April 2016 Elib

G.R.
PEOPLE
No.
OF
THE
PHILIPPINES,
APPELLEE,
VS.
200302
GERRY
LIPATA
ORTIZA,
APPELLANT.
April 20, 2016
SECOND DIVISION
[ G.R. No. 200302, April 20, 2016 ]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. GERRY LIPATA
Y ORTIZA, APPELLANT.
DECISION
CARPIO, J.:
The Case
G.R. No. 200302 is an appeal[1] assailing the Decision[2] promulgated on 31 May
2011 by the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 04461. The CA affirmed
the Decision[3] dated 23 March 2010 of Branch 85 of the Regional Trial Court of
Quezon City (RTC) in Criminal Case No. Q-05-136584. The RTC found appellant
Gerry Lipata y Ortiza (appellant) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
Murder and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. The RTC also
ordered appellant to pay damages to the heirs of Rolando Cueno (Cueno). [4]
The Facts
Appellant was charged with the crime of Murder in an Information which reads as
follows:
That on or about the 1st day of September, 2005, in Quezon City, Philippines, the
said accused, conspiring, confederating with two (2) other persons whose true
names, identities and definite whereabouts have not as yet been ascertained and
mutually helping one another, with intent to kill and with evident premeditation and
treachery, and taking advantage of superior strength, did, then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and employ personal violence upon the
person of one RONALDO CUENO Y BONIFACIO, by then and there stabbing him
repeatedly with bladed weapons, hitting him on the different parts of his body,
thereby inflicting upon him serious and mortal stab wounds which were the direct
and immediate cause of his death, to the damage and prejudice of the heirs of
Ronaldo Cueno y Bonifacio.
CONTRARY TO LAW.[5]
Appellant was arraigned on 11 October 2005, and entered a plea of not guilty to the
charge. Pre-trial conference was terminated on 26 October 2005, and trial on the
merits ensued.
The CA summarized the parties' evidence as follows:
The Prosecution['s] Evidence
Mercelinda Valzado, sister-in-law of the victim Rolando Cueno, testified that on
September 1, 2005 at around 6:00 p.m., she was in her house located in [sic] Lot
34, Block 4, Sipna Compound, Bagong Silangan, Quezon City. She was about to
leave the house to go to the market when she saw appellant, his brother Larry
Lipata and a certain [Rudy] attacking the victim by repeatedly stabbing him. She
was at a distance of more or less ten (10) meters from the incident. Shocked at
what she had just witnessed, she shouted for help and pleaded the assailants to
stop, but they did not stop stabbing the victim. In her account, she recalled that the
assailants, including appellant, used a tres cantos, an ice pick and a broken piece of
glass of Red Horse [bottle]. At one point, the victim managed to take the knife
away from appellant and brandished the same at his attackers. Thereafter, the
victim fell on the ground. Upon seeing the victim fall, appellant and the other
assailants left the scene. Through the help of some neighbors, Mercelinda rushed
the victim to a hospital but he was pronounced dead on arrival.
Criz Reymiluz Cueno, daughter of the victim, testified that she saw appellant
together with Larry Lipata and Rudy Lipata [stab] her father to death in front of
their house. She recounted that upon arriving at home from work on September 1,
2005 at around 6:00 p.m., her father immediately went to the house of her aunt
Mercelinda Valzado, which was located only a block away from their house, to ask
for malunggay leaves. Upon coming home from her aunt's house, the victim was
attacked by the Lipatas which prompted the victim to run away. Thinking that his
assailants were no longer around, the victim proceeded to their [sic] house but then
the Lipatas stabbed him to death. She was at a distance of six (6) to eight (8)
meters away from the scene. She further testified that she had no knowledge of
any reason why the Lipatas would kill her father, but her father's death brought her
pain and sadness and anger against the perpetrators of her father's killing.
The Defense['s] Evidence
The defense presented a sole witness in the person of appellant himself. According
to appellant, he was resting in his house in Sipna Compound, Brgy. Bagong
Silangan, Quezon City on September 1, 2005 at around 6:00 p.m. when two
children, namely John Paul Isip and a certain Rommel, called him and told him to
help his brother, Larry Lipata. He immediately rushed to his brother and upon
arrival he saw Larry being stabbed by the victim. He instantaneously assisted his
brother but the victim continued stabbing Larry, causing Larry to fall to the ground.
Thereafter, appellant managed to grab the knife from the victim and stab the
victim. Then he fled from the scene [of the crime] because he was wounded.
Appellant's sister-in-law, a certain Lenlen, brought him to the Amang Medical
Center for treatment of his stab wound where he was apprehended by police
officers.[6]
The RTC's Ruling
The RTC noted that since appellant raised the justifying circumstance of defense of
a relative, he hypothetically admitted the commission of the crime. Hence, the
burden of proving his innocence shifted to appellant. The RTC found that the
defense failed to adequately establish the element of unlawful aggression on the
part of Cueno. There was no actual or imminent danger to the life of appellant or of
his brother Larry. On the contrary, the three Lipata brothers (appellant, Larry, and
Rudy)[7]employed treachery and took advantage of their superior strength when
they attacked Cueno after Cueno left the house of his sister-in-law. Cueno suffered
17 stab wounds on his trunk from the Lipata brothers. The existence of multiple
stab wounds on the trunk of the unarmed Cueno is inconsistent with appellant's
theory of defense of a relative. The RTC, however, ruled that the prosecution failed
to show conclusive proof of evident premeditation.
The dispositive portion of the RTC's decision reads:
WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing considerations, the Court here[b]y
renders judgment finding the accused GERRY LIPATA Y ORTIZA guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder and he is hereby sentenced to suffer the
penalty of imprisonment of reclusion perpetua from twenty (20) years and one (1)
day to forty (40) years.
The accused is hereby adjudged to pay the heirs of Rolando Cueno the following
amounts:
(a) Php 50,000.00 representing civil indemnity ex delicto of the accused;
(b) Php 120,550.00 representing the actual damages incurred by the heirs of
Rolando Cueno, incident to his death plus 12% interest per annum computed from
6 September 2005 until fully paid;
(c) Php 50,000.00 as moral damages for the mental and emotional anguish suffered
by the heirs arising from the death of Rolando Cueno; and
(d) Php 25,000[.00] as exemplary damages.

The accused shall be credited with the full period of his preventive imprisonment,
subject to the conditions imposed under Article 29 of the Revised Penal Code, as
amended.
SO ORDERED.[8]
Appellant, through the Public Attorney's Office (PAO), filed a notice of appeal [9] on 6
April 2010. The RTC granted appellant's notice in an Order [10] dated 19 April 2010.
The CA's Ruling
The CA dismissed appellant's appeal and affirmed the decision of the RTC. The CA
agreed with the RTC's ruling that appellant's claim of defense of a relative must fail.
There was no actual or imminent threat on the life of appellant or of his brother
Larry. There was also no reason for appellant to stab Cueno. Cueno was
outnumbered by the Lipata brothers, three to one. The requirement of lack of
provocation on the part of appellant is negated by the multiple stab wounds that
Cueno sustained.
The CA disagreed with appellant's contention that the prosecution failed to establish
treachery. The CA pointed out that Cueno was not forewarned of any impending
threat to his life. Cueno was unarmed, and went to his sister-in-law's house to
gather malunggay leaves. The Lipata brothers, on the other hand, were readily
armed with tres cantos, an icepick, and a broken piece of glass from a Red Horse
bottle. The execution of the Lipata brothers' attack made it impossible for Cueno to
retaliate.
The CA also disagreed with appellant's contention that there was no abuse of
superior strength. The three Lipata brothers were all armed with bladed weapons
when they attacked the unarmed Cueno. The Lipata brothers refused to stop
stabbing Cueno until they saw him unconscious.
The dispositive portion of the CA's decision reads:
WHEREFORE, finding the appeal to be bereft of merit, the same is hereby
DISMISSED. The appealed decision of the trial court convicting appellant of the
crime of murder is hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.[11]
The PAO filed a notice of appeal[12] on behalf of appellant on 10 June 2011. The CA
ordered the immediate elevation of the records to this Court in its 30 June 2011
Resolution.[13]
Appellant's Death Prior to Final Judgment

