Bar Ops Digests 2

8/19/2019 Bar Ops Digests 2

1/26

24.

SPS. RUBIN AND PORTIA HOJAS, vs.PHILIPPINE AMANAH BANK AND RAMON KUE

G.R. No. 193453 June 5, 213

!A"TS#

The petitioners, Spouses Rubin and Portia Hojas (petitioners), alleged that on April11, 198, the! se"ured a loan #ro$ respondent Philippine A$anah %an& (PA%) in thea$ount o# P',. that this loan *as se"ured b! a $ortgage, The! $adevarious pa!$ents a$ounting to P'8+,1+. ho*ever, PA% did not properl! "redit their pa!$ents, onl! 1- pa!$ents *ere "redited, that #or #ailure to pa! the loan, PA%applied #or the etrajudi"ial #ore"losure o# the $ortgaged real properties o# petitioners.

/SS023hether the respondent ban& is "orre"t *hen it sold the propert! at publi"

au"tion

H452Respondents6 repeated re7uests #or in#or$ation as regards the a$ount o#

loan availed #ro$ the "redit line and the a$ount o# rede$ption, and petitioner6s#ailure to a""ede to said re7uests do not invalidate the #ore"losure. Respondents "an#ind other *a!s to &no* the rede$ption pri"e. or one, the! "an ea$ine theerti#i"ate o# Sale registered *ith the Register o# 5eeds to veri#! the pur"hase pri"e,or upon the #iling o# their "o$plaint, the! "ould have $oved #or a "o$putation o# therede$ption pri"e and "onsigned the sa$e to the "ourt. At an! rate, *hether or notrespondents 6:*ere diligent in asserting their *illingness to pa! is irrelevant.Rede$ption *ithin the period allo*ed b! la* is not a $atter o# intent but a 7uestiono# pa!$ent or valid tender o# the #ull rede$ption pri"e *ithin said period.

25#MANILA ELE"TRI" "OMPAN$ vs.HEIRS O! SPOUSES DIONISIO DELO$ %n& PRA'EDES MARTONITO,(e)(e*en+e& - POLI"ARPIO DELO$

G.R. No. 19293 June 5, 213

!A"TS#Respondents are the o*ners, b! *a! o# su""ession, o# a par"el o# land "onsisting o# 8, s7uare $eters lo"ated in Tre"e ;artires it! (Tre"e ;artires propert!). prede"essor?in?interest, donated a +8?s7uare $eter portion (subje"t land) o# the 8, s7uare $eter propert! to theo$$uni"ations and le"tri"it! 5evelop$ent Authorit! (5A) #or the latter toprovide "heap and a##ordable ele"tri" suppl! to the provin"e o# avite. A deed o# donation+ *as ee"uted to re#le"t and #or$ali@e the trans#er.

So$eti$e in 198, 5A o##ered #or sale to ;RA4


2/26

providing ele"tri"alservi"e in avite. This *as e$bodied in a $e$orandu$ o# agree$ent (;


3/26

-, as eviden"ed b! a $edi"o?legal "erti#i"ate, *hi"h stated that he sustained a"ontusion he$ato$a in the h!pogastri" area.

Regarding the sa$e in"ident, %ang?on #iled a "ri$inal "ase against Pat?og #or the"ri$e o# 4ess Serious Ph!si"al /njur! *ith the Regional Trial ourt (RT) o# %onto",

;ountain Provin"e *hi"h Pat?og *as #ound guilt! o# the o##ense

Ta&ing "ogni@an"e o# the ad$inistrative "ase, the S?AR dire"ted Pat?og to #ilehis "ounter?a##idavit. He denied the "harges hurled against hi$ and "lai$ed that*hen he *as "ondu"ting his ;usi", Arts, Ph!si"al du"ation and Health (;APH)"lass, "o$posed o# third !ear students, he instru"ted the girls to pla! volle!ball andthe bo!s to pla! bas&etball that he later dire"ted the bo!s to #or$ t*o lines that a#ter the bo!s #ailed to #ollo* his repeated instru"tions, he s"olded the$ in a loud voi"eand *rested the ball #ro$ the$ that *hile approa"hing the$, he noti"ed that there*ere $ale students *ho *ere not $e$bers o# his "lass *ho had joined the shootingpra"ti"e that one o# those $ale students *as %ang?on, *ho *as supposed to behaving his o*n ;APH "lass under another tea"her that he then glared at the$,

"ontinued s"olding the$ and dis$issed the "lass #or their #ailure to #ollo*instru"tions and that he o##ered the s*orn state$ent o# other students to prove thathe did not bo %ang?on.

