---------------------------------------------------------Compiled by f?? of https://www.facebook.com/groups/PHLSG/---------------------------------------------------------http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teresita_de_Castrohttp://upd.edu.ph/~updinfo/jun14/articles/SC_Justice_De_Castro.htmlhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quid_pro_quohttp://www.abs-cbnnews.com/research/07/19/12/cjsearch-profile-teresita-leonardo-de-castrohttp://www.rappler.com/nation/special-coverage/scwatch/9044-justice-teresita-leonardo-de-castroG.R. No. 180643, Romulo L. Neri Vs. Senate Committee, et al. (2008) - on the principle of executive privilege over Congress' right to informationShe authored the Katarungang Pambarangay Law."Independence from undue influence, not only from the appointing power, as it [influence] may come from a news article or a book. Off Topic: Ma. Lisa Tolentino (Court Attorney VI Office of Associate Justice Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro, Supreme Court of the Philippines)Controversial Cases Handled:- GSIS RFP- Boracay reclamation project- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_of_Joseph_Estrada== En Banc ==http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/june2011/P-10-2829.htmlhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/178158_leonardo-decastro.htm- Is there compelling reason to treat a compromise of an indebtedness to the government differently from a compromise of an indebtedness of the government?- Yes, it generally presupposes that the governments claim will be paid, albeit at a lower amount than the actual liability.- However, the power to compromise an indebtedness to the government does not necessarily include the power to compromise an asserted claim against or liability of the government, more so if the said claim against or liability of the government is unsettled.http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/169449.htm- Misconduct means intentional wrongdoing or deliberate violation of a rule of law or standard of behavior. To constitute an administrative offense, misconduct should relate to or be connected with the performance of the official functions and duties of a public officer. In grave misconduct, as distinguished from simple misconduct, the elements of corruption, clear intent to violate the law or flagrant disregard of an established rule must be manifest- His act of grabbing petitioner and attempting to kiss her without her consent was an unmistakable manifestation of his intention to violate laws that specifically prohibited sexual harassment in the work environment. Assuming arguendo that respondent never intended to violate RA 7877, his attempt to kiss petitioner was a flagrant disregard of a customary rule that had existed since time immemorialthat intimate physical contact between individuals must be consensual. Respondents defiance of custom and lack of respect for the opposite sex were more appalling because he was a married man. Respondents act showed a low regard for women and disrespect for petitioners honor and dignity.- Length of service as a factor in determining the imposable penalty in administrative cases is a double-edged sword. In fact, respondents long years of government service should be seen as a factor which aggravated the wrong that he committed. Having been in the government service for so long, he, more than anyone else, should have known that public service is a public trust; that public service requires utmost integrity and strictest discipline, and, as such, a public servant must exhibit at all times the highest sense of honesty and integrity. Sadly, respondents actions did not reflect the integrity and discipline that were expected of public servants. He failed to live up to the image of the outstanding and exemplary public official that he was. He sullied government service instead.http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/175352.htm- This Court will not touch the issue of unconstitutionality unless it is the very lis mota. It is a well-established rule that a court should not pass upon a constitutional question and decide a law to be unconstitutional or invalid, unless such question is raised by the parties and that when it is raised, if the record also presents some other ground upon which the court may [rest] its judgment, that course will be adopted and the constitutional question will be left for consideration until such question will be unavoidable.- However, in accordance with the Fundamental Principle of Voluntary Service of National Societies of the Movement, the PNRC must be distinguished from private and profit-making entities. It is the main characteristic of National Societies that they are not inspired by the desire for financial gain but by individual commitment and devotion to a humanitarian purpose freely chosen or accepted as part of the service that National Societies through its volunteers and/or members render to the Community.- The PNRC, as a National Society of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, can neither be classified as an instrumentality of the State, so as not to lose its character of neutrality as well as its independence, nor strictly as a private corporation since it is regulated by international humanitarian law and is treated as an auxiliary of the State.- Based on the above, the sui generis status of the PNRC is now sufficiently established.Although it is neither a subdivision, agency, or instrumentality of the government, nor a government-owned or -controlled corporation or a subsidiary thereof, as succinctly explained in the Decision of July 15, 2009, so much so that respondent, under the Decision, was correctly allowed to hold his position as Chairman thereof concurrently while he served as a Senator, such a conclusion does not ipso facto imply that the PNRC is a private corporation within the contemplation of the provision of the Constitution, that must be organized under the Corporation Code.As correctly mentioned by Justice Roberto A. Abad, the sui generis character of PNRC requires us to approach controversies involving the PNRC on a case-to-case basis.- In sum, the PNRC enjoys a special status as an important ally and auxiliary of the government in the humanitarian field in accordance with its commitments under international law.This Court cannot all of a sudden refuse to recognize its existence, especially since the issue of the constitutionality of the PNRC Charter was never raised by the parties.It bears emphasizing that the PNRC has responded to almost all national disasters since 1947, and is widely known to provide a substantial portion of the countrys blood requirements.Its humanitarian work is unparalleled.The Court should not shake its existence to the core in an untimely and drastic manner that would not only have negative consequences to those who depend on it in times of disaster and armed hostilities but also have adverse effects on the image of the Philippines in the international community.The sections of the PNRC Charter that were declared void must therefore stay.Boracay Foundation Inc., vs. The Province of Aklan - http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/196870.htm- The parties undoubtedly too agree as to the importance of promoting tourism, pursuant to Section 2 of Republic Act No. 9593, or The Tourism Act of 2009, which reads: SECTION 2. Declaration of Policy.The State declares tourism as an indispensable element of the national economy and an industry of national interest and importance, which must be harnessed as an engine of socioeconomic growth and cultural affirmation to generate investment, foreign exchange and employment, and to continue to mold an enhanced sense of national pride for all Filipinos. (Emphasis ours.)