This Court, in a Resolution dated 13 June 2012, [14] noted the records forwarded by
the CA and required the Bureau of Corrections (BuCor) to confirm the confinement
of appellant. The BuCor, in a letter dated 26 July 2012, informed this Court that
there is no record of confinement of appellant as of date. In a Resolution dated 10
September 2012,[15] this Court required the Quezon City Jail Warden to transfer
appellant to the New Bilibid Prison and to report compliance within ten days from
notice. The Quezon City Jail Warden, in a letter dated 22 October 2012, [16] informed
this Court that appellant passed away on 13 February 2011. The former Quezon
City Jail Warden wrote to the RTC about appellant's demise in a letter dated 23
February 2011. Attached to the 22 October 2012 letter were photocopies of
appellant's death certificate and medical certificate, as well as the former Quezon
City Jail Warden's letter.[17] In a Resolution dated 7 January 2013,[18] this Court
noted the 22 October 2012 letter from the Quezon City Jail Warden, and required
the parties to submit their supplemental briefs on the civil aspect of the case if they
so desire.
The Office of the Solicitor General filed a Manifestation dated 18 March 2013,
[19]
which stated that it had already exhaustively argued the relevant issues in its
appellee's brief. The PAO, on the other hand, filed a supplemental brief on 26 March
2013.[20]
In view of appellant's death prior to the promulgation of the CA's decision, this
Court issued a Resolution dated 25 September 2013 which ordered the PAO "(1) to
SUBSTITUTE the legal representatives of the estate of the deceased appellant as
party; and (2) to COMMENT on the civil liability of appellant within ten (10) days
from receipt of this Resolution."[21]
The PAO filed its Manifestation with Comment on the Civil Liability of the Deceased
Appellant on 29 November 2013.[22] According to the Public Attorney's Office-Special
and Appealed Cases Service, the relatives of the deceased appellant have not
communicated with it since the case was assigned to its office on 29 September
2010. The PAO sent a letter on 4 November 2013 to Lilia Lipata, who was
appellant's next of kin per official records. Despite receipt of the letter, the relatives
of appellant still failed to communicate with the PAO.
In its Manifestation, the PAO stated that:
xxxx
9. Considering that the civil liability in the instant case arose from and is based
solely on the act complained of, i.e. murder, the same does not survive the death of
the deceased appellant. Thus, in line with the abovecited ruling [People v. Jaime
Ayochok, G.R. No. 175784, 25 August 2010, 629 SCRA 324, citingPeople v. Rogelio
Bayotas, G.R. No. 102007, 2 September 1994, 236 SCRA 239], the death of the
latter pending appeal of his conviction extinguished his criminal liability as well as
the civil liability based solely thereon.
10. This being so, it is respectfully submitted that the necessity to substitute the
legal representatives of the estate of the deceased as party does not arise. [23]
On 9 July 2014, this Court issued a Resolution which declared that "the [PAO] shall
continue as the legal representative of the estate of the deceased [appellant] for
purposes of representing the estate in the civil aspect of this case." [24]
The Court's Ruling
At the outset, we declare that because of appellant's death prior to the
promulgation of the CA's decision, there is no further need to determine appellant's
criminal liability. Appellant's death has the effect of extinguishing his criminal
liability. Article 89(1) of the Revised Penal Code provides:
Article 89. How criminal liability is totally extinguished. - Criminal liability is totally
extinguished:
1. By the death of the convict, as to the personal penalties; and as to pecuniary
penalties, liability therefor is extinguished only when the death of the offender
occurs before final judgment;
xxxx
What this Court will discuss further is the effect of appellant's death with regard to
his civil liability. In 1994, this Court, in People v. Bayotas,[25] reconciled the differing
doctrines on the issue of whether the death of the accused pending appeal of his
conviction extinguishes his civil liability. We concluded that "[u]pon death of the
accused pending appeal of his conviction, the criminal action is extinguished
inasmuch as there is no longer a defendant to stand as the accused; the civil action
instituted therein for recovery of civil liability ex delicto is ipso facto extinguished,
grounded as it is on the criminal."[26]
We also ruled that "if the private offended party, upon extinction of the civil
liability ex delicto desires to recover damages from the same act or omission
complained of, he must subject to Section 1, Rule 111 ([of the then applicable]
1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure as amended) file a separate civil action, this time
predicated not on the felony previously charged but on other sources of obligation.
The source of obligation upon which the separate civil action is premised
determines against whom the same shall be enforced." [27]
We proceeded to distinguish the defendants among the different causes of action. If
the act or omission complained of arises from quasi-delict or, by provision of law,
results in an injury to person or real or personal property, the separate civil action
must be filed against the executor or administrator of the estate pursuant to
Section 1, Rule 87 of the Rules of Court. [28] On the other hand, if the act or omission
complained of arises from contract, the separate civil action must be filed against
the estate of the accused pursuant to Section 5, Rule 86 of the Rules of Court. [29]
We summarized our ruling in Bayotas as follows:
1. Death of the accused pending appeal of his conviction extinguishes
his criminal liability as well as the civil liability based solely
thereon.As opined by Justice Regalado, in this regard, "the death of the
accused prior to final judgment terminates his criminal liability and only the
civil liability directly arising from and based solely on the offense committed,
i.e., civil liability ex delicto in senso strictiore."
2. Coirollarily, the claim for civil liability survives notwithstanding the
death of accused, if the same may also be predicated on a source of
obligation other than delict. Article 1157 of the Civil Code enumerates
these other sources of obligation from which the civil liability may arise as a
result of the same act or omission:
a) Law
b) Contracts
c) Quasi-contracts
d) x x x
e) Quasi-delicts
3. Where the civil liability survives, as explained in Number 2 above, an
action for recovery therefor may be pursued but only by way of filing
a separate civil action and subject to Section 1, Rule 111 of the 1985
Rules on Criminal Procedure as amended. This separate civil action may
be enforced either against the executor/administrator or the estate of the
accused, depending on the source of obligation upon which the same is
based as explained above.
4. Finally, the private offended party need not fear a forfeiture of his right to file
this separate civil action by prescription, in cases where during the
prosecution of the criminal action and prior to its extinction, the private-
offended party instituted together therewith the civil action. In such case, the
statute of limitations on the civil liability is deemed interrupted during the
pendency of the criminal case, conformably with provisions of Article 1155 of
the Civil Code, that should thereby avoid any apprehension on a possible
deprivation of right by prescription.[30] (Emphases supplied)
The promulgation of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure in 2000 provided for
the effect of the death of the accused after arraignment and during the pendency of
the criminal action to reflect our ruling in Bayotas:
Sec. 4. Effect of death on civil actions. The death of the accused after
arraignment and during the pendency of the criminal action shall extinguish the civil
liability arising from the delict. However, the independent civil action instituted
under Section 3 of this Rule or which thereafter is instituted to enforce liability
arising from other sources of obligation may be continued against the estate or
legal representative of the accused after proper substitution or against said estate,
as the case may be. The heirs of the accused may be substituted for the deceased
without requiring the appointment of an executor or administrator and the court
may appoint a guardian ad litem for the minor heirs.
The court shall forthwith order said legal representative or representatives to
appear and be substituted within a period of thirty (30) days from notice.
A final judgment entered in favor of the offended party shall be enforced in the
manner especially provided in these rules for prosecuting claims against the estate
of the deceased.
If the accused dies before arraignment, the case shall be dismissed without
prejudice to any civil action the offended party may file against the estate of the
deceased.
Contrary to the PAO's Manifestation with Comment on the Civil Liability of the
Deceased Appellant,[31] Cueno died because of appellant's fault. Appellant caused
damage to Cueno through deliberate acts.[32] Appellant's civil liability ex quasi
delicto may now be pursued because appellant's death on 13 February 2011, before
the promulgation of final judgment, extinguished both his criminal liability and civil
liability ex delicto.
Despite the recognition of the survival of the civil liability for claims under Articles
32, 33, 34 and 2176 of the Civil Code, as well as from sources of obligation other
than delict in both jurisprudence and the Rules, and our subsequent designation of
the PAO as the "legal representative of the estate of the deceased [appellant] for
purposes of representing the estate in the civil aspect of this case," [33] the current
Rules, pursuant to our pronouncement in Bayotas,[34] require the private offended
party, or his heirs, in this case, to institute a separate civil action to pursue their
claims against the estate of the deceased appellant. The independent civil actions in
Articles 32, 33, 34 and 2176, as well as claims from sources of obligation other
than delict, are not deemed instituted with the criminal action but may be filed
separately by the offended party even without reservation.[35] The separate civil
action proceeds independently of the criminal proceedings and requires only a
preponderance of evidence.[36] The civil action which may thereafter be instituted
against the estate or legal representatives of the decedent is taken from the new
provisions of Section 16 of Rule 3[37] in relation to the rules for prosecuting claims
against his estate in Rules 86 and 87.[38]
Upon examination of the submitted pleadings, we found that there was no separate
civil case instituted prior to the criminal case. Neither was there any reservation for
filing a separate civil case for the cause of action arising from quasi-delict. Under
the present Rules, the heirs of Cueno should file a separate civil case in order to
obtain financial retribution for their loss. The lack of a separate civil case for the
cause of action arising from quasi-delict leads us to the conclusion that, a decade
after Cueno's death, his heirs cannot recover even a centavo from the amounts
awarded by the CA.
However, for similar cases in the future, we refer to the Committee on the
Revision of the Rules of Court for study and recommendation to the Court En
Bancappropriate amendments to the Rules for a speedy and inexpensive resolution
of such similar cases with the objective of indemnifying the private offended party
or his heirs in cases where an accused dies after conviction by the trial court but
pending appeal.
In Lumantas v. Calapiz,[39] this Court declared that our law recognizes that an
acquittal based on reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused does not exempt the
accused from civil liability ex delicto which may be proved by preponderance of
evidence. This Court's pronouncement in Lumantas is based on Article 29 of the
Civil Code:
Art. 29. When the accused in a criminal prosecution is acquitted on the ground that
his guilt has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt, a civil action for damages
for the same act or omission may be instituted. Such action requires only a
preponderance of evidence. Upon motion of the defendant, the court may require
the plaintiff to file a bond to answer for damages in case the complaint should be
found to be malicious.
If in a criminal case the judgment of acquittal is based upon reasonable doubt, the
court shall so declare. In the absence of any declaration to that effect, it may be
inferred from the text of the decision whether or not the acquittal is due to that
ground.
We also turn to the Code Commission's justification of its recognition of the