The S?AR #ound the eisten"e o# a pri$a #a"ie "ase #or $is"ondu"t and #or$all!"harged Pat?og. He *as #ound guilt! o# Si$ple ;is"ondu"t. The S a##ir$ed thede"ision but $odi#ied it "harging the petitioner o# Crave ;is"ondu"t and 5is$issal#ro$ servi"e.

/SS02

3hether or not dis$issal and #or#eiture o# all his bene#its is too $u"h apenalt!D

H452

0nder Se"tion (A)() o# Rule /B o# the 0ni#or$ Rules on Ad$inistrativeases in the ivil Servi"e, the penalt! #or grave $is"ondu"t is dis$issal #ro$ theservi"e, *hi"h "arries *ith it the "an"ellation o# eligibilit!, #or#eiture o# retire$entbene#its and perpetual dis7uali#i"ation #ro$ ree$plo!$ent in the govern$entservi"e.E This penalt! $ust, ho*ever, be te$pered *ith "o$passion as there *assut1i"ient provo"ation on the part o# %ang?on. onsidering #urther the $itigating"ir"u$stan"es that the petitioner has been in the govern$ent servi"e #or -- !ears,

that this is his #irst o##ense and that he is at the "usp o# retire$ent, the ourt #inds thepenalt! o# suspension #or si $onths as appropriate under the "ir"u$stan"es

http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_198755_2013.html#fnt27http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_198755_2013.html#fnt27


4/26

2#

"HRISTIAN "ABALLO vs. PEOPLE O! THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 1932 June 1, 213

!A"TS# AAA, then 1E !ears old, $et aballo, then - !ears old, in her un"le>s pla"e

in Surigao it!. Her un"le *as a "horeographer and aballo *as one o# his dan"ers.5uring that ti$e, AAA *as a sopho$ore "ollege student at the 0niversit! o# Sanarlos and resided at a boarding house in ebu it!.


5/26

2#

AMANDO P. "ONTES, vs.O!!I"E O! THE OMBUDSMAN ISA$AS, I"TOR$ M. !ERNANDE, JULIO E.SU"GANG %n& NILO IGTANLO".G.R. No*. 19/09 June 1, 213

!A"TS#Petitioner "harged respondents *ith violation o# Se"tion -(e) o# Republi" A"t =o.-19, or the Anti?Cra#t and orrupt Pra"ti"es A"t, and ;is"ondu"t. Petitioner allegedthat during the period o# 9 ;ar"h + to 1 April +, respondents utili@ed a heav!e7uip$ent grader o*ned b! the Provin"e o# A&lan in levelling a portion o# his land.Petitioner "lai$ed that the portion o# the land destro!ed has an area o# 1,1 s7uare

$eters and that several #ruit trees *ere destro!ed. Petitioner i$pleaded ernande@#or the latter>s #ailure to as"ertain #ro$ the Barangay aptain *hether the roadssought to be levelled *ere barangay roads, and #or issuing a driver>s trip ti"&et to theCrader


6/26

ourt as earl! as in the "ase o# abian v. 5esierto, 9 SRA 'E (1998). 3e ruledin abian that appeals #ro$ de"isions o# the


7/26

di##erent "on"lusion. /n the instant "ase, these "ir"u$stan"es are present, that, *henproperl! appre"iated, *ould *arrant the a"7uittal o# the a""used.