- The primordial role of local government units under the Constitution and the Local Government Code of 1991 in the subject matter of this case is also unquestionable.The Local Government Code of 1991 (Republic Act No. 7160) pertinently provides: Section 2. Declaration of Policy. - (a) It is hereby declared the policy of the State that the territorial and political subdivisions of the State shall enjoy genuine and meaningful local autonomy to enable them to attain their fullest development as self-reliant communities and make them more effective partners in the attainment of national goals. Toward this end, the State shall provide for a more responsive and accountable local government structure instituted through a system of decentralization whereby local government units shall be given more powers, authority, responsibilities, and resources. The process of decentralization shall proceed from the national government to the local government units.[156] (Emphases ours.)Re: Letter of the UP Law Faculty entitled Restoring Integrity: A Statement by the Faculty of the University of the Philippines College of Law on the Allegations of Plagiarism and Misrepresentation in the Supreme Court - http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/june2011/10-10-4-SC.htmGSIS vs. COA - http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/september2012/162372.pdfFort Bonifacio Development Corporation vs CIR - http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/158885.htm- In construing a statute, courts have to take the thought conveyed by the statute as a whole; construe the constituent parts together; ascertain the legislative intent from the whole act; consider each and every provision thereof in the light of the general purpose of the statute; and endeavor to make every part effective, harmonious and sensible.- To be valid, an administrative rule or regulation must conform, not contradict, the provisions of the enabling law. An implementing rule or regulation cannot modify, expand, or subtract from the law it is intended to implement.Any rule that is not consistent with the statute itself is null and void. [4] - While administrative agencies, such as the Bureau of Internal Revenue, may issue regulations to implement statutes, they are without authority to limit the scope of the statute to less than what it provides, or extend or expand the statute beyond its terms, or in any way modify explicit provisions of the law.Indeed, a quasi-judicial body or an administrative agency for that matter cannot amend an act of Congress.Hence, in case of a discrepancy between the basic law and an interpretative or administrative ruling, the basic law prevails.- The language of Section 105 is explicit.It precludes reading into the law that the transitional input tax credit is limited to the amount of VAT previously paid.When the aforesaid section speaks of eight percent (8%) of the value of such inventory followed by the clause or the actual value-added tax paid on such goods, materials and supplies, the implication is clear that under the first clause, eight percent (8%) of the value of such inventory, the law does not contemplate the payment of any prior tax on such inventory.This is distinguished from the second clause, the actual value-added tax paid on the goods, materials and supplies where actual payment of VAT on the goods, materials and supplies is assumed.Had the intention of the law been to limit the amount to the actual VAT paid, there would have been no need to explicitly allow a claim based on 8% of the value of such inventory.- The contention that the 8% transitional input tax credit in Section 105 presumes that a previous tax was paid, whether or not it was actually paid, requires a transaction where a tax has been imposed by law, is utterly without basis in law.The rationale behind the provisions of Section 105 was aptly elucidated in the Decision sought to be reconsidered, thus:- It is apparent that the transitional input tax credit operates to benefit newly VAT-registered persons, whether or not they previously paid taxes in the acquisition of their beginning inventory of goods, materials and supplies.During that period of transition from non-VAT to VAT status, the transitional input tax credit serves to alleviate the impact of the VAT on the taxpayer.At the very beginning, the VAT-registered taxpayer is obliged to remit a significant portion of the income it derived from its sales as output VAT.The transitional input tax credit mitigates this initial diminution of the taxpayers income by affording the opportunity to offset the losses incurred through the remittance of the output VAT at a stage when the person is yet unable to credit input VAT payments.Panlilio vs. COMELEC - http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/175595.htm- In an election case, the election tribunal has an imperative duty to ascertain, by all means within its command, who is the real candidate elected by the electorate.Indeed, the Court frowns upon any interpretation of the law or the rules that would hinder in any way not only the free and intelligent casting of votes in an election, but also the correct ascertainment of the results.- The filing of a protest before the Board of Election Inspectors is not a condition sine qua non before the COMELEC acquires jurisdiction over the present election protest.Jurisdiction is conferred only by law and cannot be acquired through, or waived by, any act or omission of the parties.- Grave abuse of discretion means such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to an excess or lack of jurisdiction.The abuse of discretion must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law, or to act at all in contemplation of law, as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of passion and hostility. We find none in this case.Pacanan vs. COMELEC - http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/august2009/186224.htm- xxx An election contest, unlike an ordinary civil action, is clothed with a public interest.The purpose of an election protest is to ascertain whether the candidate proclaimed by the board of canvassers is the lawful choice of the people.What is sought is the correction of the canvass of votes, which was the basis of proclamation of the winning candidate.An election contest therefore involves not only the adjudication of private and pecuniary interests of rival candidates but paramount to their claims is the deep public concern involved and the need of dispelling the uncertainty over the real choice of the electorate.And the court has the corresponding duty to ascertain by all means within its command who is the real candidate elected by the people.- Moreover, the Comelec Rules of Procedure are subject to a liberal construction.This liberality is for the purpose of promoting the effective and efficient implementation of the objectives of ensuring the holding of free, orderly, honest, peaceful and credible elections and for achieving just, expeditious and inexpensive determination and disposition of every action and proceeding brought before the Comelec.Thus we have declared:- It has been frequently decided, and it may be stated as a general rule recognized by all courts, that statutes providing for election contests are to be liberally construed to the end that the will of the people in the choice of public officers may not be defeated by mere technical objections.An election contest, unlike an ordinary action, is imbued with public interest since it involves not only the adjudication of the private interests of rival candidates but also the paramount need of dispelling the uncertainty which beclouds the real choice of the electorate with respect to who shall discharge the prerogatives of the office within their gift.Moreover, it is neither fair nor just to keep in office for an uncertain period one whose right to it is under suspicion.It is imperative that his claim be immediately cleared not only for the benefit of the winner but for the sake of public interest, which can only be achieved by brushing aside technicalities of procedure which protract and delay the trial of an ordinary action.Barillo vs. Lantion - http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/159117.htmBedol vs. COMELEC - http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/179830.htmAlbana vs. Belo - http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/158734.htmMangudadatu vs. HRET - http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/december2008/179813.htmBPI vs. BPI