possibility of miscarriage of justice in these cases:
The old rule that the acquittal of the accused in a criminal case also releases him
from civil liability is one of the most serious flaws in the Philippine legal system. It
has given rise to numberless instances of miscarriage of justice, where the acquittal
was due to a reasonable doubt in the mind of the court as to the guilt of the
accused. The reasoning followed is that inasmuch as the civil responsibility is
derived from the criminal offense, when the latter is not proved, civil liability cannot
be demanded.
This is one of those cases where confused thinking leads to unfortunate and
deplorable consequences. Such reasoning fails to draw a clear line of demarcation
between criminal liability and civil responsibility, and to determine the logical result
of the distinction. The two liabilities are separate and distinct from each other. One
affects the social order and the other, private rights. One is for the punishment or
correction of the offender while the other is for reparation of damages suffered by
the aggrieved party. The two responsibilities are so different from each other that
article 1813 of the present (Spanish) Civil Code reads thus: "There may be a
compromise upon the civil action arising from a crime; but the public action for the
imposition of the legal penalty shall not thereby be extinguished." It is just and
proper that, for the purpose of the imprisonment of or fine upon the accused, the
offense should be proved beyond reasonable doubt. But for the purpose of
indemnifying the complaining party, why should the offense also be proved beyond
reasonable doubt? Is not the invasion or violation of every private right to be
proved only by a preponderance of evidence? Is the right of the aggrieved person
any less private because the wrongful act is also punishable by the criminal law?
For these reasons, the Commission recommends the adoption of the reform under
discussion. It will correct a serious defect in our law. It will close up an
inexhaustible source of injustice - a cause for disillusionment on the part of
innumerable persons injured or wronged.[40]
In similar manner, the reform in procedure in these cases to be recommended by
the Committee on the Revision of the Rules of Court shall aim to provide the
aggrieved parties relief, as well as recognition of their right to indemnity. This
reform is of course subject to the policy against double recovery.
WHEREFORE, we SET ASIDE the Decision promulgated on 31 May 2011 by the
Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 04461. The criminal and civil liabilities ex
delicto of appellant Gerry Lipata y Ortiza are declared EXTINGUISHED by his
death prior to final judgment.
Let a copy, of this Decision be forwarded to the Committee on the Revision of the
Rules of Court.
SO ORDERED.
Brion, Del Castillo, Mendoza, and Leonen, JJ., concur.
Under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure and Rule 122 of the Revised
Rules of Criminal Procedure.
[1]
Rollo, pp. 2-19. Penned by Associate Justice Romeo F. Barza, with Associate
Justices Rosalinda Asuncion-Vicente and Edwin D. Sorongon concurring.
[2]
[3]
CA rollo, pp. 44-55. Penned by Pairing Judge Luisito G. Cortez.
[4]
Also referred to in the Records as Ronaldo Cueno.
[5]
CA rollo, p. 9.
[6]
Rollo, pp. 3-6.
The RTC also stated that: "From the time Larry and Rudy Lipata fled from the
scene of the crime on 1 September 2005, they have been at large and went into
hiding in order to escape criminal liability." CA rollo, p. 16.
[7]
[8]
Id. at 20.
[9]
Id. at 21.
[10]
Id. at 22.
[11]
Rollo, p. 18.
[12]
Id. at 20.
[13]
Id. at 23.
[14]
Id. at 25.
[15]
Id. at 29.
[16]
Id. at 30.
[17]
Id. at 31-34. Based on the medical certificate issued by the East Avenue Medical
Center, appellant was admitted on 13 February 2011, and was pronounced dead at
8:27 in the evening of the same day. The immediate cause of death as stated in the
death certificate was "Hypoxic Ischemic Encelopathy secondary to Cardiopulmonary
Arrest."
[18]
Id. at 37.
[19]
Id. at 39-40.
[20]
Id. at 42-47.
[21]
Id. at 51.
[22]
Id. at 61-66.
[23]
Id. at 64-65.
[24]
Id. at 77.
[25]
G.R. No. 102007, 2 September 1994, 236 SCRA 239.
[26]
Id. at 251.
[27]
Id. at 253-254.
Actions which may and which may not be brought against executor or
administrator. No action upon a claim for the recovery of money or debt or
interest thereon shall be commenced against the executor or administrator; but
actions to recover real or personal property, or an interest therein, from the estate,
or to enforce a lien thereon, and actions to recover damages for an injury to person
or property, real or personal, may be commenced against him.
[28]
Claims which must be filed under the notice. If not filed, barred; exceptions.
All claims for money against the decedent, arising from contract, express or
implied, whether the same be due, not due, or contingent, all claims for funeral
expenses and expense for the last sickness of the decedent, and judgment for
money against the decedent, must be filed within the time limited in the notice;
otherwise they are barred forever, except that they may be set forth as
counterclaims in any action that the executor or administrator may bring against
the claimants. Where an executor or administrator commences an action, or
prosecutes an action already commenced by the deceased in his lifetime, the debtor
may set forth by answer the claims he has against the decedent, instead of
presenting them independently to the court as herein provided, and mutual claims
[29]
may be set off against each other in such action; and if final judgment is rendered
in favor of the defendant, the amount so determined shall be considered the true
balance against the estate, as though the claim had been presented directly before
the court in the administration proceedings. Claims not yet due, or contingent, may
be approved at their present value.
[30]
G.R. No. 102007, 2 September 1994, 236 SCRA 239, 255-256.
[31]
Rollo, pp. 61-66.
Article 20 of the Civil Code of the Philippines provides: "Every person who,
contrary to law, willfully or negligently causes damage to another, shall indemnify
the latter for the same." See also Articles 30, 1157 and 2195 of the Civil Code.
[32]
[33]
Rollo, p. 77.
[34]
Supra note 25.
[35]
Casupanan v. Laroya, 436 Phil. 582, 593 (2002).
[36]
Section 3, Rule 111 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.
Death of party; duty of counsel. Whenever a party to a pending action dies,

