a civil case, not in an interlocutory order in a criminal case. An order disposing a petition for bail is interlocutory. This order does not attain finality when a new matter warrants a second look on the application for bail.

A.M. No. RTJ-17-2492, September 26, 2017 People vs. Escobar G.R. No. 214300, July 26, 2017

Rule 115 – Rights of Accused Kim Liong v. People

DOCTRINE: The Supreme Court, as the court of last resort, is not a trier of facts, and rightfully so. As a rule therefore, petitions for review on certiorari may only raise questions of law.

G.R. No. 200630 , June 4,2018

Rule 115 Section 1(f) of the Rules of Court provides for the rights of an accused to cross-examine wherein the denial of such right will render the testimony of the witness incomplete and inadmissible in evidence. However, the right to cross-examine may be waived. When an accused is given the opportunity to cross-examine a witness but fails to avail of it, the accused shall be deemed to have waived this right.

Rule 116 – Arraignment & Plea People vs. Palema G.R. No. 228000, July 10, 2019

Corpus, Jr. v. Hon. Pamular G.R. No. 186403, September 5, 2018

| 4F – 19’20 |

DOCTRINE: The absence of arraignment renders the proceedings against the accused void.

DOCTRINE: An allegation of conspiracy to add a new accused without changing the prosecution's theory that the accused willfully shot the victim is merely a formal amendment. However, the rule provides that only formal amendments not prejudicial to the rights of the accused are

41

Escobar v. People G.R. No. 205576, November 20, 2017 Dio v People GR. No. 208146, June 08, 2016

BDO Unibank, Inc. vs. Choa G.R. No. 237553, July 10, 2019

CRUZ VS PEOPLE G.R. No. 210266, June 07, 2017

Osorio v. People G.R. No. 207711, July 02, 2018

| 4F – 19’20 |

allowed after plea. The test of whether an accused is prejudiced by an amendment is to determine whether a defense under the original information will still be available even after the amendment is made and if any evidence that an accused might have would remain applicable even in the amended information. Rule 117 – Motion to Quash DOCTRINE: Except with respect to civil cases impliedly instituted, the rule of conclusiveness of judgment has no application in criminal law proceedings. For criminal procedure, it is not res judicata under Rule 39, Section 47 of the Rules of Court, but res judicata in prison grey as double jeopardy, under Rule 117, Section 7. DOCTRINE; When a motion to quash is filed challenging the validity and sufficiency of an Information, and the defect may be cured by amendment, courts must deny the motion to quash and order the prosecution to file an amended Information. Generally, a defect pertaining to the failure of an Information to charge facts constituting an offense is one that may be corrected by an amendment. In such instances, courts are mandated not to automatically quash the Information; rather, it should grant the prosecution the opportunity to cure the defect through an amendment. Rule 119 - Trial DOCTRINE: When a demurrer is granted in a criminal case, the private complainant can file a Rule 65 petition on the civil aspect of the case, as long as he or she can show that the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion in granting the demurrer.

DOCTRINE: 1.The possession and use of a counterfeit credit card is considered access device fraud and is punishable by law. To successfully sustain a conviction for possession and use of a counterfeit access device, the prosecution must present not only the access device but also any evidence that proves that the access device is counterfeit. 2.While the rule is that no evidence shall be allowed during trial if it was not identified and pre-marked during trial. This provision, however, allows for an exception: when allowed by the court for good cause shown. There is no hard and fast rule to determine what may constitute "good cause," though this Court has previously defined it as any substantial reason "that affords a legal excuse." Rule 120 – Judgment DOCTRINE: There is a question of law when “doubt or difference arises as to what the law is on a certain set of facts or circumstances.” On the other hand, there is a question of fact when “the issue raised on appeal pertains to the truth or falsity of the alleged facts.” This includes an assessment of the probative value of evidence presented during trial. If the principal issue may be resolved without

42

reviewing the evidence, then the question before the appellate court is one of law. Persons who receive money for investment in a particular company but divert the same to another without the investor's consent may be held criminally liable for other deceits under Article 318 of the RPC. Article 318 of the Revised Penal Code is broad in scope intended to cover all other kinds of deceit not falling under Articles 315, 316, and 317 of the RPC.

