Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro Cases

(2008-2015)
FAILURE TO FILE AN APPELANTS BRIEF
Liberality is given to litigants who are worthy of the same, and not to ones
who flout the rules, give explanations to the effect that the counsels are busy
with other things, and expect the court to disregard the procedural lapses on
the mere self-serving claim that their case is meritorious. - MCA-Mbf
Countdown Cards Philippines Inc., Amable R. Aguiluz V, Amable C.
Aguiluz IX, Cielo C. Aguiluz, Alberto L. Buenviaje, Vicente Acsay
and MCA Holdings And Management Corporation vs. MBf Card
International Limited and MBf Discount Card Limited, G.R.
No. 173586, March 14, 2012
MODES OF APPEALS
There is no violation of the doctrine of hierarchy of courts where a decision of
the Regional Trial Court (RTC) is appealed to the Supreme Court by petition
for review on certiorari under Rule 45, raising only questions of law.
Dismissal is not the remedy for misjoinder or nonjoinder of parties.
The owner of the property is not an indispensable party in an action for
expropriation. Failure to implead an indispensable party is not a ground for
the dismissal of an actionthe remedy is to implead the nonparty claimed to
be indispensable
A declaration of heirship cannot be made in an ordinary civil action such as
an action for reconveyance, but must only be made in a special proceeding,
for it involves the establishment of a status or right While the appropriate
special proceeding for declaration of heirship would be the settlement of the
estate of the decedent, nonetheless, an action for quieting of title is also a
special proceeding, specifically governed by Rule 63 of the Rules of Court on
declaratory relief and similar remedies. - Republic of the Philippines vs.
Hon. Mamindiara P. Mangotara, in his capacity as Presiding Judge of
the Regional Trial Court, Branch 1, Iligan City, Lanao del Norte, and
Maria Cristina Fertilizer Corporation, and the Philippine National
Bank, G.R. No. 170375, July 7, 2010
Under Supreme Court Circular No. 562000, in case a motion for
reconsideration of the judgment, order, or resolution sought to be assailed
has been filed, the 60-day period to file a petition for certiorari shall be
computed from notice of the denial of such motion. - Coca-Cola Bottlers
Philippines, Inc. vs. Angel U. Del Villar, G.R. No. 163091, October 6,
2010
It is the inadequacy, not the mere absence of all other legal remedies and the
danger of failure of justice without the writ that must usually determine the
propriety of certiorari. - Land Bank of the Philippines vs. Spouses Joel R.
Umandap and Felicidad D. Umandap, G.R. No. 166298, November 17,
2010
Section 1, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court categorically states that the petition
filed thereunder shall raise only questions of law, which must be distinctly set
forth. This rule, however, admits of certain exceptions, one of which is when
the findings of the Court of Appeals are contrary to those of the trial court. Cebu Bionic Builders Supply, Inc. and Lydia Sia vs. Development
Bank Of The Philippines, Jose To Chip, Patricio Yap and Roger Balila,
G.R. No. 154366, November 17, 2010
When a party adopts an improper remedy, his petition may be dismissed
outright.
Nevertheless,
the
acceptance
of
a
petition
for certiorari, as well as the grant of due course thereto is,
in
general,
addressed to the sound discretion of the court. The provisions of the Rules of
Court, which are technical rules, may be relaxed in certain exceptional
situations. Where a rigid application of the rule that certiorari cannot be a
substitute for appeal will result in a manifest failure or miscarriage of justice,

it is within our power to suspend the rules or exempt a particular case from
its operation. - Spouses Ruben and Myrna Leynes vs. Former Tenth
Division of the Court of Appeals, Regional Trial Court, Branch 21,
Bansalan, Davao Del Sur, Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Branch 1,
Bansalan, Davao Del Sur, and Spouses Gualberto & Rene CabahugSuperales, G.R. No. 154462, January 19, 2011
In a special civil action for certiorari, the Court of Appeals has ample authority
to receive new evidence and perform any act necessary to resolve factual
issues. - Spouses Rogelio Marcelo and Milagros Marcelo vs. LBC Bank,
G.R. No. 183575, April 11, 2011
The petition under Rule 45 must not involve the calibration of the probative
value of the evidence presented. In addition, the facts of the case must be
undisputed, and the only issue that should be left for the Court to decide is
whether or not the conclusion drawn by the CA from a certain set of facts was
appropriate. - Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Chief of
the Philippine National Police vs. Thi Thu Thuy T. De Guzman, G.R.
No. 175021, June 15, 2011
The appointments made by respondent Loyola could not be considered grave
misconduct and dishonesty. There were vacant positions causead by the
creation of positions and these vacancies should be filled up. There is
misconduct if there is a transgression of some established and definite rule of
action. In the case, evidence show that respondents Loyolas did not
transgress some definite rule of action. Had there been a transgression in the
creation of positions and appointments, the Civil Service Commission should
have so stated when the appointments were submitted for approval. - Eloisa
L. Tolentino vs. Atty. Roy M. Loyola et al., G.R. No. 153809, July 27,
2011
The rules of procedure are mere tools designed to facilitate the attainment of
justice. Their strict and rigid application especially on technical matters,
which tends to frustrate rather than promote substantial justice, must be
avoided. Even the Revised Rules of Court envision this liberality. Technicality,
when it deserts its proper office as an aid to justice and becomes its great
hindrance and chief enemy, deserves scant consideration from the courts. Heirs of Rodolfo Crisostomo (Euprocinia, Royce and Irish Crisostomo)
vs. Rudex International Development Corporation, G.R. No. 176129,
August 24, 2011
The basic rule is that factual questions are beyond the province of the
Supreme Court, because only questions of law may be raised in a petition for
review. However, in exceptional cases, the Supreme Court has taken
cognizance of questions of fact in order to resolve legal issues, such as when
there was palpable error or a grave misapprehension of facts by the lower
court. - Gemma Ong a.k.a. Maria Teresa Gemma Catacutan vs. People
of the Philippines, G.R. No. 169440, November 23, 2011
A question of law arises when there is doubt as to what the law is on a certain
state of facts, while there is a question of fact when the doubt arises as to the
truth or falsity of the alleged facts. For a question to be one of law, the same
must not involve an examination of the probative value of the evidence
presented by the litigants or any of them. The resolution of the issue must
rest solely on what the law provides on the given set of circumstances. Once
it is clear that the issue invites a review of the evidence presented, the
question posed is one of fact. Thus, the test of whether a question is one of
law or of fact is not the appellation given to such question by the party
raising the same; rather, it is whether the appellate court can determine the
issue raised without reviewing or evaluating the evidence, in which case, it is
a question of law; otherwise it is a question of fact. - Felimon Manguiob vs.
Judge Paul T. Arcangel, RTC, Branch 12, Davao City and Alejandra
Velasco, G.R. No. 152262, February 15, 2012
Like all rules, procedural rules should be followed except only when, for the
most persuasive of reasons, they may be relaxed to relieve a litigant of an
injustice not commensurate with the degree of his thoughtlessness in not
complying with the prescribed procedure. - Spouses Jesus Dycoco and