The Supre$e ourt *ill never *aver in ensuring that the pres"ribedpro"edures in the handling o# the sei@ed drugs should be observed.KSPs per#or$an"e o# dut!. SP


8/26

Therea#ter, a noti"e o# ter$ination *as served on Con@aga. Con@aga soughtre"onsideration be#ore S0R=s %oard o# 5ire"tors but the latter denied thesa$e a#ter he presented his "ase.1' eviden"e M*hi"h "onsists o# the olle"tion Report, the Su$$aries, and the Septe$ber 1, - Audit Report *ith atta"hed ash lo* Su$$ar! M ade7uatel! supports the

"on"lusion that Con@aga $isappropriated the #unds o# the "ooperative. The dataindi"ated therein sho* gaping dis"repan"ies bet*een Con@aga>s "olle"tions andre$ittan"es, o# *hi"h he *as a""ountable #or. /n this a""ord, the burden o# eviden"eshi#ted to Con@aga to prove that the re#le"ted shortage *as not attributable to hi$.Ho*ever, despite being allo*ed to peruse the bills and re"eipts on re"ord together *ith the assistan"e o# an a""ountant and a "ounsel during the investigationpro"eedings, Con@aga "ould not re"on"ile the a$ounts o# his "olle"tions andre$ittan"es and, instead, $erel! interposed bare and general denials.

66666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666

31#

PEOPLE O! THE PHILIPPINESvs.MARIA JENN$ REA - GUEARRA %n& ESTRELLITA TENDENILLAG.R. No. 1949 June 1, 213

ATS2

An in#or$ation #or illegal re"ruit$ent "o$$itted in large s"ale and b! as!ndi"ate *as #iled against the a""used ;aria enn! Rea, strelita Tendenilla *hoo*ns harles Bisa onsultan"! in /ntra$uros, ;anila. and a "ertain A@ul o*ner o# o*ns Bon 3elt Travel Agen"!. Rea is Tendenilla>s e$plo!ee and bab!sitter. The!represent the$selves to have the "apa"it! o# "ontra"ting, enlisting and transportingilipino *or&ers #or e$plo!$ent abroad spe"i#i"all! in 4ondon, 0nited Ningdo$ as"aregivers and general servi"es #or a #ee, *ithout #irst se"uring the re7uired li"enseand authorit! #ro$ the 5epart$ent o# 4abor and $plo!$ent, and *ithout an!

"apa"it! and $eans to deplo! *or&ers abroad despite re"eipt o# the a#orestated #ees.



9/26

At least + individuals *ere vi"ti$s o# their plot *ho *ere the "o$plainants in this"ase.

/SS02

3hether or not the a""used is guilt! o# the "ri$e as "hargedD

H452

LS, To prove illegal re"ruit$ent, it $ust be sho*n that appellant gave"o$plainants the distin"t i$pression that he had the po*er or abilit! to send"o$plainants abroad #or *or& su"h that the latter *ere "onvin"ed to part *ith their $one! in order to be e$plo!ed. The #irst ele$ent o# large s"ale illegal re"ruit$ent*as proven b! the testi$onies o# the private "o$plainants *hi"h the trial "ourt #oundto be "redible and "onvin"ing. 3e #ind that the! *ere given in a "lear, positive andstraight#or*ard $anner. %et*een the positive and "ategori"al testi$onies o# private"o$plainants and the unsubstantiated denials o# appellants, *e give $ore *eight to

the #or$er. The "erti#i"ation issued b! the Philippine s relationship *ith ;%;S/,resulting in the dis$issal o# the e$plo!ees or $aintenan"e personnel under ;%;S/.The dis$issed e$plo!ees, #iled their respe"tive "o$plaints #or illegal dis$issal and"lai$ed #or reinstate$ent, ba"& *ages, underpa!$ent o# salaries, overti$e pa!,holida! pa!, servi"e in"entive leave, and 1-th $onth pa! against ;%;S/. Pr sub$itted several do"u$ents be#ore 4abor Arbiter, in"luding releases, *aivers and7uit"lai$s in #avor o# ;%;S/ ee"uted b! the "o$plainants to prove that the! *ere

e$plo!ees o# ;%;S/ and not Pr.


10/26

/SS023hether or not a labor?onl! "ontra"tor is solidaril! liable *ith the e$plo!er.