Abubakar v People G.R. No. 202408, June 27, 2018

As a rule, an accused can only be convicted of the crime with which he or she is charged. This rule proceeds from the Constitutional guarantee that an accused shall always be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him or her. An exception to this is the rule on variance under Rule 120, Sec. 4 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. Rule 120, Section 4 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure simply means that if there is a variance between the offense charged and the offense proved, an accused may be convicted of the offense proved if it is included in the offense charged. An accused may also be convicted of the offense charged if it is necessarily included in the offense proved. Rule 121 – New Trial or Reconsideration DOCTRINE: In criminal as well as in civil cases, it has frequently been held that the fact that blunders and mistakes may have been made in the conduct of the proceedings in the trial court, as a result of the ignorance, inexperience, or incompetence of counsel, does not furnish a ground for a new trial. Given that a person's liberty is at stake in a criminal case, Umali concedes that the strict application of the general rule may lead to a manifest miscarriage of justice.96 Thus, appropriate relief may be accorded to a defendant who has shown a meritorious defense and who has satisfied the court that acquittal would follow after the introduction of omitted evidence

RULES ON EVIDENCE Rule 128 – General Provisions People v. Alan Banding G.R. No. 233470, August 14, 2019 People v. Jomar Castillo G.R. No. 38339, August 7, 2019

| 4F – 19’20 |

DOCTRINE: Section 21 remains couched in a specific, mandatory language that commands strict compliance. The accuracy it requires goes into the covertness of buy-bust operations and the very nature of narcotic substances. DOCTRINE: "The requirement of conducting inventory and taking of photographs immediately after seizure and confiscation necessarily means that the required witnesses must also be present during the seizure and confiscation." The presence of third-party witnesses is not an empty formality in the conduct of buy-bust operations. It is not a mere rubberstamp to validate the actions taken and self-serving assurances

43

proffered by law enforcement officers. The attendance of third-party witnesses ensures the identity, origin, and integrity of the items seized. Noncompliance with Section 21 of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act is not, in all cases, fatal to the prosecution. Conviction can ensue as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the confiscated items are properly preserved. People v. Jayson Merando G.R. No. 232620, August 5, 2019 People v. Larry Sultan G.R. No. 225210, August 7, 2019

People v. Isidro B. Ramos G.R. No. 225325, August 28, 2019

DOCTRINE: Unjustified noncompliance with the chain of custody procedure will shroud in doubt the identity and integrity of the dangerous drug allegedly seized. When there is reasonable doubt, an accused's acquittal must ensue. DOCTRINE: The chain of custody carries out this purpose "as it ensures that unnecessary doubts concerning the identity of the evidence are removed." Noncompliance with Section 21 engenders doubt on the integrity of the corpus delicti. When the corpus delicti is cast in doubt, an accused's guilt is also cast in doubt- warranting acquittal.

DOCTRINE: Indeed, strict compliance with the requirements under Section 21 of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act may not always be possible under varied field conditions. Section 21 (1) of the law's Implementing Rules and Regulations states that "non-compliance of (sic) these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and custody over said items[.]" For this clause to apply, the prosecution must satisfactorily prove that: (1) there is justifiable ground for noncompliance; and (2) the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved.

Rule 129 – What Need Not Be Proved Ligtas v. People G.R. No. 200751, August 17, 2015

DOCTRINE: Findings of fact of administrative agencies in the exercise of their quasijudicial powers are entitled to respect if supported by substantial evidence. Judicial determinations of quasi-judicial bodies have the same binding effect as judgments and orders of a regular judicial body.

Rule 130 – Rules of Admissibility People v. Magallano, Jr. y DOCTRINE: Flores There is no standard form of human behavioral response when confronted with a frightful experience. Not every witness to a crime can be expected to act reasonably and conformably with the G.R. No. 220721, expectations of mankind, because witnessing a crime is an unusual December 10, 2018 experience that elicit[s] different reactions from witnesses, and for which no clear-cut, standard form of behavior can be drawn.

| 4F – 19’20 |

44

Spouses Paras v. Kimwa DOCTRINE: Construction and Two things must be established for parol evidence to be admitted: first, Development Corp. that the existence of any of the four exceptions has been put in issue in a party’s pleading or has not been objected to by the adverse party; and second, that the parol evidence sought to be presented serves to form the basis of the conclusion proposed by the presenting party. People of the Philippines vs. DOCTRINE: Shirley A. Casio Under the “subjective” test, the focus of the inquiry is on the accused's predisposition to commit the offense charged, his state of mind and G.R. No. 211465, inclination before his initial exposure to government agents. All relevant December 3, 2014 facts such as the accused's mental and character traits, his past offenses, activities, his eagerness in committing the crime, his reputation, etc., are considered to assess his state of mind before the crime.