Employees Union-Davao Chapter-Federation of Unions of BPI Unibank - http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/october2011/164301.htmRimando vs. COMELEC - http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/september2009/176364.htmFontana Resort and Country Club, Inc. vs. Spouses Tan - http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/january2012/154670.htmValencia vs. Antiniw - http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/june2008/1302_1391_1543.htmSilkair vs. CIR - http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/184398.htmOCA vs. Judge Aguilar - http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/june2011/RTJ-07-2087.htmSenior Citizens Party List vs. COMELEC - http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2013/july2013/206844-45.pdfPeople vs. Sarcia - http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/september2009/169641.htmPeople vs. Ildefonso - http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/jan2009/172326.htmAtty Banda vs. Ermita - http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/april2010/166620.htmPeople vs. Lopit - http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/december2008/177742.htmCSC vs. Macud - http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/september2009/177531.htmBarbo vs. COA - http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/157542.htmQuirog vs. CSC - http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/november2008/163443.htmGSIS vs. COA - http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/october2011/162372.htmRE: CASES SUBMITTED FOR DECISION BEFORE HON. TERESITO A. ANDOY, former Judge, Municipal Trial Court, Cainta, Rizal. - http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/may2010/09-9-163-MTC.htmWong vs. Moya II - http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/6972.htmMenor vs. Guillermo - http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/december2008/P-08-2587.htmPeople vs. Mariano - http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/june2009/168693.htmFrancisco, Jr. vs. Ombudsman Disierto - http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/154117.htmFernandez vs. HRET - http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/187478.htmReyes vs. CA - http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/182161.htmYap vs. COA - http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/april2010/158562.htmBoy Scouts of the Philippines vs. COA - http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/june2011/177131.htmAgra vs. COA - http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/december2011/167807.htmArroyo vs. De Lima - http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/resolutions/2011/november2011/199034_199046_TRO.pdfDela Cruz vs. Zapico - http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/september2008/2007-25-SC.htmNeri vs. SCAPO - http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/september2008/180643.htmAgno vs. Cagatan - http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/july2008/4515.htmSampiano vs. Indar - http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/RTJ-05-1953.htmMallonga vs. Manio - http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/april2009/P-07-2298.htmInonog vs. Judge Ibay - http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/RTJ-09-2175.htmOCA vs. Judge Perello - http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/december2008/RTJ-05-1952.htmVirgilio vs. Executive Secretary - http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2013/july2013/189028.pdfHeirs of Aspiras vs. Judge Ganay - http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/RTJ-07-2055.htmSpouses Leynes vs. CA - http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/154462.htm== Separate Opinion ==http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/resolutions/2011/december2011/199034_velasco.htm== Concurring Special En Banc ==http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/201112_decastro.htm== Concurring Opinion ==http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/192935_decastro.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/184836_leonardo-decastro.htm- that preventive suspension, regardless of the outcome of the case in which an elective public officer has been preventively suspended, should not be considered as an interruption of the service of the said public officer that would qualify him to run for a fourth term. == Dissenting Opinion ==http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2013/march2013/202202_decastro.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2013/february2013/10-9-15-SC_decastro.pdf- may consultancy services rendered to the government partake of the nature of "government service" which can be credited in the availment ofretirement benefits by public officers under the law?- no. it is erroneous to consider a ll services rendered for the government as government service which can be credited to claim retirement benefits, particularly if the service is rendered not by virtue of an appointment or election to a specific public office or position, which requires the taking of an oath of office, but by a contractual engagement like that of a consultant. http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/april2009/1222.htm- Penalties, such as disbarment, are imposed not to punish but to correct offenders. While the Court is ever mindful of its duty to discipline its erring officers, it also knows how to show compassion when the penalty imposed has already served its purpose.- Petitioner has sufficiently demonstrated the remorse expected of him considering the gravity of his transgressions.Even more to his favor, petitioner has redirected focus since his disbarment towards public service, particularly with the Peoples Law Enforcement Board.The attestations submitted by his peers in the community and other esteemed members of the legal profession, such as retired Court of Appeals Associate Justice Oscar Herrera, Judge Hilario Laqui, Professor Edwin Sandoval and Atty. Lorenzo Ata, and the ecclesiastical community such as Rev. Fr. Paul Balagtas testify to his positive impact on society at large since the unfortunate events of 2003. http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/191084_leonardo-de-castro.htm- Forum shopping is an act of a party, against whom an adverse judgment or order has been rendered in one forum, of seeking and possibly securing a favorable opinion in another forum, other than by appeal or special civil action for certiorari. It may also be the institution of two or more actions or proceedings grounded on the same cause on the supposition that one or the other court would make a favorable disposition. - In a long line of cases, this Court has held consistently that before a party is allowed to seek the intervention of the court, it is a pre-condition that he should have availed of all the means of administrative processes afforded him.Hence, if a remedy within the administrative machinery can still be resorted to by giving the administrative officer concerned every opportunity to decide on a matter that comes within his jurisdiction, then such remedy should be exhausted first before the courts judicial power can be sought.The premature invocation of courts intervention is fatal to ones cause of action.== Division == http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/september2009/146534.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/july2008/MTJ-06-1646.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/171513.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/191002.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/june2009/174862.htm (RA 9165, Sec 5, Article III)http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/185035.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/august2009/171169.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/may2009/173049.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/may2009/173049.htm (cataract operation, still covered for reimbursement as occupational disease!)