H452 LS, The =4R and the A "orre"tl! ruled that the releases, *aivers and7uit"lai$s ee"uted b! petitioners in #avor o# ;%;S/ redounded to the bene#it o# Pr pursuant to Arti"le 11E o# the =e* ivil ode. The reason is that ;%;S/ issolidaril! liable *ith the respondents #or the valid "lai$s o# petitioners pursuant to Arti"le 19 o# the 4abor ode. As "orre"tl! pointed out b! the respondents, the basiso# the solidar! liabilit! o# the prin"ipal *ith those engaged in labor?onl! "ontra"ting isthe last paragraph o# Arti"le 1+ o# the 4abor ode, *hi"h in part provides2 F/n su"h"ases Glabor?onl! "ontra"ting, the person or inter$ediar! shall be "onsidered $erel!as an agent o# the e$plo!er *ho shall be responsible to the *or&ers in the sa$e$anner and etent as i# the latter *ere dire"tl! e$plo!ed b! hi$.I

3hile it is the dut! o# the "ourts to prevent the eploitation o# e$plo!ees, it

also behooves the "ourts to prote"t the san"tit! o# "ontra"ts that do not "ontravenethe la*. The la* in prote"ting the rights o# the laborer authori@es neither oppressionnor sel#?destru"tion o# the e$plo!er. 3hile the onstitution is "o$$itted to the poli"!o# so"ial justi"e and the prote"tion o# the *or&ing "lass, it should not be supposedthat ever! labor dispute *ill be auto$ati"all! de"ided in #avor o# labor. ;anage$entalso has its o*n rights, *hi"h, as su"h, are entitled to respe"t and en#or"e$ent in theinterest o# si$ple #air pla!

33

ALBUE"O, IN"., vs. PROIN"E O! BATAAN,G.R. No. 1329 June 1, 213

ATS2Petitioner Balbue"o, /n". *as the registered o*ner o# eight (8) par"els o# land

situated at Sa!sain, %aga", %ataan. 5ue to petitioner>s unpaid real propert! taes,the above?$entioned properties *ere sold at publi" au"tion so$eti$e in 198E or 1988E *hereb! respondent Provin"e o# %ataan (Provin"e) e$erged as the *inningbidder in the a$ount o# Sevent! Thousand Seven Hundred Sit!?T*o Pesos and9O1 (PE,E+.9). Petitioner #iled a "o$plaint to nulli#! the ta sale and the"onsolidation o# title and o*nership in #avor o# respondent Provin"e, and to re"onve!the possession, title and o*nership o# the subje"t properties. Petitioner "ontendedthat to e##e"t "olle"tion o# taes on petitioner>s real propert! in the total a$ount o# PE,E+.9), de#endant provin"ial TRAS0RR pro"eeded to e##e"t "olle"tion o# taes *ithout #irst $a&ing a distraint on the personalit! (si") o# petitioner *hi"h is*orth $ore than its alleged total ta liabilit!, /n $a&ing and e##e"ting the distraint,respondent TRAS0RR #ailed and o$itted to have the distraint annotatedHaving $ade the annotated lev! on distraint, respondent TRAS0RR "aused the

sale o# the real properties at the au"tion sans the ne"essar! publi"ation andOor noti"ein at least three (-) publi" and "onspi"uous pla"es


11/26

/SS023hether or not the "ontention o# the petitioner is tenable.

H4523hile it has been ruled that the noti"es and publi"ation, as *ell as the legal

re7uire$ents #or a ta delin7uen"! sale under Presidential 5e"ree =o. '+'(other*ise &no*n as the Real Propert! Ta ode), are $andator! and that #ailure to"o$pl! there*ith "an invalidate the sale in vie* o# the re7uire$ents o# due pro"ess,3e have e7uall! held that the "lai$ o# la"& o# noti"e is a #a"tual 7uestion. /n apetition #or revie*, the ourt "an onl! pass upon 7uestions o# la* it is not a trier o# #a"ts and *ill not in7uire into and revie* the eviden"e presented b! the "ontendingparties during the trial and relied upon b! the lo*er "ourts to support their #indings.The issues raised in this petition undeniabl! involve onl! 7uestions o# #a"t.