G.R. No. 171601, April 8, 2015

Onofre Andres vs. PNB G.R. No. 173548, October 15, 2014

Under the “objective” test, the inquiry is focused on the inducements used by government agents, on police conduct, not on the accused and his predisposition to commit the crime. For the goal of the defense is to deter unlawful police conduct. DOCTRINE: A petition for review on certiorari shall raise only questions of law. The Supreme Court is not a trier of facts that routinely reexamines evidence presented. A person presenting an altered document must account for the alteration; otherwise, this affects its admissibility.

People v. Abellado

y DOCTRINE: A witness' inconsistency on minor details does not affect his or her credibility as long as there are no material contradictions in his or her absolute and clear narration on the central incident and positive G.R. No. 210802, identification of the accused as one (1) of the main assailants. Any August 9, 2017 inconsistency, which is not relevant to the elements of the crime, "is not a ground to reverse a conviction." Lopez vs People DOCTRINE: A "request for appearance" issued by law enforcers to a person identified as a suspect is akin to an "invitation." Thus, the suspect is GR. No. 212186, covered by the rights of an accused while under custodial June 29, 2016 investigation. Any admission obtained from the "request for appearance" without the assistance of counsel is inadmissible in evidence. Rodriguez v Your Own Home DOCTRINE: Development Corporation To contradict statements in a notarial document, there must be clear, convincing and more than merely preponderant evidence against it. A subsequent notarial document retracting the previous statement is G.R. No. 199451, not even sufficient August 15, 2018

| 4F – 19’20 |

Dimapilit

45

People v. Opiniano y Verano G.R. No. 181474, July 26, 2017

People v. Divinagracia, Sr. G.R. No. 207765, July 26, 2017

People v. Corpuz y Flores G.R. No. 208013, July 3, 2017

The general rule is that courts look with disfavor upon retractions of testimonies previously given in court. . . . The reason is because affidavits of retraction can easily be secured from poor and ignorant witnesses, usually through intimidation or for monetary consideration. Moreover, there is always the probability that they will later be repudiated and there would never be an end to criminal litigation. DOCTRINE: Dela Cruz's extrajudicial confession without counsel at the police station without a valid waiver of the right to counsel - that is, in writing and in the presence of counsel - is inadmissible in evidence. An accused is always a competent witness for or against his coaccused, and the fact that he had been discharged from the information does not affect the quality of his testimony, for the admissibility, the relevancy, as well as the weight that should be accorded his declarations are to be determined by the Rules on Evidence. And in this connection, it has been held that the uncorroborated testimony of an accused, when satisfactory and convincing, may be the basis for a judgment of conviction of his coaccused. DOCTRINE: 1. Inconsistencies on minor details and collateral matters do not affect the veracity, substance, or weight of the witness' testimony. Jurisprudence has held "youth and immaturity to be badges of truth and sincerity" and has generally given leeway to minor witnesses when relating traumatic incidents of the past. 2. When a rape victim's allegation is corroborated by a physician's finding of penetration, "there is sufficient foundation to conclude the existence of the essential requisite of carnal knowledge." 3. The self-serving defense of denial falters against the "positive identification by, and straightforward narration of the victim." DOCTRINE: An intellectually disabled person is not, solely by this reason, ineligible from testifying in court. "He or she can be a witness, depending on his or her ability to relate what he or she knows." If an intellectually disabled victim's testimony is coherent, it is admissible in court.

Vivian Sanchez vs. PSUPT. DOCTRINE: Marc Darroca Additionally, hearsay evidence, which is generally considered inadmissible under the rules of evidence, may be considered in a writ of amparo proceeding if required by the unique circumstances. G.R. No. 242257, October 15, 2019 Separation is not tantamount to strained marital relations. Spouse’s supposed membership in the NPA is not an offense envisioned by jurisprudence which would create an exception to the general rule of marital disqualification.