- The degree of proof required under P.D. No. 626 is merely substantial evidence, or "such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. We have repeatedly held that to prove compensability, the claimant must adequately show that the development of the disease is brought largely by the conditions present in the nature of the job. What the law requires is a reasonable work-connection and not a direct causal relation. It is enough that the hypothesis on which the workmen's claim is based is probable. Medical opinion to the contrary can be disregarded especially where there is some basis in the facts for inferring a work-connection. Probability, not certainty, is the touchstone.http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/155758.htm- Motions for extension are not granted as a matter of right but in the sound discretion of the court. Lawyers are expected to be knowledgeable of the rule on the grant of such motion. The requirements for perfecting an appeal within the reglementary period specified in the law must be strictly followed as they are considered indispensable interdictions against needless delays and for orderly discharge of judicial businesshttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/december2012/RTJ-12-2331.pdf- Even with just one clerk of record in charge of both civil and special proceedings cases, 10 months is an unreasonable length of time for photocopying and preparing records for transmittal to the Court of Appeals. Judges, clerks of court, and all other coury employees share the same duty and obligation to dispense justice promptly. They should strive to work together and mutually assist each other to achieve this goal. But judges have the primary responsibility of maintaining the professional competence of their staff. Judges should organize and supervise their court personnel to ensure the prompt and efficient dispatch of business, and require at all times the observance of high standards of public service and fidelity.http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/april2009/171735.htm- While having a drinking spree, appellant grabbed the victims hair with his left hand and, with his right, pulled out a bolo from underneath his shirt and slashed the victims neck. He then pushed the victim (who fell face down on the pavement) and walked away.- For his defense, appellant asserted that he accidentally killed the victim. While they were drinking, the victim approached and confided to him that he had a problem but did not say what his problem was.Appellant gave the victim a drink. To his surprise, the victim allegedly pulled out his bolo from its scabbard. Afraid of what could happen, appellant tried to wrest the bolo but the victim resisted. It was while grappling for possession of the bolo that the victim was fatally slashed in the neck.- Based on the size and nature of the victims wounds, the RTC concluded that the killing was intentional. Moreover, because appellant slashed the victims neck from behind, the latter had no opportunity to defend himself.Hence, the trial court appreciated the qualifying circumstance of treachery.- The evidence of the prosecution established beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant intended to kill (and in fact killed) the victim and that he consciously adopted a design which deprived the victim of any opportunity to defend himself, or to retaliate. However, the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender should not have been considered. - For the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender to be appreciated, the defense must prove that:(a) the offender had not been actually arrested;(b) the offender surrendered himself to a person in authority;(c) the surrender was spontaneous and voluntary.http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2013/february2013/199713.pdf- It is a fundamental rule that factual findings of the trial courts involving the credibility of witnesses are accorded respect when no glaring errors, gross misapprehension of facts, and specula tive, arbitrary, and unsupported conclusions can be gathered from such fi ndings. The reason for this is that the trial court is in a better position to decide the credibility of witnesses having heard their testimonies and observed their deportment and manner of testifying during the trial. The rule finds an even more stringent application where said findings are sustained by the Court of Appeals.- To hold the accused liable for murder, the prosecution must prove that: (1) a person was killed; (2) the accused killed him; (3) the killing wasattended by any of the qualifying circumstances mentioned in Article 248 ofthe Revised Penal Code; and (4) the killing is neither parricide nor infanticide.http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/155322-29.htm- It is a basic rule that jurisdiction is determined by the allegations in the complaint. [42]The BCDAs complaints did not contain any allegation that would, even in the slightest, imply that the issue to be resolved in this case involved an agrarian dispute.In the action filed by the BCDA, the issue to be resolved was who between the BCDA and the private respondents and their purported predecessors-in-interest, have a valid title over the subject properties in light of the relevant facts and applicable laws.The case thus involves a controversy relating to the ownership of the subject properties, which is beyond the scope of the phrase agrarian dispute.http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/july2012/188612.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/192716.htm- While under the present Rules, it is now the duty of the clerk of court to set the case for pre-trial if the plaintiff fails to do so within the prescribed period, this does not relieve the plaintiff of his own duty to prosecute the case diligently.This case had been at the pre-trial stage for more than two years and petitioners have not shown special circumstances or compelling reasons to convince us that the dismissal of their complaint for failure to prosecute was unjustified.People vs. Dimapanan - http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/177570.htm- Settled is the rule that no arrest, search or seizure can be made without a valid warrant issued by a competent judicial authority.The Constitution guarantees the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures.[13]It further decrees that any evidence obtained in violation of said right shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding.[14]- Nevertheless, the constitutional proscription against warrantless searches and seizures admits of certain legal and judicial exceptions, as follows: (1) warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest recognized under Section 12, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court and by prevailing jurisprudence; (2) seizure of evidence in plain view; (3) search of a moving vehicle; (4) consented warrantless search; (5) customs search; (6) stop and frisk; and (7) exigent and emergency circumstances.[15]- On the other hand, Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules of Court provides that a lawful arrest without a warrant may be made by a peace officer or a private person under the following circumstances:(a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense;(b) When an offense has just been committed, and he has probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that the person to be arrested has committed it; and(c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or is temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another.- Transport as used under the Dangerous Drugs Act is defined to mean to carry or convey from one place to another.[16]The evidence in this case shows that at the time of their arrest, accused-appellants were caught in flagrante carrying/transporting dried marijuana leaves in their traveling bags.PO3 Masanggue and SPO1 Blanco need not even open Dequinas traveling bag to determine its content because when the latter noticed the police officers presence, she walked briskly away and in her hurry, accidentally dropped her traveling bag, causing the zipper to open and exposed the dried marijuana bricks therein.Since a crime was then actually being committed by the accused-appellants, their warrantless arrest was legally justified, and the following warrantless search of their traveling bags was allowable as incidental to their lawful arrest.