12/26

o$plaint8 dated


13/26

as


14/26

#or P1,1,.. Prior to the #ull pa!$ent o# the pur"hase pri"e, RSA sold, onebruar! 11, 1999, the lass :: o$$on Share to respondent Berte Sales andTrading, /n". (Berte). RSA advised C5/ o# the sale to Berte and C5/, inturn, instru"ted orest Hills to re"ogni@e Berte as a shareholder. or this reason,Berte enjo!ed $e$bership privileges in orest Hills.

5espite Berte>s #ull pa!$ent, the share re$ained in the na$e o# C5/. Seventeen(1E) $onths a#ter the sale (or on ul! 8, ), Berte *rote 5C/ a letterde$anding the issuan"e o# a sto"& "erti#i"ate in its na$e. 4/ replied, initiall!re7uested Berte to #irst pa! the ne"essar! #ees #or the trans#er. Although Berte"o$plied *ith the re7uest, no "erti#i"ate *as issued. This pro$pted Berte to $a&e a#inal de$and on ;ar"h 1E, 1. As the de$and *ent unheeded, Berte #iled onanuar! E, a o$plaint #or Res"ission *ith 5a$ages and Atta"h$ent againstC5/, 4/ and orest Hills. /t averred that the petitioners de#aulted in theirobligation as sellers *hen the! #ailed and re#used to issue the sto"& "erti#i"ate"overing the subje"t share despite repeated de$ands. s na$e, but Berte re#used to a""ept.

ISSUE#

3hether the dela! in the issuan"e o# a sto"& "erti#i"ate "an be "onsidered asubstantial brea"h as to *arrant res"ission o# the "ontra"t o# sale.

HELD#

/n a sale o# shares o# sto"&, ph!si"al deliver! o# a sto"& "erti#i"ate is one o# theessential re7uisites #or the trans#er o# o*nership o# the sto"&s pur"hased.The#a"tual ba"&drop o# this "ase is si$ilar to that o# Ra7uel?Santos v. ourt o# Appeals,9 SRA 1+9 (9), *here the ourt held that in Fa sale o# shares o# sto"&,ph!si"al deliver! o# a sto"& "erti#i"ate is one o# the essential re7uisites #or the trans#er o# o*nership o# the sto"&s pur"hased.I /n that "ase, Trans?Phil ;arine nt., /n".(Trans?Phil) and Roland Car"ia bought Piltel shares #ro$ invest Se"urities o., /n".(invest Se"urities) in ebruar! 199E. Sin"e invest Se"urities #ailed to deliver the

sto"& "erti#i"ates, Trans?Phil and Car"ia #iled an a"tion #irst #or spe"i#i" per#or$an"e,*hi"h *as later on a$ended to an a"tion #or res"ission. The ourt ruled that investSe"urities> #ailure to deliver the shares o# sto"& "onstituted substantial brea"h o# their "ontra"t *hi"h gave rise to a right on the part o# Trans?Phil and Car"ia to res"ind thesale.

3.

PHILIPPINE TRANSMARINE "ARRIERS, IN". vs. LEANDRO LEGASPI

G.R. No. 2291 June 1, 213



15/26

!A"TS#

Respondent 4eandro 4egaspi *as e$plo!ed as 0tilit! Pastr! on board the vessel:A@a$ara ourne!: under the e$plo!$ent o# petitioner Philippine Trans$arinearriers, /n". Respondent>s e$plo!$ent *as "overed b! a olle"tive %argaining

Agree$ent (%A) *herein it *as agreed that the "o$pan! shall pa! a $ai$u$disabilit! "o$pensation o# up to 0S+,. onl!.

3hile on board the vessel, respondent su##ered :ardia" Arrest SOP /5 /nsertation.:He *as "he"&ed b! the ship>s do"tor and *as pres"ribed $edi"ations.


16/26

A#ter re"eiving in#or$ation that a""used?appellant *as illegall! peddling shabu in%aranga! %ang&al, ;a&ati it!, the ;a&ati it! SA/5?S


17/26

properl! per#or$ their duties or that the! *ere pro$pted *ith ill $otive, none o# *hi"heists in this "ase.