Concha v. People

| 4F – 19’20 |

DOCTRINE:

46

G.R. No. 208114, October 3, 2018

To convict an accused, it is not sufficient for the prosecution to present a positive identification by a witness during trial due to the frailty of human memory. It must also show that the identified person matches the original description made by that witness when initially reporting the crime. The unbiased character of the process of identification by witnesses must likewise be shown.

People v. Cogaed

DOCTRINE: Normally, "stop and frisk" searches do not give the law enforcer an opportunity to confer with a judge to determine probable cause. The court approximated the suspicious circumstances as probable cause. Nevertheless, mere suspicion or a hunch will not validate a "stop and frisk." A genuine reason must exist, in light of the police officer's experience and surrounding conditions, to warrant the belief that the person detained has weapons concealed about him. DOCTRINE: Inconsistencies do not affect the credibility of the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, especially with respect to the "principal occurrence and positive identification" of petitioner. Slight inconsistencies in the testimony even strengthen credibility as they show that the testimony was not rehearsed.

G.R. No. G.R. No. 200334, July 30, 2014

Cirera v. People G.R. No. 181843. July 14, 2014

Torres y Salera v. People

DOCTRINE: The assessment of the credibility of witnesses is a function properly G.R. No. 206627, within the office of the trial courts. It is a question of fact not Date:January 18, 2017 reviewable by this Court. The trial court’s findings on the matter are entitled to great weight and given great respect and may only be disregardedif there are facts and circumstances which were overlooked by the trial court and which would substantially alter the results of the case. Rule 131 – Burden of Proof and Presumption Office of the Ombudsman v DOCTRINE: Fetalvero Complainants in administrative proceedings carry the burden of proving their allegations with substantial evidence or such "relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to G.R. No.211450, support a conclusion. July 23, 2018 Tortona v. Gregorio DOCTRINE: Documents acknowledged before a notary public are presumed to have been duly executed. The burden of proving that thumbmarks G.R. No. 202612, affixed on it by an ostensible party is false and simulated lies on the January 17, 2018 party assailing its execution.This presumption may be contradicted by clear and convincing evidence.

Rule 132 – Presentation of Evidence Arreza vs. Toyo G.R. No. 213198, July 1, 2019

| 4F – 19’20 |

DOCTRINES: 1. In actions involving the recognition of a foreign divorce judgment, it is indispensable that the petitioner prove not only the foreign judgment granting the divorce, but also the alien spouse's national law. Both the foreign divorce decree and the foreign spouse's national law, purported to be official acts of a sovereign authority, can be established by

47

complying with the mandate of Rule 132, Sections 24 and 25 of the Rules of Court. 2. A published treatise may be admitted as tending to prove the truth of its content if: (1) the court takes judicial notice; or (2) an expert witness testifies that the writer is recognized in his or her profession as an expert in the subject.

Lorenzo Shipping Corp. v. DOCTRINES: National Power Corp. It is basic that any material presented as evidence will not be considered unless duly admitted by the court before which it is presented. Just as basic is that a private document offered as G.R. Nos. 181683 & 184568 authentic evidence shall not be admitted unless its due execution October 08, 2015 and authenticity are established in the manner specified under the Rules of Court. Imperial v. Heirs of Sps. DOCTRINE: Bayaban Private documents must be authenticated, or their due execution and authenticity proven, per Rule 132, Section 20 of the Rules of Court. G.R. No. 197626, October 3, 2018 William G. Kwong Management, Inc. vs. Diamond Homeowners & Residents Association

DOCTRINE: Written official acts of the sovereign authority, official bodies and tribunals, and public officers of the Philippines are public documents. Public documents are prima facie evidence of the facts stated in them.

G.R. No. 211353, June 10, 2019

Racho v Seiichi Tanaka G.R. No. 199515, June 25, 2018

DOCTRINE: Judicial recognition of a foreign divorce requires that the national law of the foreign spouse and the divorce decree be pleaded and proved as a fact before the Regional Trial Court. The Filipino spouse may be granted the capacity to remarry once our courts find that the foreign divorce was validly obtained by the foreign spouse according to his or her national law, and that the foreign spouse's national law considers the dissolution of the marital relationship to be absolute.