- A person who acts under the compulsion of an irresistible force, like one who acts under the impulse of an uncontrollable fear of equal or greater injury, is exempt from criminal liability because he does not act with freedom.Actus me invito factus non est meus actus.An act done by me against my will is not my act.The force contemplated must be so formidable as to reduce the actor to a mere instrument who acts not only without will but against his will.The duress, force, fear or intimidation must be present, imminent and impending, and of such nature as to induce a well-grounded apprehension of death or serious bodily harm if the act be done.A threat of future injury is not enough.The compulsion must be of such a character as to leave no opportunity for the accused for escape or self-defense in equal combat.- Conspiracy can be inferred from and proven by acts of the accused themselves when said acts point to a joint purpose and design, concerted action, and community of interests.Although the same degree of proof required for establishing the crime is required to support a finding of the presence of conspiracy, it need not be proven by direct evidence.Conspiracy may be deduced from the mode and manner in which the offense was perpetrated.Garcia vs. Villar - http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/158891.htm- The following are the elements of pactum commissorium:(1) There should be a property mortgaged by way of security for the payment of the principal obligation; and(2) There should be a stipulation for automatic appropriation by the creditor of the thing mortgaged in case of non-payment of the principal obligation within the stipulated period.- Simply put, a mortgage is a real right, which follows the property, even after subsequent transfers by the mortgagor.A registered mortgage lien is considered inseparable from the property inasmuch as it is a right in rem.Pacific Ocean Manning vs. Penales - http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/september2012/162809.pdf- We note that under POEA SEC, the seafarer has the duty to faithfully comply with and observe the terms and conditions of the contract, including the provisions governing the procedure for claiming disability benefits.- When Penales filed his complaint and refused to undergo further medical treatment, he prevented the company-designated physician from fully determining his fitness to work within the time allowed by the POEA SEC and by law.- As we outlined above, a temporary total disability only becomes permanent when so declared by the company[-designated] physician within the periods he is allowed to do so, or upon the expiration of the maximum 240-day medical treatment period without a declaration of either fitness to work or the existence of a permanent disability. x x x. Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon vs. Francisco - http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/december2011/172553.htm- While the Court is mindful of the principle that [t]he moot and academic principle is not a magical formula that can automatically dissuade the courts in resolving a case.Courts will decide cases, otherwise moot and academic, if:first, there is a grave violation of the Constitution; second, the exceptional character of the situation and the paramount public interest is involved; third, when the constitutional issue raised requires formulation of controlling principles to guide the bench, the bar and the public; and fourth, the case is capable of repetition yet evading review,[27] the above exceptions do not find application in the instant case.South Cotobato Communications Corporation vs. Hon. Sto Tomas - http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/173326.htm- Clearly, it was error on the part of the Court of Appeals to dismiss petitioners special civil action for certiorari despite substantial compliance with the rules on procedure. For unduly upholding technicalities at the expense of a just resolution of the case, normal procedure dictates that the Court of Appeals should be tasked with properly disposing the petition, a second time around, on the merits.- The Court is mindful of previous rulings which instructs us that when there is enough basis on which a proper evaluation of the merits can be made, we may dispense with the time-consuming procedure in order to prevent further delays in the disposition of the case.[20]However, based on the nature of the two remaining issues propounded before the Court which involve factual issues and given the inadequacy of the records, pleadings, and other evidence available before us to properly resolve those questions, we are constrained to refrain from passing upon them.- After all, the Court has stressed that its jurisdiction in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court is limited to reviewing only errors of law, not of fact, unless the findings of fact complained of are devoid of support by the evidence on record, or the assailed judgment is based on the misapprehension of facts.http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/june2011/142676.htm- The purpose of the Rule on Summary Procedure is to achieve an expeditious and inexpensive determination of cases without regard to technical rules.Pursuant to this objective, the Rule prohibits petitions for certiorari, like a number of other pleadings, in order to prevent unnecessary delays and to expedite the disposition of cases.[59] - Interlocutory orders are those that determine incidental matters that do not touch on the merits of the case or put an end to the proceedings.[60]An order granting a preliminary injunction, whether mandatory or prohibitory, is interlocutory and unappealable.People vs. Mangulabnan - http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/october2012/188571.pdfMEMORANDA OF JUDGE ELIZA B. YU ISSUED TO LEGAL RESEARCHER MARIEJOY P. LAGMAN AND TO COURT STENOGRAPHER SOLEDAD J. BASSIG, ALL OF METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 47, PASAY CITY - http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/august2012/P-12-3033.pdf- From the foregoing, we hold that the mistakes or errors in the contents of the orders, subpoena, and Minutes of the Hearing committed by respondents Lagman and Bassig could be attributed to their lack of attention or focus on the task at hand. These could have easily been avoided had they exercised greater care and diligence in the performance of their duties. We find respondents Lagman and Bassig liable for simple neglect of duty.- In Pilipia v. Roxas, we held that: The Court cannot countenance neglect of duty for even simple neglect of duty lessens the peoples confidence in the judiciary and ultimately in the administration of justice. By the very nature of their duties and responsibilities, public servants must faithfully adhere to, hold sacred and render inviolate the constitutional principle that a public office is a public trust; that all public officers and employees must at all times be accountable to the people, serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty and efficiency.People vs. Longhas - http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2013/july2013/181539.pdfPeople vs. Kazan - http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/october2012/198808.pdf- In the prosecution of illegal sale of drugs, the elements that should be proven are the following: (1) the identities of the buyer and the seller, the object, and consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. The prosecution must (1) prove that the transaction or sale actually took place, and (2) present in court evidence of the corpus delicti.- As regards the prosecution for illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the elements to be proven are the following: (1) the accused is in possession of an item or an object identified to be a prohibited or a regulated drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely and consciously possessed the said drug.