39.

PEOPLE O! THE PHILIPPINES vs. GUILLERMO LOMA:UE,G.R. No. 1929 June 5, 213!A"TS#

Appellant *as "harged under separate /n#or$ation #or 1- "ounts o# Rape b! Seual/nter"ourse in relation to RA E+1 allegedl! "o$$itted against his stepdaughter :AAAI, A 1' !ear old $inor. /n addition, appellant *as also "harged *ith A"ts o# 4as"iviousness in relation to Se"tion o# Republi" A"t (RA) =o. E+1, + as a$ended,in ri$inal ase =o. ??9+' "o$$itted *hen the vi"ti$ *as onl! 8 !ears old.

AAA>s harro*ing eperien"e *ith 4o$a7ue "ontinued and she eventuall!be"a$e pregnant. /t *as during the last *ee& o# =ove$ber 1999, *hen 4o$a7ueas&ed %%% to bring AAA to the do"tor #or $edi"al "he"&?up, that %%% dis"overed that AAA *as pregnant. A#ter giving birth, AAA *ent ho$e. She noti"ed that her sister *ill alsoISSUE#

3hether the prose"ution has proven be!ond reasonable doubt the guilt o# appellant#or the "ri$es o# rape and a"ts o# las"iviousness

HELD#

LS, /t is no* too *ell?settled to re7uire etensive do"u$entation that *here theissue is the etent o# "reden"e to be properl! given to the de"laration $ade b!*itnesses, the #indings o# the trial "ourt are a""orded great *eight and respe"t. Su"h#indings "an onl! be dis"arded or disturbed *hen it appears in the re"ords that thetrial "ourt overloo&ed, ignored or disregarded so$e #a"ts or "ir"u$stan"es o# *eightor signi#i"an"e *hi"h i# "onsidered *ould have altered the result.18

Here, *e #ind no plausible ground to disturb the #indings o# the trial "ourt, assustained b! the A, respe"ting the "redibilit! o# :AAA.: Her testi$on! indeed bearsthe ear$ar&s o# truth and sin"erit!, *hi"h "ontains details onl! a real vi"ti$, "ouldre$e$ber and reveal. :AAA: *as reall! positive and #ir$ in pointing an a""using#inger on appellant as the ver! person *ho seuall! assaulted her on di##erent dates.

4.

PEOPLE O! THE PHILIPPINES, vs. ERNESTO GANI - TUPASG.R. No. 195523 June 5, 213

!A"TS#/n the a#ternoon o# ebruar! 1, 199E, the vi"ti$, AAA, *ho *as then onl! #ive

() !ears old, *as harvesting vegetables *ith her elder brother at Sitio %a!ogba!og,

%aranga! %ulata, aua!an, =egros


18/26

*ho is their un"le, arrived "arr!ing a &ni#e.8 Appellant is the !ounger brother o# their#ather.9 Subse7uentl!, he instru"ted AAA6s brother to go ho$e ahead.1 A#ter thelatter le#t, appellant approa"hed AAA and, right then and there, re$oved herunder*ear, pla"ed hi$sel# on top o# her and inserted his penis into her vagina.11 A#ter having seual inter"ourse *ith AAA, appellant dre* out his &ni#e and slashed hervagina "ausing her serious injur!.1 Therea#ter, appellant le#t.1- AAA then *ent ho$eand re"ounted her ordeal to her grand$other.1' AAA *as then brought to the health"enter #or #irst aid treat$ent and later to %a"olod it! #or #urther $edi"al "are.1 Subse7uentl!, AAA6s aunt, 4eti"ia Alingasa #iled, in her behal#, a ri$inal o$plaint1+

against appellant. Appellant interposed the de#ense o# alibi "lai$ing that he *as in ue@on it! at theti$e that AAA *as raped.1E He pointed to his brother?inla*, r$elo Alingasa, as theone *ho "o$$itted the rape.

ISSUE# 3hether the trial "ourt erred in "onvi"ting the a""used?appellant o# the"ri$es "harged despite the #a"t that his guilt *as not proven be!ond reasonable

doubt.