Rule 133 – Weight and Sufficiency of Evidence People vs. ZZZ

DOCTRINE: In the absence of direct evidence, a resort to circumstantial evidence is usually necessary in proving the commission of rape. This is because G.R. No. 228828, the crime is generally unwitnessed and very often only the victim is left July 24, 2019 to testify for him or herself. It becomes even more difficult when the complex crime of rape with homicide is committed because the victim could no longer testify. Macayan, Jr. y Malana v. DOCTRINE: People Requiring proof beyond reasonable doubt finds basis not only in the due process clause of the Constitution, but similarly, in the right of an G.R. No. 175842, accused to be “presumed innocent until the contrary is proved.”

March 18, 2015 People v. Baron

| 4F – 19’20 |

DOCTRINE: Rule 133, Section 4 of the Revised Rules on Evidence provides that

48

G.R. No. 213215, January 11, 2016

circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction if: (a) There is more than one circumstances; (b) The facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and (c) The combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.

Richard Ricalde vs. People DOCTRINE: of the Philippines The “variance doctrine” states that when there is variance between the G.R. No. 211002, January 21, 2015

People v Chavez G.R. No. G.R. No. 207950, September 22, 2014 Daayata v. People G.R. No. 205745, March 8, 2017 People v. Nuñez G.R. No. 209342 , October 4, 2017

People v. Que y Utuanis G.R. No. 212994, January 31, 2018

People v. Pangan G.R. No. 206965, November 29, 2017

| 4F – 19’20 |

offense charged in the complaint or information and that proved, and the offense as charged is included in or necessarily includes the offense proved, the accused shall be convicted of the offense proved which is included in the offense charged, or of the offense charged which is included in the offense proved. An offense charged necessarily includes the offense proved when some of the essential elements or ingredients of the former, as alleged in the complaint or information, constitute the latter. And an offense charged is necessarily included in the offense proved, when the essential ingredients of the former continue or form part of those constituting the latter. DOCTRINE: The Rules of Court expressly provides that circumstantial evidence may be sufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt for the conviction of an accused.

DOCTRINE: Proof beyond reasonable doubt charges the prosecution with the immense responsibility of establishing moral certainty. The prosecution's case must rise on its own merits, not merely on relative strength as against that of the defense. Should the prosecution fail to discharge its burden, acquittal must follow as a matter of course. DOCTRINE: To convict an accused, it is not sufficient for the prosecution to present a positive identification by a witness during trial due to the frailty of human memory. It must also show that the identified person matches the original description made by that witness when initially reporting the crime. The unbiased character of the process of identification by witnesses must likewise be shown. DOCTRINE: Under Rule 133, Section 2 of the Revised Rules on Evidence, conviction in criminal actions requires proof beyond reasonable doubt. Compliance with RA 9165 Section 21's chain of custody requirements ensures the integrity of the seized items. Noncompliance with them tarnishes the credibility of the corpus delicti around which prosecutions under the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act revolve. DOCTRINE: In crimes involving dangerous drugs, the State has the burden of proving not only the elements of the offense but also the corpus delicti of the charge. The prosecution must establish the existence

49

People v. Borja G.R. No. 199710, 2 August 2017 People vs San Jose G.R. No. 206916, July 3, 2017 People v. Balao y Lopez G.R. No. 207805, November 22, 2017

Lucido v. People G.R. No. 217764 August 7, 2017 Bacerra vs People G.R. No. 204544; July 3, 2017

of the illicit drugs. It must also prove that the integrity of the corpus delicti has been maintained because the confiscated drug, being the proof involved, is not promptly recognizable through sight and can be tampered or replaced. DOCTRINE: Although the crime of kidnapping can only be committed by a private individual, the fact that the accused is a public official does not automatically preclude the filing of an information for kidnapping against him. The burden is on the accused to prove that he or she acted in furtherance of his or her official functions. DOCTRINE: The prosecution has the burden to prove the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. If it fails to discharge this burden, courts have the duty to render a judgment of acquittal. DOCTRINE: The testimony of a single eyewitness to a crime, even if uncorroborated, produces a conviction beyond reasonable doubt as long as it is credible and positive. A considerable lapse of time between the commission of the offense and the identification of the accused in open court, by itself, would be insufficient to overturn a finding of guilt.|||