and the claim is not thereby extinguished, it shall be the duty of his counsel to
inform the court within thirty (30) days after such death of the fact thereof, and to
give the name and address of his legal representative or representatives. Failure of
counsel to comply with his duty shall be a ground for disciplinary action.
[37]
The heirs of the deceased may be allowed to be substituted for the deceased,
If no legal representative is named by the counsel for the deceased party, or if the
one so named shall fail to appear within the specified period, the court may order
the opposing party, within a specified time to procure the appointment of an
executor or administrator for the estate of the deceased and the latter shall
immediately appear for and on behalf of the deceased. The court charges in
procuring such appointment, if defrayed by the opposing party, may be recovered
as costs.
FLORENZ D. REGALADO, 2 REMEDIAL LAW COMPENDIUM 352 (2004). Rule 86

refers to Claims Against Estate, while Rule 87 refers to Actions By and Against
Executors and Administrators.
[38]
G.R. No. 163753, 15 January 2014, 713 SCRA 337, citing Manantan v. Court of
Appeals, 403 Phil. 298 (2001).
[39]
Commission, pp. 45-46, quoted in ARTURO M. TOLENTINO, 1 COMMENTARIES

AND JURISPRUDENCE ON THE CIVIL CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES 121-122 (1990).
[40]
Source: Supreme Court E-Library

This page was dynamically generated
by the E-Library Content Management System (E-LibCMS)
G.R.
No.
196470
ROSARIO VICTORIA AND ELMA PIDLAOAN, PETITIONERS, VS. NORMITA JACOB PIDLAOAN, HERMINIGILDA PIDLAOAN
AND
EUFEMIA
PIDLAOAN,
RESPONDENTS.
April 20, 2016
SECOND DIVISION
[ G.R. No. 196470, April 20, 2016 ]
ROSARIO VICTORIA AND ELMA PIDLAOAN, PETITIONERS,
VS. NORMITA JACOB PIDLAOAN, HERMINIGILDA PIDLAOAN
AND EUFEMIA PIDLAOAN, RESPONDENTS.
DECISION
BRION, J.:
We resolve the petition for review on certiorari filed by petitioners to challenge

the March 26, 2010 decision[1] and March 15, 2011 resolution of the Court of
Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 89235. The Regional Trial Court's (RTC) ruled that
Elma Pidlaoan (Elma) donated only half of the property to Normita Jacob Pidlaoan
(Normita). The CA reversed the RTC's decision and ruled that Elma donated her
entire property to Normita. The Court is called upon to ascertain the true nature of
the agreement between Elma and Normita.
THE ANTECEDENTS
The petitioners Rosario Victoria (Rosario) and Elma lived together since 1978 until
Rosario left for Saudi Arabia.
In 1984, Elma bought a parcel of land with an area of 201 square meters in Lucena
City and was issued Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-50282.[2] When Rosario
came home, she caused the construction of a house on the lot but she left again
after the house was built.[3]
Elma allegedly mortgaged the house and lot to a certain Thi Hong Villanueva in
1989.[4] When the properties were about to be foreclosed, Elma allegedly asked for
help from her sister-in-law, Eufemia Pidlaoan (Eufemia), to redeem the property.
[5]
On her part, Eufemia called her daughter abroad, Normita, to lend money to
Elma. Normita agreed to provide the funds. [6]
Elma allegedly sought to sell the land.[7] When she failed to find a buyer, she offered
to sell it to Eufemia or her daughter.[8]
On March 21, 1993, Elma executed a deed of sale entitled "Panananto ng
Pagkatanggap ng Kahustuhang Bayad" transferring the ownership of the lot to
Normita.[9]The last provision in the deed of sale provides that Elma shall eject the
person who erected the house and deliver the lot to Normita. [10] The document was
signed by Elma, Normita, and two witnesses but it was not notarized.
When Elma and Normita were about to have the document notarized, the notary
public advised them to donate the lot instead to avoid capital gains tax. [11] On the
next day, Elma executed a deed of donation in Normita's favor and had it
notarized. TCT No. T-50282 was cancelled and TCT No. T-70990 was issued in
Normita's name.[12] Since then, Normita had been paying the real property taxes
over the lot but Elma continued to occupy the house.
Rosario found out about the donation when she returned to the country a year or
two after the transaction.[13]
In 1997, the petitioners filed a complaint for reformation of contract, cancellation

of TCT No. T-70990, and damages with prayer for preliminary injunction against
Eufemia, Normita, and Herminigilda Pidlaoan (respondents).
The petitioners argued that: first, they co-owned the lot because both of them
contributed the money used to purchase it; second, Elma and Normita entered into
an equitable mortgage because they intended to constitute a mortgage over the lot
to secure Elma's loan but they executed a deed of sale instead; and third, the deed
of donation was simulated because Elma executed it upon the notary public's advice
to avoid capital gains tax.[14]
In their answer, the respondents admitted that the deed of donation was
simulated and that the original transaction was a sale.[15] They argued, however,
that there was no agreement to constitute a real estate mortgage on the lot. [16]
The RTC ruled that Rosario and Elma co-owned the lot and the house. [17] Thus, Elma
could only donate her one-half share in the lot. [18]
Hence, the respondents appealed to the CA.
THE CA RULING
The CA reversed the RTC's decision and dismissed the petitioners' complaint.
The CA held that Elma and Normita initially entered into two agreements: a loan
and a sale. They entered into a loan agreement when Elma had to pay Thi Hong
Villanueva to redeem the property. Thereafter, Elma sold the property to Normita.
They subsequently superseded the contract of sale with the assailed deed of
donation.
The CA also held that the deed of donation was not simulated. It was voluntarily
executed by Elma out of gratitude to Normita who rescued her by preventing the
foreclosure of the lot. Moreover, the deed of donation, being a public document,
enjoys the presumption of regularity. Considering that no conclusive proof was
presented to rebut this presumption, the deed of donation is presumed valid.
The CA denied the petitioners' motion for reconsideration; hence, this petition.
THE PETITIONERS' ARGUMENTS
In their petition, the petitioners argue that: (1) Rosario is a co-owner because she
caused the construction of the house, which has a higher market value than the lot;
(2) the deed of donation is simulated; (3) the transaction was a mere equitable
mortgage; and (4) the CA unduly disturbed the RTC's factual findings. The
petitioners emphasize that the respondents have consistently admitted in their
answer that the deed of donation was simulated; therefore, the CA should not have
reversed the RTC's decision on that point.
In their three-page comment, the respondents insist that the CA correctly
dismissed the complaint. They stressed that the petitioners were the ones who
argued that the deed of donation was simulated but the CA ruled otherwise.
Furthermore, the petition involves questions of facts and law outside the province of
the Supreme Court. Hence, the petition must be dismissed.
THE COURT'S RULING
We PARTIALLY GRANT the petition.
The issues before the Court are: (1) whether Rosario is a co-owner; (2) whether
the deed of donation was simulated; and (3) whether the transaction between Elma
and Normita was a sale, a donation, or an equitable mortgage. Considering that
these issues are inter-related, we shall jointly discuss and resolve them.
At the outset, we note that the issues raised by the petitioners in the present case
require a review of the factual circumstances. As a rule, only questions of law may
be raised in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
The Court distinguished between a question of law and a question of fact in a
number of cases. A question of law arises when there is doubt on what the law is on
a certain set of fact, while a question of fact exists when there is doubt as to the
truth or falsity of the alleged facts.[19] For a question to be one of law, it must not
involve an examination of the probative value of the evidence presented by the
litigants.[20] If the issue invites a review of the evidence on record, the question
posed is one of fact.[21]
The factual findings of the CA are conclusive and binding and are not reviewable by
the Court, unless the case falls under any of the recognized exceptions. [22] One of
these exceptions is when the findings of the RTC and the CA are contradictory, as in
the present case.
By granting the appeal and dismissing the petitioners' complaint, the CA effectively
ruled that the transfer of ownership involved the entire lot rather than only half of it
as the RTC held. The lower courts' differing findings provide us sufficient reason to
proceed with the review of the evidence on record.[23]
First, we rule that Elma transferred ownership of the entire lot to Normita.
One who deals with property registered under the Torrens system has a right to rely
on what appears on the face of the certificate of title and need not inquire further
as to the property's ownership.[24] A buyer is charged with notice only of the claims
annotated on the title.[25] The Torrens system was adopted to best guarantee the
integrity of land titles and to protect their indefeasibility once the claim of
ownership is established and recognized.[26]
In the present case, the records of the case show that Elma alone purchased the lot
in 1984 from its previous owners.[27] Accordingly, TCT No. T-50282 was
issuedsolely in her name. Thus, Normita bought the lot relying on the face of the
TCT that Elma and no other person owned it.
We acknowledge that registration under the Torrens system does not create or vest
title. A certificate of title merely serves as an evidence of ownership in the property.
Therefore, the issuance of a certificate of title does not preclude the possibility that
persons not named in the certificate may be co-owners of the real property, or that
the registered owner is only holding the property in trust for another person. [28]
In the present case, however, the petitioners failed to present proof of Rosario's
contributions in purchasing the lot from its previous owners. The execution of the
transfer documents solely in Elma's name alone militate against their claim of coownership. Thus, we find no merit in the petitioners' claim of co-ownership over the
lot.
At this point, we address the petitioners' claim that Rosario co-owned the lot with
Elma because the value of the house constructed by Rosario on it is higher than the
lot's value. We find this argument to be erroneous.
We hold that mere construction of a house on another's land does not create a coownership. Article 484 of the Civil Code provides that co-ownership exists when the
ownership of an undivided thing or right belongs to different persons. Verily, a
house and a lot are separately identifiable properties and can pertain to different
owners, as in this case: the house belongs to Rosario and the lot to Elma.
Article 448 of the Civil Code provides that if a person builds on another's land in
good faith, the land owner may either: (a) appropriate the works as his own after
paying indemnity; or (b) oblige the builder to pay the price of the land. The law
does not force the parties into a co-ownership.[29] A builder is in good faith if he
builds on a land believing himself to be its owner and is unaware of the defect in his
title or mode of acquisition.[30]
As applied in the present case, Rosario's construction of a house on the lot did not
create a co-ownership, regardless of the value of the house. Rosario, however, is