HELD2=


19/26

Adonis *as "onvi"ted b! the RT o# 5avao it!, %ran"h 1E #or 4ibel, #iledagainst hi$ b! then Representative Prospero =ograles. He *as senten"ed to anindeter$inate senten"e o# #ive () $onths and one (1) da! o# arresto $a!or $ai$u$, as $ini$u$ penalt!, to #our (') !ears, si (+) $onths and one (1) da! o# prision "orre""ional $ediu$, as $ai$u$ penalt!.' He began serving his senten"eat the 5avao Prisons and Penal ar$ on ebruar! , E.

A se"ond libel "ase, do"&eted as ri$inal ase =o. '8E19?1 *as li&e*ise #iledagainst Adonis b! eanette 4. 4euterio, pending be#ore the RT o# 5avao it!,%ran"h 1'.


20/26

!o(Ce(8- PUP P(e*>&en+, D(. ROMAN R. UANNUG, !o(Ce(8- De%n, "o88e=e o E@onoC>@*, !>n%n@e %n& Po8>+>@* "E!P, no A**o@>%+e P(oe**o(, "E!PPo8-+e@@ Un>e(*>+- o +))>ne* PUP, S+%. Me*%, M%n>8%

G.R. No. 12334 June 5, 213

!A"TS#The petition ste$s #ro$ a "o$plaint #iled in 5e"e$ber 1 b! respondent

5r. Ro$an 5annug (5annug), 5ean o# the ollege o# "ono$i"s, inan"e andPoliti"s (P) o# the Pol!te"hni" 0niversit! o# the Philippines (P0P), against Pia*ho *as then a pro#essor at P0P. 5annug "lai$ed that Pia *as dire"tl! selling to her students a boo& entitled :s students in a resear"h *riting "lass, andnot as 5annug "lai$ed it to be.

Pia *as de"lared guilt! o# ondu"t Prejudi"ial to the %est /nterest o# theServi"e.

ISSUE#3hether or not the A erred in a##ir$ing the


21/26

43.

RODRIGO RONTOS - DELA TORRE, vs.PEOPLE O! THE PHILIPPINESG.R. No. 124 June 5, 213

!A"TS#


22/26

44.

ALLEN A. MA"ASAET, NI"OLAS . :UIJANO, JR., ISAIAS ALBANO, LIL$RE$ES, JANET BA$, JESUS R. GALANG, AND RAND$ HAGOS,vs.

!RAN"IS"O R. "O, JR., G.R. No. 15/59 June 5, 213

ATS2 insisten"e on personal servi"e b! the serving o##i"er *asde$onstrabl! super#luous. The! had a"tuall! re"eived the su$$onses servedthrough their substitutes, as borne out b! their #iling o# several pleadings in the RT,in"luding an ans*er *ith "o$pulsor! "ounter"lai$ ad "autela$ and a pre?trial brie#ad "autela$. The! had also availed the$selves o# the $odes o# dis"over! availableunder the Rules o# ourt. Su"h a"ts evin"ed their voluntar! appearan"e in the a"tion.=or "an *e sustain petitioners> "ontention that Abante Tonite "ould not be sued as a

de#endant due to its not being either a natural or a juridi"al person. /n reje"ting their"ontention, the A "ategori@ed Abante Tonite as a "orporation b! estoppel as the


23/26

result o# its having represented itsel# to the reading publi" as a "orporation despite itsnot being in"orporated. Thereb!, the A "on"luded that the RT did not gravel!abuse its dis"retion in holding that the non?in"orporation o# Abante Tonite *ith theSe"urities and "hange o$$ission *as o# no "onse7uen"e, #or, other*ise,*hoever o# the publi" *ho *ould su##er an! da$age #ro$ the publi"ation o# arti"les inthe pages o# its tabloids *ould be le#t *ithout re"ourse. 3e "annot disagree *ith theA, "onsidering that the editorial bo o# the dail! tabloid dis"losed that basis, nothingin the bo indi"ated that ;oni"a Publishing orporation had o*ned Abante Tonite.

45.