- The above elements that should be proven in both the sale and possession of dangerous drugs intrinsically include the identification of what was seized by police officers to be the same item examined and presented in court. This identification must be established with moral certainty and is a function of the rule on the chain of custody.- In Malillin v. People, we discussed how the chain of custody of seized items should be established: As a method of authenticating evidence, the chain of custody rule requires that the admission of an exhibit be preceded by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what the proponent claims it to be. It would include testimony about every link in the chain, from the moment the item was picked up to the time it is offered into evidence, in such a way that every person who touched the exhibit would describe how and from whom it was received, where it was and what happened to it while in the witness possession, the condition in which it was received and the condition in which it was delivered to the next link in the chain. These witnesses would then describe the precautions taken to ensure that there had been no change in the condition of the item and no opportunity for someone not in the chain to have possession of the same.- While testimony about a perfect chain is not always the standard because it is almost always impossible to obtain, an unbroken chain of custody becomes indispensable and essential when the item of real evidence is not distinctive and is not readily identifiable, or when its condition at the time of testing or trial is critical, or when a witness has failed to observe its uniqueness. The same standard likewise obtains in case the evidence is susceptible to alteration, tampering, contamination and even substitution and exchange. In other words, the exhibits level of susceptibility to fungibility, alteration or tamperingwithout regard to whether the same is advertent or otherwise notdictates the level of strictness in the application of the chain of custody rule. People vs. Barra - http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2013/july2013/198020.pdfLand Bank of the Philippines vs. Santiago - http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/october2012/182209.pdfPeople vs. Del Rosario @ "Aging" - http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/december2012/188107.pdfPeople vs. Macabalang - http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/174369.htm- In every criminal prosecution, the State must prove beyond reasonable doubt all the elements of the crime charged and the complicity or participation of the accused.[22]While a lone witness testimony is sufficient to convict an accused in certain instances, the testimony must be clear, consistent, and crediblequalities we cannot ascribe to this case.Jurisprudence is consistent that for testimonial evidence to be believed, it must both come from a credible witness and be credible in itselftested by human experience, observation, common knowledge and accepted conduct that has evolved through the years.[23] Clearly from the foregoing, the prosecution failed to establish by proof beyond reasonable doubt that appellant was indeed in possession of shabu, and that he freely and consciously possessed the same.- The presumption of innocence of an accused in a criminal case is a basic constitutional principle, fleshed out by procedural rules which place on the prosecution the burden of proving that an accused is guilty of the offense charged by proof beyond reasonable doubt.Corollary thereto, conviction must rest on the strength of the prosecutions evidence and not on the weakness of the defense.[24]In this case, the prosecutions evidence failed to overcome the presumption of innocence, and thus, appellant is entitled to an acquittal. - Indeed, suspicion no matter how strong must never sway judgment. Where there is reasonable doubt, the accused must be acquitted even though their innocence may not have been established.The Constitution presumes a person innocent until proven guilty by proof beyond reasonable doubt.When guilt is not proven with moral certainty, it has been our policy of long standing that the presumption of innocence must be favored, and exoneration granted as a matter of right.People vs. Buenaventura - http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/november2011/184807.htm- A buy-bust operation is far variant from an ordinary arrest; it is a form of entrapment which has repeatedly been accepted to be a valid means of arresting violators of the Dangerous Drugs Law.In a buy-bust operation, the violator is caught in flagrante delicto and the police officers conducting the operation are not only authorized, but duty-bound, to apprehend the violator and to search him for anything that may have been part of or used in the commission of the crime.People vs. Medinilla @ "Mao,"People vs. Candellada - http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2013/july2013/189293.pdfPalm Tree States vs. PNB - http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/october2012/159370.pdfValdez vs. Torres - http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/MTJ-11-1796.htm- Prompt disposition of cases is attained basically through the efficiency and dedication to duty of judges.If they do not possess those traits, delay in the disposition of cases is inevitable to the prejudice of litigants. Accordingly, judges should be imbued with a high sense of duty and responsibility in the discharge of their obligation to promptly administer justice.[21]- Unfortunately, respondent failed to live up to the exacting standards of duty and responsibility that her position requires.Civil Case No. 20191 was submitted for resolution on July 19, 2006, yet it was still pending when complainant filed the present administrative complaint on June 4, 2010, and remained unresolved per complainants manifestation filed on September 8, 2010.More than four years after being submitted for resolution, Civil Case No. 20191 was still awaiting decision by respondent. - Respondent irrefragably failed to decide Civil Case No. 20191 within the 30-day period prescribed by the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure.Her inaction in Civil Case No. 20191 is contrary to the rationale behind the Rule on Summary Procedure, which was precisely adopted to promote a more expeditious and inexpensive determination of cases, and to enforce the constitutional rights of litigants to the speedy disposition of cases.[22]Indeed, respondent even failed to decide Civil Case No. 20191 within the three-month period mandated in general by the Constitution for lower courts to decide or resolve cases.Records do not show that respondent made any previous attempt to report and request for extension of time to resolve Civil Case No. 20191.People vs. Garcia - http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2013/february2013/198794.pdfRepublic vs. De Guzman - http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/june2011/175021.htmPeople vs. Coronado - http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/april2012/186141.htmPeople vs. Morante - http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/november2012/187732.pdfBinayug vs. Ugaddan - http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/november2012/187732.pdfThe Baguio Regreening Movement, Inc. vs. Atty Masweng - http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2013/february2013/180882.pdfPeople vs. Batula @ "Cesar" - http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/november2012/181699.pdfAstorga and Repol Law Offices vs. Roxas - http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/august2012/P-12-3029.pdfAntiquina vs. Magsaysay Maritime Corporation - http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/april2011/168922.htm- [t]he burden of proof rests upon the party who asserts the affirmative of an issue. And in labor cases, the quantum of proof necessary is substantial evidence, or such amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion.OCA vs. Gutierrez III - http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/P-11-2951.htm- Gutierrezs deliberate attempt to conceal or suppress his absence on February 26, 2010 by falsifying his DTR manifested his lack of integrity and responsibility.His act constitutes dishonesty.