DOCTRINE: Through its firsthand observations during the entire proceedings, the trial court can be expected to determine, with reasonable discretion, whose testimony to accept and which witness to believe DOCTRINE: The difference between direct evidence and circumstantial evidence involves the relationship of the fact inferred to the facts that constitute the offense. Their difference does not relate to the probative value of the evidence. Direct evidence proves a challenged fact without drawing any inference. Circumstantial evidence, on the other hand, "indirectly proves a fact in issue, such that the factfinder must draw an inference or reason from circumstantial evidence." The probative value of direct evidence is generally neither greater than nor superior to circumstantial evidence. The Rules of Court do not distinguish between "direct evidence of fact and evidence of circumstances from which the existence of a fact may be inferred." The same quantum of evidence is still required. Courts must be convinced that the accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

Richard Ricalde vs. People of DOCTRINE: the Philippines The “variance doctrine” states that when there is variance between the offense charged in the complaint or information and that proved, and G.R. No. 211002, the offense as charged is included in or necessarily includes the offense January 21, 2015 proved, the accused shall be convicted of the offense proved which is included in the offense charged, or of the offense charged which is included in the offense proved. An offense charged necessarily includes the offense proved when some of the essential elements or ingredients of the former, as alleged in the complaint or information, constitute the

| 4F – 19’20 |

50

latter. And an offense charged is necessarily included in the offense proved, when the essential ingredients of the former continue or form part of those constituting the latter. DST Movers Corporation v. DOCTRINE: People’s General Insurance A determination of where the preponderance of evidence lies is a factual Corporation issue which, as a rule, cannot be entertained in a Rule 45 petition. When, however, the sole basis of the trial court for ruling on this issue G.R. No. 198627, is evidence that should not have been admitted for being hearsay, this January 13, 2016 court will embark on its own factual analysis and will, if necessary, reverse the rulings of the lower courts. A traffic accident investigation report prepared by a police officer relying solely on the account of a supposed eyewitness and not on his or her personal knowledge is not evidence that is admissible as an exception to the Hearsay Rule. People v. Turemutsa

Comoso

y DOCTRINE: In cases of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, to secure conviction, the prosecution must prove the following elements: "(1) proof that the G.R. No. 211293, Date: April 10, transaction or sale took place[;] and (2) the presentation in court of the corpus delicti or the illicit drug as evidence." Evidence proving that a 2019 transaction took place "must be credible and complete." In buy-bust operations, this is usually proven by the testimony of the poseur-buyer.

CHAIN OF CUSTODY (R.A. 9165) Ruel Tuano y Hernandez vs. DOCTRINE: People Law enforcers should not trifle with the legal requirement to ensure the integrity in the chain of custody of seized dangerous drugs and GR. No. 205871 (Resolution), drug paraphernalia. This is especially true when only a miniscule June 27, 2016 amount of dangerous drugs is alleged to have been taken from the accused. Howard Lecano y Carreon DOCTRINE: v. People A presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty is made in the context of an existing rule of law or statute authorizing the performance of an act or duty or prescribing a procedure in the 2016 performance thereof. The presumption applies when nothing in the record suggests that the law enforcers deviated from the standard conduct of official duty required by law; where the official act is irregular on its face, the presumption cannot arise. People v. Comoso y DOCTRINE: Turemutsa In cases of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, to secure conviction, the prosecution must prove the following elements: "(1) proof that the transaction or sale took place[;] and (2) the presentation in court of the G.R. No. 211293, corpus delicti or the illicit drug as evidence." Evidence proving that a April 10, 2019 transaction took place "must be credible and complete." In buy-bust operations, this is usually proven by the testimony of the poseur-buyer.

G.R. No. 214490, January 13,

People v. Cabañero

| 4F – 19’20 |

Cabellon

y DOCTRINE: The marking and identification of the seized dangerous drug is an essential part of the chain of custody. Absent

51

G.R. No. 207229, September 20, 2017

People v. Guzman

Sagana

y

G.R. No. 208471 August 2,2017

People vs Gloria Caiz GR. No. 215340; July 13, 2016 People v. Jaafar Tambuyong G.R. No. 219829, January 18, 2017

this step, a gap is created which casts a shadow of doubt on the identity and integrity of the dangerous drug presented as evidence, creating reasonable doubt, which must be resolved in favor of the accused. De DOCTRINE: The prosecution has the burden of establishing the identity of the seized items. While non-conformity with the strict directive of Section 21 is not essentially prejudicial to its claim, the lapses committed by the police officers must be recognized and explained in terms of their justifiable grounds and the integrity and evidentiary value of the evidence seized must be shown to have been preserved. DOCTRINE: Failure to prove the preservation of the integrity of the corpus delicti in dangerous drugs cases will lead to the acquittal of the accused on the ground of reasonable doubt. y DOCTRINE: While it may be true that noncompliance with Section 21 of Republic Act (RA) No. 9165 is not fatal to the prosecution’s case provided that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officers, this exception will only be triggered by the existence of a ground that justifies departure from the general rule.