Joela E. Dycoco vs. The Honorable Court of Appeals, Nelly SiapnoSanchez and Inocencio Berma, G.R. No. 147257, July 31, 2013
Time and again the Supreme Court has declared that the right to appeal is
neither a natural right nor a part of due process. Anyone seeking exemption
from the application of the reglementary period for filing an appeal has the
burden of proving the existence of exceptionally meritorious instances
warranting such deviation. - Rhodora Prieto vs. Alpadi Development
Corporation, G.R. No. 191025, July 31, 2013
It is already a well-established rule that the Court, in the exercise of its power
of review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, is not a trier of facts and does
not normally embark on a re-examination of the evidence presented by the
contending parties during the trial of the case, considering that the findings
of facts of the Court of Appeals are conclusive and binding on the Court.
This rule, however, admits of exceptions as recognized by jurisprudence, to
wit: (1) [W]hen the findings are grounded entirely on speculation, surmises or
conjectures; (2) when the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or
impossible; (3) when there is grave abuse of discretion; (4) when the
judgment is based on misapprehension of facts; (5) when the findings of facts
are conflicting; (6) when in making its findings the Court of Appeals went
beyond the issues of the case, or its findings are contrary to the admissions
of both the appellant and the appellee; (7) when the findings are contrary to
the trial court; (8) when the findings are conclusions without citation of
specific evidence on which they are based; (9) when the facts set forth in the
petition as well as in the petitioners main and reply briefs are not disputed
by the respondent; (10) when the findings of fact are premised on the
supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record;
and (11) when the Court of Appeals manifestly overlooked certain relevant
facts not disputed by the parties, which, if properly considered, would justify
a different conclusion. - Republic of the Philippines Bureau of Forest
Development vs. Vicente Roxas and the Register of Deeds of Oriental
Mindoro, G.R. No. 157988, December 11, 2013
The accused, arrested through a buy-bust operation of the police, is
questioning the noncompliance with the rule on chain of custody of seized
illegal drugs but the accused only raised such objection on appeal at the CA.
SC ruled that objection to evidence cannot be raised for the first time on
appeal; when a party desires the court to reject the evidence offered, he
must so state in the form of objection. Without such objection he cannot raise
the question for the first time on appeal. - People of the Philippines
vs. Joselito Morate y Tarnate, G.R. No. 201156, January 29, 2014
A question of fact cannot properly be raised in a petition for review under
Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. This petition of the union now before this Court
is a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. The existence of
bad faith is a question of fact and is evidentiary. The crucial question of
whether or not a party has met his statutory duty to bargain in good faith
typically turns on the facts of the individual case, and good faith or bad faith
is an inference to be drawn from the facts. The issue of whether there was
already deadlock between the union and the company is likewise a question
of fact. - Tabangao Shell Refinery Employees Association vs. Pilipinas
Shell Petroleum Corporation, G.R. No. 170007, April 7, 2014
PERIOD TO APPEAL
Jurisprudence has settled the fresh period rule, according to which, an
ordinary appeal from the Regional Trial Court (RTC) to the Court of Appeals,
under Section 3 of Rule 41 of the Rules of Court, shall be taken within fifteen
(15) days either from receipt of the original judgment of the trial court or
from receipt of the final order of the trial court dismissing or denying the
motion for new trial or motion for reconsideration. Ermelinda C. Manaloto,
Aurora J. Cifra, Flordeliza J. Arcilla, Lourdes J. Catalan, Ethelinda J.
Holt, Bienvenido R. Jongco, Artemio R. Jongco, Jr. and Joel Jongco vs.
Ismael Veloso III, G.R. No. 171365, October 6, 2010
EFFECT OF DEATH PENDING APPEAL

The death of an accused pending his appeal extinguished not only his
criminal liabilities but also his civil liabilities solely arising from or based on
the
crime committed. - People of the Philippines vs. Domingo
Paniterce, G.R. No. 186382, April 5, 2010
The death of the accused pending appeal of his conviction extinguishes his
criminal liability, as well as his civil liability ex delicto. - People of the
Philippines vs. Anastacio Amistoso y Broca, G.R. No. 201447, August
28, 2013