- Dishonesty has been defined as "the disposition to lie, cheat, deceive, or defraud; untrustworthiness; lack of integrity; lack of honesty, probity or integrity in principle; lack of fairness and straightforwardness; disposition to defraud, deceive or betray."[9]- It is well to remind Gutierrez that dishonesty is a malevolent act that has no place in the judiciary.Public service requires utmost integrity and discipline.A public servant must exhibit at all times the highest sense of honesty and integrity, for no less than the Constitution declares that a public office is a public trust, and all public officers and employees must at all times be accountable to the people, and serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty and efficiency.These are not mere rhetorical words to be taken lightly as idealistic sentiments, but as working standards and attainable goals that should be matched with actual deeds.[10]- Dishonesty, being in the nature of a grave offense, carries the extreme penalty of dismissal from the service with forfeiture of retirement benefits except accrued leave credits, and perpetual disqualification for reemployment in government service.People vs. Escleto - http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/april2012/183706.htm- There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against persons, employing means, methods, or forms in the execution, which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to the offender arising from the defense which the offended party might make.[16]We have also held that: [i]n order for treachery to be properly appreciated, two elements must be present: (1) at the time of the attack, the victim was not in a position to defend himself; and (2) the accused consciously and deliberately adopted the particular means, methods or forms of attack employed by him.The essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack by an aggressor on the unsuspecting victim, depriving the latter of any chance to defend himself and thereby ensuring its commission without risk of himself.- As to damages, when death occurs due to a crime, the following may be awarded:(1) civil indemnity ex delicto for the death of the victim; (2) actual or compensatory damages; (3) moral damages; (4) exemplary damages; and (5) temperate damages.[21]- Civil indemnity in the amount of P75,000.00 is mandatory and is granted without need of evidence other than the commission of the crime.Moral damages in the sum of P50,000.00 shall be awarded despite the absence of proof of mental and emotional suffering of the victims heirs.As borne out by human nature and experience, a violent death invariably and necessarily brings about emotional pain and anguish on the part of the victims family.Also under Article 2230 of the Civil Code, exemplary damages may be imposed when the crime was committed with one or more aggravating circumstances, like treachery, as in this case.Thus, the award of P30,000.00 for exemplary damages is in order.[22]- As regards actual damages, Merly, Alfredos widow, testified that she and her family incurred expenses for Alfredos burial and wake; however, Merly failed to present receipts to substantiate her claim.Where the amount of actual damages for funeral expenses cannot be ascertained due to the absence of receipts to prove them, temperate damages in the sum of P25,000.00 may be granted in lieu thereof.Under Article 2224 of the Civil Code, temperate damages may be recovered as it cannot be denied that the heirs of the victim suffered pecuniary loss although the exact amount was not proved.[23]People vs. Resureccion - http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2013/june2013/188310.pdfPeople vs. Tejero - http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/187744.htmDatu vs. People - http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/169718.htmPeople vs. Dejillo - http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/december2012/185005.pdfPeople vs. Velasquez - http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/april2012/177224.htmGonzalez vs. Torres - http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/MTJ-09-1733.htmRE:REPORT ON FINANCIAL AUDIT CONDUCTED AT MCTC, SANTIAGO-SAN ESTEBAN, ILOCOS SUR - http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/january2012/P-11-2950.htmPeople vs. Diaz - http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2013/june2013/200882.pdfSta. Lucia Realty & Development, Inc. vs. Municipality of Cainta - http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/june2011/166838.htmDe La Salle University vs. DLSUEA-NAFTEU - http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/august2012/169254.pdfTarona vs. CA - http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/june2009/170182.htmPeople vs. Gustaffon - http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/june2009/170182.htmSenarlo vs Paderanga - http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/april2010/RTJ-06-2025.htmPeople vs. De Los Santos - http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/march2012/186499.htmPeople vs. Baroquillo - http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/184960.htmPeople vs. Padigos - http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/184960.htmPeople vs. Tauli - http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/august2010/175784.htm- Clearly, in view of a supervening event, it is unnecessary for the Court to rule on Ayochoks appeal.Whether or not he was guilty of the crime charged has become irrelevant since, following Article 89(1) of the Revised Penal Code and our disquisition in Bayotas, even assuming Ayochok had incurred any criminal liability, it was totally extinguished by his death.Moreover, because Ayochoks appeal was still pending and no final judgment of conviction had been rendered against him when he died, his civil liability arising from the crime, being civil liability ex delicto, was likewise extinguished by his death.People vs. Oriel - http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2013/july2013/177763.pdfPeople vs. Paniterce - http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/april2010/186382.htmPeople vs. Osma, Jr. - http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/august2012/187734.pdfPeople vs. Amistoso y Broca - http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2013/august2013/201447.pdfPNB vs. CIR - http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/december2011/172458.htmPeople vs. Malicdem y Molina - http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/november2012/184601.pdfRepublic vs. Marawi-Marantao General Hospital, Inc.- http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/november2012/158920.pdfPeople vs Dulay - http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/december2012/188345.pdfManzano vs. Garcia - http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/november2011/179323.htmRizal Commercial Banking Corporation vs. Hilario - http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/september2012/160446.pdfPeople vs. Piosang - http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2013/june2013/200329.pdfPeople vs. Garchitorena - http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/august2009/175605.htmFair Shipping Corp. vs. Medel - http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/august2012/177907.pdfPNB vs. Hydro Resources Contractors Corporation - http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2013/march2013/167530.pdfRV Santos Company, Inc. vs. Belle Corporation - http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/october2012/159561-62.pdfPeople vs. Regalario - http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/march2009/174483.htmSugue vs. Triumph International - http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/jan2009/164804.htmPeople vs. Mangune - http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/november2012/186463.pdfStandard Chartered BAnk vs. SCBEU - http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/165550.htmPeople vs. Guelas - http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/june2011/182236.htmDBP vs. Traverse Development Corporation - http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/october2011/169293.htmAlcantara vs. PCIB - http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/151349.htm- While it is true that the rules of procedure are intended to promote rather than frustrate the ends of justice, and the swift unclogging of court docket is a laudable objective, it nevertheless must not be met at the expense of substantial justice.This Court has time and again reiterated the doctrine that the rules of procedure are mere tools aimed at facilitating the attainment of justice, rather than its frustration.A strict and rigid application of the rules must always be eschewed when it would subvert the primary objective of the rules, that is, to enhance fair trials and expedite justice.Technicalities should never be used to defeat the substantive rights of the other party. Every party-litigant must be afforded the amplest opportunity for the proper and just determination of his cause, free from the constraints of technicalities.Considering that there was substantial compliance, a liberal interpretation of procedural rules in this labor case is more in keeping with the constitutional mandate to secure social justice.- As a general rule, employers are allowed a wider latitude of discretion in terminating the employment of managerial personnel or those who, while not of similar rank, perform functions which by their nature require the employers full trust and confidence.This must be distinguished from the case of ordinary rank and file employees, whose termination on the basis of these same grounds requires a higher proof of involvement in the events in question; mere uncorroborated assertions and accusations by the employer will not suffice.[29]- On the issue of due process, it is settled that notice and hearing constitute the essential elements of due process in the dismissal of employees.The employer must furnish the employee with two written notices before termination of employment can be legally effected.The first apprises the employee of the particular acts or omissions for which his dismissal is sought.The second informs the employee of the employers decision to dismiss him.With regard to the requirement of a hearing, the essence of due process lies simply in an opportunity to be heard, and not that an actual hearing should always and indispensably be heldPeople vs. Bernabe y Garcia - http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/185726.htm- While witnesses may differ in their recollections of an incident, it does not necessarily follow from their disagreement that all of them should be disbelieved as liars and their testimonies completely discarded as worthless.As long as the mass of testimony jibes on material points, the slight clashing statements neither dilute the witnesses credibility nor the veracity of their testimony, for indeed, such inconsistencies are but natural and even enhance credibility as these discrepancies indicate that the responses are honest and unrehearsed.- xxx The test in appreciating cruelty as an aggravating circumstance is whether the accused deliberately and sadistically augmented the wrong by causing another wrong not necessary for its commission and inhumanly increased the victims suffering or outraged or scoffed at his/her person or corpse. The victim in this case was already weak and almost dying when appellant Bonito inserted the cassava trunk inside her private organ.What appellant Bonito did to her was totally unnecessary for the criminal act intended and it undoubtedly inhumanly increased her suffering. xxx- Indemnification for loss of earning capacity partakes of the nature of actual damages which must be duly proven.The certificate of employment which did not state the victims salary is not enough proof for lost income to be recovered.There must likewise be an unbiased proof of the deceaseds average income.An award for loss of earning capacity refers to the net income of the deceased, i.e., his total income net of expenses.People vs. Mores - http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2013/june2013/189846.pdfPeople vs. Magundayao y Alejandro @ "Rose" - http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/188132.htmJarantilla vs. Jarantilla - http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/154486.htmPfizer, Inc. vs. Velasco - http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/march2011/177467.htm- In sum, the Court reiterates the principle that reinstatement pending appeal necessitates that it must be immediately self-executory without need for a writ of execution during the pendency of the appeal, if the law is to serve its noble purpose, and any attempt on the part of the employer to evade or delay its execution should not be allowed.Furthermore, we likewise restate our ruling that an order for reinstatement entitles an employee to receive his accrued backwages from the moment the reinstatement order was issued up to the date when the same was reversed by a higher court without fear of refunding what he had received.Dycoco vs. CA - http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2013/july2013/147257.pdfOropesa vs. CA - http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/april2012/184528.htmCoca-Cola Bottlers Phils, Inc. vs. Villar - http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/163091.htm- Redundancy, for purposes of the Labor Code, exists where the services of an employee are in excess of what is reasonably demanded by the actual requirements of the enterprise.Succinctly put, a position is redundant where it is superfluous, and superfluity of a position or positions may be the outcome of a number of factors, such as overhiring of workers, decreased volume of business, or dropping of a particular product line or service activity previously manufactured or undertaken by the enterprise.[33]- The determination that the employee's services are no longer necessary or sustainable and, therefore, properly terminable for being redundant is an exercise of business judgment of the employer.The wisdom or soundness of this judgment is not subject to discretionary review of the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC, provided there is no violation of law and no showing that it was prompted by an arbitrary or malicious act.In other words, it is not enough for a company to merely declare that it has become overmanned.It must produce adequate proof of such redundancy to justify the dismissal of the affected employees.Spouses Anunciacion vs. Bocanegra - http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/152496.htmThe Law Firm of Raymundo Armovit vs. CA - http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/october2011/154559.htm- It is basic that when there is a conflict between the dispositive portion or fallo of a Decision and the opinion of the court contained in the text or body of the judgment, the former prevails over the latter.An order of execution is based on the disposition, not on the body, of the Decision.This rule rests on the theory that the fallo is the final order while the opinion in the body is merely a statement ordering nothing.- Indeed, the foregoing rule is not without an exception. We have held that where the inevitable conclusion from the body of the decision is so clear as to show that there was a mistake in the dispositive portion, the body of the decision will prevail.x x x.[29]- Applying this ruling to the case at bar, it is clear that the statement in the body of our 1991 Decision (that we do not find Atty. Armovits claim for twenty percent of all recoveries to be unreasonable[30]) is not an order which can be the subject of execution.Neither can we ascertain from the body of the Decision an inevitable conclusion clearly showing a mistake in the dispositive portion.People vs. Magayon - http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/175595.htm