not without recourse in retrieving the house or its value. The remedies available to
her are set forth in Article 448 of the Civil Code.
Second, on the nature of the transaction between Elma and Normita, we
find that the deed of donation was simulated and the parties' real intent was to
enter into a sale.
The petitioners argue that the deed of donation was simulated and that the parties
entered into an equitable mortgage.[31] On the other hand, the respondents deny
the claim of equitable mortgage[32] and argue that they validly acquired the
property via sale.[33] The RTC ruled that there was donation but only as to half of
the property. The CA agreed with the respondents that the deed of donation was
not simulated, relying on the presumption of regularity of public documents.
We first dwell on the genuineness of the deed of donation. There are two types of
simulated documents - absolute and relative. A document is absolutely simulated
when the parties have no intent to bind themselves at all, while it is relatively
simulated when the parties concealed their true agreement. [34] The true nature of a
contract is determined by the parties' intention, which can be ascertained from their
contemporaneous and subsequent acts. [35]
In the present case, Elma and Normita's contemporaneous and subsequent acts
show that they were about to have the contract of sale notarized but the notary
public ill-advised them to execute a deed of donation instead. Following this advice,
they returned the next day to have a deed of donation notarized. Clearly, Elma and
Normita intended to enter into a sale that would transfer the ownership of the
subject matter of their contract but disguised it as a donation. Thus, the deed of
donation subsequently executed by them was only relatively simulated.
The CA upheld the deed of donation's validity based on the principle that a
notarized document enjoys the presumption of regularity. This presumption,
however, is overthrown in this case by the respondents' own admission in their
answer that the deed of donation was simulated.
Judicial admissions made by a party in the course of the proceedings are conclusive
and do not require proof.[36] Notably, the respondents explicitly recognized in their
answer that the deed of donation was simulated upon the notary public's advice
and that both parties intended a sale.[37]
In paragraphs 5 and 6 of the answer,[38] the respondents stated thus:
5. That defendants admit the allegations in paragraph 9 which readily acknowledges
that there was indeed an agreement to sell the property of plaintiff, Elma Pidlaoan
to defendant, Normita Pidlaoan (Normita, for brevity) for which a Deed of Absolute
Sale was drafted and executed;
6. That defendants admit the simulation of the Deed of Donation in paragraph
10 of the Complaint, but deny the remainder, the truth being that Elma Pidlaoan
herself offered her property for sale in payment of her loans from Normita.
(Emphasis supplied)
Having admitted the simulation, the respondents can no longer deny it at this
stage. The CA erred in disregarding this admission and upholding the validity of the
deed of donation.
Considering that the deed of donation was relatively simulated, the parties are
bound to their real agreement.[39] The records show that the parties intended to
transfer the ownership of the property to Normita by absolute sale. This intention is
reflected in the unnotarized document entitled "Panananto ng Pagkatanggap ng
Kahustuhang Bayad."[40]
We have discussed that the transaction was definitely not one of donation. Next, we
determine whether the parties' real transaction was a sale or an equitable
mortgage.
The petitioners insist that the deed of sale is an equitable mortgage because: (i)
the consideration for the sale was grossly inadequate; (ii) they remained in
possession of the property; (iii) they continuously paid the water and electric bills;
(iv) the respondents allowed Victoria to repay the "loan" within three months; [41](v)
the respondents admitted that the deed of donation was simulated; and (vi) the
petitioners paid the taxes even after the sale.
Notably, neither the CA nor the RTC found merit in the petitioners' claim of
equitable mortgage. We find no reason to disagree with these conclusions.
An equitable mortgage is one which, although lacking in some formality or other
requisites demanded by statute, nevertheless reveals the intention of the parties to
charge real property as security for a debt, and contains nothing impossible or
contrary to law.[42] Articles 1602 and 1604 of the Civil Code provide that a contract
of absolute sale shall be presumed an equitable mortgage if any of the
circumstances listed in Article 1602 is attendant.
Two requisites must concur for Articles 1602 and 1604 of the Civil Code to
apply: one, the parties entered into a contract denominated as a contract of sale;
and two, their intention was to secure an existing debt by way of mortgage. [43]
In the present case, the unnotarized contract of sale between Elma and Normita is
denominated as "Panananto ng Pagkatanggap ng Kahustuhang Bayad."[44] Its

contents show an unconditional sale of property between Elma and Normita. The
document shows no intention to secure a debt or to grant a right to repurchase.
Thus, there is no evidence that the parties agreed to mortgage the property as
contemplated in Article 1602 of the Civil Code. Clearly, the contract is not one of
equitable mortgage.
Even assuming that Article 1602 of the Civil Code applies in this case, none of the
circumstances are present to give rise to the presumption of equitable
mortgage.One, the petitioners failed to substantiate their claim that the sale price
was unusually inadequate.[45] In fact, the sale price of P30,000.00 is not unusually
inadequate compared with the lot's market value of P32,160 as stated in the 1994
tax declaration. Two, the petitioners continued occupation on the property was
coupled with the respondents' continuous demand for them to vacate it. Third, no
other document was executed for the petitioners to repurchase the lot after the sale
contract was executed. Finally, the respondents paid the real property taxes on the
lot.[46] These circumstances contradict the petitioners' claim of equitable mortgage.
A review of the sale contract or the "Panananto ng Pagkatanggap ng Kahustuhang
Bayad" shows that the parties intended no equitable mortgage. The contract even
contains Elma's undertaking to remove Rosario's house on the property.[47] This
undertaking supports the conclusion that the parties executed the contract with the
end view of transferring full ownership over the lot to Normita.
In sum, we rule that based on the records of the case, Elma and Normita entered in
a sale contract, not a donation. Elma sold the entire property to Normita.
Accordingly, TCT No. T-70990 was validly issued in Normita's name.
WHEREFORE, we hereby PARTIALLY GRANT the petition. The March 26, 2010
decision and March 15, 2011 resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No.
89235 are hereby AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that the parties entered
into a contract of sale, not a donation, and that petitioner Elma Pidlaoan sold the
whole disputed property to respondent Normita Jacob Pidlaoan. Costs against the
petitioners.
SO ORDERED.
Carpio, (Chairperson), Del Castillo, Mendoza, and Leonen, JJ., concur.
April 20, 2016
NOTICE OF JUDGMENT
Sir/Madam:
Please take notice that on April 20, 2016 a Decision, copy attached herewith, was
rendered by the Supreme Court in the above-entitled case, the original of which
was received by this Office on April 20, 2016 at 2:00 p.m.
Very truly yours,

MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTO
Division Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD)TERESITA AQUINO TUAZON
Deputy Division Clerk of Court
Rollo, p. 36; penned by Associate Justice Amelita G. Tolentino and concurred in

by Associate Justices Mario V. Lopez and Franchito N. Diamante.
[1]
[2]
Id. at 37.
[3]
Id. at 38.
[4]
RTC rollo, p. 246.
[5]
Rollo, p. 40.
[6]
Id.
[7]
Id.
[8]
Id.
[9]
Id.
RTC rollo, p. 59: "Na, ako ang siyang magpapa-alis sa tumirik ng bahay sa naulit
na lote upang ito'y (sic) maging malinis ang pagsasauli o pagsasalin ko kay Normita
Jacob Pidlaoan."
[10]
[11]
Rollo, p. 40.
[12]
Id. at 41.
[13]
Id. at 38.
[14]
RTC rollo, pp. 1-5.
[15]
Id. at 16-21.
[16]
Id.
[17]
CA rollo, pp. 19-24.
[18]
Id.
Lorzano v. Tabayag, Jr., G.R. No. 189647, February 6, 2012; Republic v. Vega,
G.R. No. 177790, January 17. 2011, citing New Rural Bank of Guimba (N.E.) Inc. v.
Abad, G.R. No. 161818, August 20, 2008.
[19]
[20]
Id.
[21]
Id.
Cirtek Employees Labor Union-Federation of Free Workers v. Cirtek Electronics,

Inc., G.R. No. 190515, June 6, 2011. The exceptions are: (a) when the conclusion
is a finding grounded entirely on speculation, surmises, and conjectures; (b) when
the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (c) when there is
grave abuse of discretion; (d) when the judgment is based on a misapprehension of
facts; (e) when the findings of fact are conflicting; (f) when the CA, in making its
findings, went beyond the issues of the case and the same is contrary to the
admissions of both appellant and appellee; (g) when the findings are contrary to
those of the trial court; (h) when the findings of fact are conclusions without
citation of specific evidence on which they are based; (i) when the facts set forth in
the petition as well as in the petitioners' main and reply briefs are not disputed by
the respondents; and (j) when he findings of facts of the CA are premised on the
supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record.
[22]
[23]
Ramos v. Heirs of Ramos, G.R. No. 140848, April 25, 2002.
[24]
Cagatao v. Almonte, G.R. No. 174004, October 9, 2003.
[25]
Casimiro Development Corporation v. Mateo, G.R. No. 175485, July 27, 2011.
[26]
Id.
[27]
RTC rollo, p. 135.
[28]
Id.
Arturo M. Tolentino, Civil Code of the Philippines II 2004, p. 110, citing 3

Manresa 213, et. al.
[29]
[30]
Spouses Aquino v. Spouses Aguilar, G.R. No. 182754, June 29, 2015.
[31]
Rollo, pp. 25-29.
[32]
RTC rollo, p. 17, pars. 4-6.
[33]
Id.
[34]
CIVIL CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Art. 1345.
[35]
Velario v. Refresco, G.R. No. 163687, March 28, 2006.
RULES OF COURT, Rule 129, Section 4; Civil Code of the Philippines, Art.
1431; Josefa v. Manila Electric Company, G.R. No. 182705, July 18, 2014.
[36]
[37]
Rollo, p. 17.
[38]
Id.
[39]
CIVIL CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Art. 1346.
[40]
CA rollo, p. 247.
[41]
RTC rollo, p. 19. Answer, pars. 16-17:
16. That it was agreed upon that Elma Pidlaoan will remunerate Normita within
three months after the lot's redemption but when Elma failed to do so even on the
sixth month, Elma instead voluntarily offered to sell her property to Normita in
payment of her loans sometime in early 1992, which offer the latter accepted and
Normita thereafter remitted Elma's loans totalling P35,000.00;
17. That likewise in 1992, upon learning of the lot's sale to Normita, Rosario
undertook the repayment of Elma's loans with Normita within three months after
the said sale, but she failed and also failed to remove the house on her own as she
had promised.
[42]
42 Corpus Juris 303.
Heirs of Spouses Balite v. Lim, G.R. No. 152168. December 10, 2004; San Pedro
v. Lee, G.R. No. 156522, May 28, 2004.
[43]
[44]
RTC rollo, p. 247.
The petitioners alleged that the market value of the house and lot per tax
declaration is P182,7000.00, but the lot was sold only for P30,000.00. However,
they failed to attach the alleged tax declaration.
[45]
[46]
RTC rollo, pp. 250-251.
[47]
Id. at 247.

G.R.
No.
200274
MELECIO DOMINGO, PETITIONER, VS. SPOUSES GENARO MOLINA AND ELENA B. MOLINA, SUBSTITUTED BY ESTER
MOLINA,
RESPONDENTS.
April 20, 2016
SECOND DIVISION
[ G.R. No. 200274, April 20, 2016 ]
MELECIO DOMINGO, PETITIONER, VS. SPOUSES GENARO