PHILIPPINE NATIONAL "ONSTRU"TION "ORPORATION, Petitioner,vs.APA" MARKETING "ORPORATION, (e)(e*en+e& - "ESAR M. ONG, JR.,G.R. No. 1995 June 5, 213

!A"TS#The present "ase involves a si$ple pur"hase transa"tion bet*een de#endant?

appellant Philippine =ational onstru"tion orporation (P=), represented b!de#endants?appellants Rogelio spiritu and Rolando ;a"asaet, and plainti##?appellee APA, represented b! esar ;. s #ees and interests is proper.

HELD2The general rule is that attorne!>s #ees "annot be re"overed as part o#

da$ages be"ause o# the poli"! that no pre$iu$ should be pla"ed on the right tolitigate. The! are not to be a*arded ever! ti$e a part! *ins a suit. The po*er o# the"ourt to a*ard attorne!>s #ees under Arti"le 8 de$ands #a"tual, legal, and

e7uitable justi#i"ation. ven *hen a "lai$ant is "o$pelled to litigate *ith thirdpersons or to in"ur epenses to prote"t his rights, still attorne!>s #ees $a! not be


24/26

a*arded *here no su##i"ient sho*ing o# bad #aith "ould be re#le"ted in a part!>spersisten"e in a "ase other than an erroneous "onvi"tion o# the righteousness o# his"ause.

The onl! dis"ernible reason pro##ered b! the trial "ourt in granting the a*ard*as that respondent, as "o$plainant in the "ivil "ase, *as #or"ed to litigate to prote"tthe latter>s interest. Thus, *e #ind that there is an obvious la"& o# a "o$pelling legalreason to "onsider the present "ase as one that #alls *ithin the e"eption providedunder Arti"le 8 o# the ivil ode. Absent su"h #inding, *e hold that the a*ard o# attorne!>s #ees b! the "ourt a 7uo, as sustained b! the appellate "ourt, *as i$proper and $ust be deleted.

4/.HENR$ L. S$, Petitioner,vs.LO"AL GOERNMENT O! :UEON "IT$, Respondent.

G.R. No. 22/9 June 5, 213

!A"TS# The it!, through then ;a!or /s$ael ;atha!, r., #iled a "o$plaint #or

epropriation *ith the RT in order to a"7uire a 1, s7. $. par"el o# land, o*nedand registered under the na$e o# S! (subje"t propert!) *hi"h *as intended to beused as a site #or a $ulti?purpose baranga! hall, da!?"are "enter, pla!ground and"o$$unit! a"tivit! "enter #or the bene#it o# the residents o# %aranga! %alingasa,%alinta*a&, ue@on it!. The it! deposited the a$ount o# P'1,9. *ith the


25/26

o# the it! Appraisal o$$ittee (b) several s*orn state$ents $ade b! S! hi$sel#and (") S!>s o*n ta de"laration #or 199+.

/t is *ell?settled that the a$ount o# just "o$pensation is to be as"ertained as o# theti$e o# the ta&ing. Ho*ever, the above?stated do"u$ents do not re#le"t the value o# the subje"t propert! at the ti$e o# its ta&ing in 198+ but rather, its valuation in 199+.onse7uentl!, the "ase $ust be re$anded to the RT in order to properl! deter$inethe a$ount o# just "o$pensation during su"h ti$e the subje"t propert! *as a"tuall!ta&en.

,

JOSEPH JOJO D. DAJA$LLB 04BAR OPS 2

TABLE O! "ONTENTS

'. Sps. Rubin Q Portia Hojas vs A$anah %an& and Ra$on Nue

. ;anila le"tri" o$pan! Bs Heirs o# 5ionesio 5elo!, et al

+. Alberto Pat?og vs ivil Servi"e o$$ission

E. hristian aballo vs. People o# the Philippines

8. A$ado P. ontes vs


26/26

-'. Napisanang Pang&aularan n# Nababaihang Potrero, /n"., and ;ilagros Re!es vs.Re$edios %arreno, 4ilibeth A$etin, et, al.

-. rederi"& a$es

Documents

Bar Ops Digests 2