People of the Philippines vs. DOCTRINE: Martin Asaytuno The drugs allegedly obtained from accused-appellants should have been immediately marked at the moment of arrest and seizure. G.R. No. 245972, The total absence of mandatory witnesses during apprehension, and December 2, 2019 those same witnesses’ inadequacy during inventory and photographing, reveal a sorely lacking attempt at complying with statutory requirements. People vs. Dela Cruz DOCTRINE: Whenever there is an unjustified noncompliance with the chain of custody requirements, the prosecution cannot invoke the presumption G.R. No. 229053, of regularity in the performance of official duty to conveniently disregard July 17, 2019 such lapse. Noncompliance obliterates proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt, warranting an accused's acquittal. Veriño vs. People DOCTRINE: State agents are expected to strictly comply with the legal safeguards under Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165, as amended. Should there G.R. No. 225710, be noncompliance, the prosecution must prove that a justifiable cause June 19, 2019 existed and that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized item were preserved for the saving clause in Section 21 to be appreciated in favor of State agents. People v. Ternida y Munar DOCTRINE: The photographing and physical inventory of the seized drugs must be done immediately where seizure had taken place minimizes the G.R. No. 212626, possibility that evidence may be planted. Noncompliance with this June 3, 2019 legally mandated procedure, upon seizure, raises doubt that what was

| 4F – 19’20 |

52

submitted for laboratory examination and as evidence in court was seized from an accused.

People v. Sanchez G.R. No. 216014, March 14, 2018 People v. Saragena G.R. No. 210677, August 23, 2017

People v. Segundo y Iglesias G.R. No. 205614, July 26, 2017

People v. Holgado G.R. No. G.R. No. 207992, August 11, 2014

DOCTRINE: Although the testimonies differed on where the seized items were marked, the prosecution has sufficiently demonstrated that this discrepancy did not affect the integrity or evidentiary value of the corpus delicti. DOCTRINE: The Court emphasizes that "ostensibly approximate compliance" does not suffice; rather, there must be actual compliance with Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165. Not doing so is tantamount to a failure to establish the corpus delicti, a crucial element of the crime charged. DOCTRINE: Although the miniscule quantity of confiscated illicit drugs is solely by itself not a reason for acquittal, this instance accentuates the importance of conformity to Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 that the law enforcers in this case miserably failed to do so. If initially there were already significant lapses on the marking, inventory, and photographing of the alleged seized items, a doubt on the integrity of the corpus delicti concomitantly exists. The presumption of regularity in the performance will never be stronger than the presumption of innocence in favor of the accused. DOCTRINE: Failure to comply with Paragraph 1, Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 implies a concomitant failure on the part of the prosecution to establish the identity of the corpus delicti. The omission naturally raises grave doubt about any search being actually conducted and warrants the suspicion that the prohibited drugs were planted evidence.

Four (4) links should be established in the chain of custody of the confiscated item: first, the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer; second, the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer; third, the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and fourth, the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized from the forensic chemist to the court. People v. Dimaano DOCTRINE: Inconsistencies in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses in cases G.R. No. 174481, involving violations of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act may be February 10, 2016 excused so long as the identity of the dangerous drugs is proved beyond reasonable doubt and the chain of custody is established with moral certainty.

Coronel y Santillan v. People DOCTRINE: When the requirements under Section 21 (a) of the implementing G.R. No. 214536, rules and regulations of Republic Act No. 9165 were complied with,

| 4F – 19’20 |

53

March 13, 2017

the non-presentation of a forensic chemist during trial would not cause an acquittal in illegal drug cases.