MOLINA AND ELENA B. MOLINA, SUBSTITUTED BY ESTER
MOLINA, RESPONDENTS.
DECISION
BRION, J.:
We resolve the petition for review on certiorari[1] filed by the petitioner Melecio
Domingo (Melecio) assailing the August 9, 2011 decision [2] and January 10, 2012
resolution[3] of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 94160.
THE FACTS
In June 15, 1951, the spouses Anastacio and Flora Domingo bought a property in
Camiling, Tarlac, consisting of a one-half undivided portion over an 18,164 square
meter parcel of land. The sale was annotated on the Original Certificate of Title
(OCT) No. 16354 covering the subject property.
During his lifetime, Anastacio borrowed money from the respondent spouses
Genaro and Elena Molina (spouses Molina). On September 10, 1978 or 10 years
after Flora's death[4], Anastacio sold his interest over the land to the spouses Molina
to answer for his debts. The sale to the spouses Molina was annotated at the OCT
of the subject property.[5] In 1986, Anastacio died.[6]
In May 19, 1995, the sale of Anastacio's interest was registered under Transfer
Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 272967[7] and transferred the entire one-half undivided
portion of the land to the spouses Molina.
Melecio, one of the children of Anastacio and Flora, learned of the transfer and filed
a Complaint for Annulment of Title and Recovery of Ownership (Complaint) against
the spouses Molina on May 17, 1999.[8]
Melecio claims that Anastacio gave the subject property to the spouses Molina to
serve as collateral for the money that Anastacio borrowed. Anastacio could not have
validly sold the interest over the subject property without Flora's consent, as Flora
was already dead at the time of the sale.
Melecio also claims that Genaro Molina must have falsified the document
transferring Anastacio and Flora's one-half undivided interest over the land. Finally,
Melecio asserts that he occupied the subject property from the time of Anastacio's
death up to the time he filed the Complaint.[9]
Melecio presented the testimonies of the Records Officer of the Register of Deeds of
Tarlac, and of Melecio's nephew, George Domingo (George).[10]
The Records Officer testified that he could not locate the instrument that documents
the transfer of the subject property ownership from Anastacio to the spouses
Molina. The Records Officer also testified that the alleged sale was annotated at the
time when Genaro Molina's brother was the Register of Deeds for Camiling, Tarlac.
[11]
George, on the other hand, testified that he has been living on the subject property
owned by Anastacio since 1986. George testified, however, that aside from himself,
there were also four other occupants on the subject property, namely Jaime
Garlitos, Linda Sicangco, Serafio Sicangco and Manuel Ramos. [12]
The spouses Molina asserted that Anastacio surrendered the title to the subject
property to answer for his debts and told the spouses Molina that they already own
half of the land. The spouses Molina have been in possession of the subject
property before the title was registered under their names and have religiously paid
the property's real estate taxes.
The spouses Molina also asserted that Melecio knew of the disputed sale since he
accompanied Anastacio several times to borrow money. The last loan was even
used to pay for Melecio's wedding. Finally, the spouses Molina asserted that Melecio
built his nipa hut on the subject property only in 1999, without their knowledge and
consent.[13]
The spouses Molina presented Jaime Garlitos (Jaime) as their sole witness and who
is one of the occupants of the subject lot.
Jaime testified that Elena Molina permitted him to build a house on the subject
property in 1993. Jaime, together with the other tenants, planted fruit bearing trees
on the subject property and gave portions of their harvest to Elena Molina without
any complaint from Melecio. Jaime further testified that Melecio never lived on the
subject property and that only George Domingo, as the caretaker of the spouses
Molina, has a hut on the property.
Meanwhile, the spouses Molina died during the pendency of the case and were
substituted by their adopted son, Cornelio Molina.[14]
THE RTC RULING
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) dismissed[15] the case because Melecio failed to
establish his claim that Anastacio did not sell the property to the spouses Molina.
The RTC also held that Anastacio could dispose of conjugal property without Flora's
consent since the sale was necessary to answer for conjugal liabilities.
The RTC denied Melecio's motion for reconsideration of the RTC ruling. From this
ruling, Melecio proceeded with his appeal to the CA.
THE CA RULING
In a decision dated August 9, 2011, the CA affirmed the RTC ruling in toto.
The CA held that Melecio failed to prove by preponderant evidence that there was
fraud in the conveyance of the property to the spouses Molina. The CA gave
credence to the OCT annotation of the disputed property sale.
The CA also held that Flora's death is immaterial because Anastacio only sold his
rights, excluding Flora's interest, over the lot to the spouses Molina. The CA
explained that "[t]here is no prohibition against the sale by the widower of real
property formerly belonging to the conjugal partnership of gains" [16].
Finally, the CA held that Melecio's action has prescribed. According to the CA,
Melecio failed to file the action within one year after entry of the decree of
registration.
Melecio filed a motion for reconsideration of the CA Decision. The CA denied
Melecio's motion for reconsideration for lack of merit. [17]
THE PETITION
Melecio filed the present petition for review on certiorari to challenge the CA ruling.
Melecio principally argues that the sale of land belonging to the conjugal
partnership without the wife's consent is invalid.
Melecio also claims that fraud attended the conveyance of the subject property and
the absence of any document evidencing the alleged sale made the transfer null
and void. Finally, Melecio claims that the action has not yet prescribed.
The respondents, on the other hand, submitted and adopted their arguments in
their Appeal Brief[18].
First, Melecio's counsel admitted that Anastacio had given the lot title in payment of
the debt amounting to Php30,000.00. The delivery of the title is constructive
delivery of the lot itself based on Article 1498, paragraph 2 of the Civil Code.
Second, the constructive delivery of the title coupled with the spouses Molina's
exercise of attributes of ownership over the subject property, perfected the sale and
completed the transfer of ownership.
THE ISSUES
The core issues of the petition are as follows: (1) whether the sale of a conjugal
property to the spouses Molina without Flora's consent is valid and legal; and (2)
whether fraud attended the transfer of the subject property to the spouses Molina.
OUR RULING
We deny the petition.
It is well settled that when the trial court's factual findings have been affirmed by
the CA, the findings are generally conclusive and binding upon the Court and may
no longer be reviewed on Rule 45 petitions. [19] While mere are exceptions[20] to this
rule, the Court finds no applicable exception with respect to the lower courts'
finding that the subject property was Anastacio and Flora's conjugal property.
Records before the Court show that the parties did not dispute the conjugal nature
of the property.
Melecio argues that the sale of the disputed property to the spouses Molina is void
without Flora's consent.
We do not find Melecio's argument meritorious.
Anastacio and Flora's conjugal partnership was dissolved upon Flora's
death.
There is no dispute that Anastacio and Flora Domingo married before the Family
Code's effectivity on August 3, 1988 and their property relation is a conjugal
partnership.[21]
Conjugal partnership of gains established before and after the effectivity of the
Family Code are governed by the rules found in Chapter 4 (Conjugal Partnership of
Gains) of Title IV (Property Relations Between Husband and Wife) of the Family
Code. This is clear from Article 105 of the Family Code which states:
x x x The provisions of this Chapter shall also apply to conjugal partnerships of
gains already established between spouses before the effectivity of this
Code, without prejudice to vested rights already acquired in accordance with the
Civil Code or other laws, as provided in Article 256.
The conjugal partnership of Anastacio and Flora was dissolved when Flora
died in 1968, pursuant to Article 175 (1) of the Civil Code [22] (now Article 126 (1)
of the Family Code).
Article 130 of the Family Code requires the liquidation of the conjugal partnership
upon death of a spouse and prohibits any disposition or encumbrance of the
conjugal property prior to the conjugal partnership liquidation, to quote:
Article 130. Upon the termination of the marriage by death, the conjugal
partnership property shall be liquidated in the same proceeding for the
settlement of the estate of the deceased.
If no judicial settlement proceeding is instituted, the surviving spouse shall liquidate
the conjugal partnership property either judicially or extra-judicially within one year
from the death of the deceased spouse. If upon the lapse of the six month
period no liquidation is made, any disposition or encumbrance involving
the conjugal partnership property of the terminated marriage shall be
void. x x x (emphases supplied)
While Article 130 of the Family Code provides that any disposition involving the
conjugal property without prior liquidation of the partnership shall be void, this rule
does not apply since the provisions of the Family Code shall be "without prejudice
to vested rights already acquired in accordance with the Civil Code or other
laws."[23]
An implied co-ownership among Flora's heirs governed the conjugal
properties pending liquidation and partition.
In the case of Taningco v. Register of Deeds of Laguna,[24] we held that the
properties of a dissolved conjugal partnership fall under the regime of co-ownership
among the surviving spouse and the heirs of the deceased spouse until final
liquidation and partition. The surviving spouse, however, has an actual and vested
one-half undivided share of the properties, which does not consist of determinate
and segregated properties until liquidation and partition of the conjugal partnership.
An implied ordinary co-ownership ensued among Flora's surviving heirs, including
Anastacio, with respect to Flora's share of the conjugal partnership until final
liquidation and partition; Anastacio, on the other hand, owns one-half of the original
conjugal partnership properties as his share, but this is an undivided interest.
Article 493 of the Civil Code on co-ownership provides:
Article 493. Each co-owner shall have the full ownership of his part and of the
fruits and benefits pertaining thereto, and he may therefore alienate, assign or
mortgage it, and even substitute another person in its enjoyment, except when
personal rights are involved. But the effect of the alienation or the
mortgage, with respect to the co-owners, shall be limited to the portion
which may be allotted to him in the division upon the termination of the
co-ownership. (399) (emphases supplied)
Thus, Anastacio, as co-owner, cannot claim title to any specific portion of the
conjugal properties without an actual partition being first done either by agreement
or by judicial decree. Nonetheless, Anastacio had the right to freely sell and dispose
of his undivided interest in the subject property.
The spouses Molina became co-owners of the subject property to the
extent of Anastacio's interest.
The OCT annotation of the sale to the spouses Molina reads that "[o]nly the
rights, interests and participation of Anastacio Domingo, married to Flora
Dela Cruz, is hereby sold, transferred, and conveyed unto the said vendees for the
sum of ONE THOUSAND PESOS (P1,000.00) which pertains to an undivided onehalf (1/2) portion and subject to all other conditions specified in the document x
x x"[25] (emphases supplied). At the time of the sale, Anastacio's undivided interest
in the conjugal properties consisted of: (1) one-half of the entire conjugal
properties; and (2) his share as Flora's heir on the conjugal properties.
Anastacio, as a co-owner, had the right to freely sell and dispose of his undivided
interest, but not the interest of his co-owners. Consequently, Anastactio's sale to
the spouses Molina without the consent of the other co-owners was not totally void,
for Anastacio's rights or a portion thereof were thereby effectively transferred,
making the spouses Molina a co-owner of the subject property to the extent of
Anastacio's interest. This result conforms with the well-established principle that
the binding force of a contract must be recognized as far as it is legally possible to
do so (quando res non valet ut ago, valeat quantum valere potest).[26]
The spouses Molina would be a trustee for the benefit of the co-heirs of Anastacio in
respect of any portion that might belong to the co-heirs after liquidation and
partition. The observations of Justice Paras cited in the case of Heirs of Protacio Go,
Sr. V. Servacio[27] are instructive:
x x x [I]f it turns out that the property alienated or mortgaged really would pertain
to the share of the surviving spouse, then said transaction is valid. If it turns out
that there really would be, after liquidation, no more conjugal assets then the whole
transaction is null and void. But if it turns out that half of the property thus
alienated or mortgaged belongs to the husband as his share in the conjugal
partnership, and half should go to the estate of the wife, then that corresponding to
the husband is valid, and that corresponding to the other is not. Since all these can
be determined only at the time the liquidation is over, it follows logically that a
disposal made by the surviving spouse is not void ab initio. Thus, it has been held
that the sale of conjugal properties cannot be made by the surviving spouse without
the legal requirements. The sale is void as to the share of the deceased spouse
(except of course as to that portion of the husband's share inherited by her as the
surviving spouse). The buyers of the property that could not be validly sold become
trustees of said portion for the benefit of the husband's other heirs, the cestui que
trust ent. Said heirs shall not be barred by prescription or by laches.
Melecio's recourse as a co-owner of the conjugal properties, including the subject
property, is an action for partition under Rule 69 of the Revised Rules of Court. As
held in the case of Heirs of Protacio Go, Sr., "it is now settled that the appropriate
recourse of co-owners in cases where their consent were not secured in a sale of
the entire property as well as in a sale merely of the undivided shares of some of
the co-owners is an action for PARTITION under Rule 69 of the Revised Rules of
Court."[28]
The sale of the subject property to the spouses Molina was not attended
with fraud.
On the issue of fraud, the lower courts found that there was no fraud in the sale of
the disputed property to the spouses Molina.
The issue of fraud would require the Court to inquire into the weight of evidentiary
matters to determine the merits of the petition and is essentially factual in nature.
It is basic that factual questions cannot be cannot be entertained in a Rule 45
petition, unless it falls under any of the recognized exceptions [29] found in
jurisprudence. The present petition does not show that it falls under any of the
exceptions allowing factual review.
The CA and RTC conclusion that there is no fraud in the sale is supported by the
evidence on record.
Melecio's argument that no document was executed for the sale is negated by the
CA finding that there was a notarized deed of conveyance executed between
Anastacio and the spouses Molina, as annotated on the OCT of the disputed
property.
Furthermore, Melecio's belief that Anastacio could not have sold the property
without his knowledge cannot be considered as proof of fraud to invalidate the
spouses Molina's registered title over the subject property.[30]
Prevailing jurisprudence uniformly holds that findings of facts of the trial court,
particularly when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are binding upon this Court. [31]
Considering these findings, we find no need to discuss the other issues raised by
Melecio.
WHEREFORE, we hereby DENY the petition for review on certiorari. The decision
dated August 9, 2011 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 94160
is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
[1]
Rollo, pp. 9-20.
Penned by Associate Justice Ricardo R. Rosario and concurred in by Associate