B.P. BLG. 129 Jurisdiction First Sarmiento Property DOCTRINE: Holdings, Inc. v. Philippine To determine the nature of an action, whether or not its subject Bank of Communications matter is capable or incapable of pecuniary estimation, the nature of the principal action or relief sought must be ascertained. If the G.R. No. 202836, principal relief is for the recovery of a sum of money or real property, June 19,2018 then the action is capable of pecuniary estimation. However, if the principal relief sought is not for the recovery of sum of money or real property, even if a claim over a sum of money or real property results as a consequence of the principal relief, the action is incapable of pecuniary estimation. Philippine Ports Authority v. DOCTRINE: City of Davao When a tax case is pending on appeal with the Court of Tax Appeals, the Court of Tax Appeals has the exclusive jurisdiction to enjoin the G.R. No. 190324, levy of taxes and the auction of a taxpayer’s properties in relation to June 6,2018 that case. Manila Electric Co. v. Nordec DOCTRINE: Philippines The Court of Appeals has the jurisdiction to review, and even reverse, the factual findings of the trial court. G.R. Nos. 196020 & 196116 National Power Corp. v. DOCTRINE: Provincial Government of The Court of Tax Appeals is vested with the exclusive appellate Bataan jurisdiction over, among others, appeals from the "decisions, orders or resolutions of the Regional Trial Courts in local tax cases originally G.R. No. 180654, decided or resolved by them in the exercise of their original or March 6, 2017 appellate jurisdiction. Moreover, the nature of an action is determined by the allegations in the complaint and the character of the relief sought. Spouses Aboitiz vs Spouses DOCTRINE: Po An action for annulment of judgment is a remedy in equity so exceptional in nature that it may be availed of only when other G.R. 208450; remedies are wanting, and only if the judgment, final order or final June 7, 2017 resolution sought to be annulled was rendered by a court lacking jurisdiction or through extrinsic fraud. An action for reconveyance, on the other hand, is a legal and equitable remedy granted to the rightful owner of land which has been wrongfully or erroneously registered in the name of another for the purpose of compelling the latter to transfer or reconvey the land to him. The Court of Appeals has exclusive original jurisdiction over actions for annulment of judgments of Regional Trial Courts whereas actions for reconveyance of real property may be filed before the Regional Trial Courts or the Municipal Trial Courts, depending on the assessed value of the property involved.

| 4F – 19’20 |

54

Pascual, Sr. Credit and Cooperative

v. Caniogan DOCTRINE: Development An appeal of the outright dismissal of a petition for certiorari against an interlocutory order of a lower court becomes moot and academic where, during its pendency, judgment on the merits has been rendered in the G.R. No. 172980 main case and has become final and executory. July 22, 2015 An intra-cooperative dispute between two officers on one hand and the Board of Directors on the other falls within the jurisdiction of the regular courts, not of the Labor Arbiter.

Secretary of the Department DOCTRINE: of Agrarian Reform v. Heirs It is settled that the Regional Trial Courts, sitting as special agrarian of Abucay courts, have original and exclusive jurisdiction over the determination of the value of just compensation. Nonetheless, the G.R. No. 186432, Department of Agrarian Reform still exercises primary jurisdiction to March 12, 2019 preliminarily determine this value. When the issue in a case hinges on whether a beneficiary has made insufficient or no payments for the land awarded to him or her, primary administrative jurisdiction is under the Department of Agrarian Reform. City of General Santos v. DOCTRINE: Commission on Audit It is the general policy of the Court to sustain the decisions of administrative authorities, especially one which is constitutionallyG.R. No. 199439, created not only on the basis of the doctrine of separation of powers but April 22, 2014 also for their presumed expertise in the laws they are entrusted to enforce. Findings of administrative agencies are accorded not only respect but also finality when the decision and order are not tainted with unfairness or arbitrariness that would amount to grave abuse of discretion. Batac vs. Office Ombudsman

the DOCTRINE: Absent a showing that the Office of the Ombudsman acted in an "arbitrary, capricious, whimsical, or despotic manner," the Supreme Court will not interfere with its exercise of discretion in determining the G.R. No. 216949. existence of probable cause. July 3, 2019 Department of Finance – DOCTRINE: Revenue Integrity Protection The Office of the Ombudsman is armed with the power to investigate. It Service vs. Edita Yambao is, therefore, in a better position to assess the strengths or weaknesses of the evidence on had needed to make a finding of probable cause. G.R. No. 220632 and 220634, November 6, 2019

Lee v Sales G.R. No.205294, July 4, 2018

| 4F – 19’20 |

of

DOCTRINE: A pending motion for reconsideration of a decision issued by the Office of the Ombudsman does not stay its immediate execution. This is clear under the rules of the Office of the Ombudsman and our jurisprudence

55