Justices Hakim S. Abdulwahid and Rodil V. Zalameda; id. at 71-85.
[2]
[3]
Id. at 93.
Flora died in 1968 or 10 years before the sale of the subject property to the
respondents; id. at 73.
[4]
[5]
Id. at 72.
[6]
Id. at 73.
[7]
Id. at 29.
[8]
Supra note 7.
[9]
Rollo, pp. 73-74.
[10]
Id. at 75.
[11]
Id.
[12]
Id. at 37.
[13]
Id. at 74.
[14]
Records, pp. 145 and 180.
[15]
RTC Decision dated August 10, 2009. Rollo, pp. 36-39.
[16]
Rollo, p. 79.
[17]
Id. at 93.
[18]
Id. at 105-110.
Tan v. Andrade, et al., G.R. No. 171904, August 7, 2013, 703 SCRA 198, 204205.
[19]
Fuentes v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 109849, February 26, 1997, 268 SCRA
703, 708-709, stating:
[20]
The findings of fact of the Court of Appeals, which are as a general rule deemed
conclusive, may admit of review by this Court:
(1) when the factual findings of the Court of Appeals and the trial court are
contradictory;
(2) when the findings are grounded entirely on speculation, surmises, or
conjectures;
(3) when the inference made by the Court of Appeals from its findings of fact is
manifestly mistaken, absurd, or impossible;
(4) when there is grave abuse of discretion in the appreciation of facts;
(5) when the appellate court, in making its findings, goes beyond the issues of the
case, and such findings are contrary to the admissions of both appellant and
appellee;
(6) when the judgment of the Court of Appeals is premised on a misapprehension
of facts;
(7) when the Court of Appeals fails to notice certain relevant facts which, if properly
considered, will justify a different conclusion;
(8) when the findings of fact are themselves conflicting;
(9) when the findings of fact are conclusions without citation of the specific
evidence on which they are based; and
(10) when the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are premised on the absence
of evidence but such findings are contradicted by the evidence on record.
Anastacio and Flora were already married at the time they bought the subject
property on June 15, 1951, as shown by the annotation on OCT covering the
subject property, rollo, p. 72.
[21]
[22]
CIVIL CODE, ART. 175. The conjugal partnership of gains terminates:
(1) Upon the death of either spouse; x x x

[23]
Article 105 of Family Code.
[24]
G.R. No. L-15242, June 29, 1962, 5 SCRA 381, 382.
[25]
Rollo, p.79.
Heirs of Protacio Go, Sr. v. Servacio, G.R. No. 15737, September 7, 2011, 657
SCRA 10, 16-17.
[26]
[27]
Id. at 18-19 (citations omitted).
[28]
Id.
[29]
Supra note 20.
[30]
Rollo, pp. 80-81.
[31]
Supra note 19.

G.R.
No.
199628
HEIRS OF EXEQUIEL HAGORILES, NAMELY, PACITA P. HAGORILES, CONSEJO H. SABIDONG, CESAR HAGORILES,
REYNALDO HAGORILES, ANITA H. GERONGANI, LOURDES H. CAPISTRANO, ANA LINA H. BOLUSO, AND SUZETTE H.
PEAFLORIDA, ALL REPRESENTED BY ANA LINA H. BOLUSO, PETITIONERS, VS. ROMEO HERNAEZ, MILAGROS
VILLANUEVA, CRISANTO CANJA, NENA BAYOG, VENANCIO SEMILON, GAUDENCIO VILLANUEVA, VIRGINIA DAGOHOY,
VIRGILIO CANJA, FELIX CASTILLO AND TEOFILO HERNAEZ, GAUDENCIO ARNAEZ, BENJAMIN COSTOY, ERMIN
VILLANUEVA,
MARCELINO
AMAR,
AND
COURT
OF
APPEALS,
RESPONDENTS.
April 20, 2016
SECOND DIVISION
[ G.R. No. 199628, April 20, 2016 ]
HEIRS OF EXEQUIEL HAGORILES, NAMELY, PACITA P.
HAGORILES, CONSEJO H. SABIDONG, CESAR HAGORILES,
REYNALDO HAGORILES, ANITA H. GERONGANI, LOURDES H.
CAPISTRANO, ANA LINA H. BOLUSO, AND SUZETTE H.
PEAFLORIDA, ALL REPRESENTED BY ANA LINA H. BOLUSO,
PETITIONERS, VS. ROMEO HERNAEZ, MILAGROS
VILLANUEVA, CRISANTO CANJA, NENA BAYOG, VENANCIO
SEMILON, GAUDENCIO VILLANUEVA, VIRGINIA DAGOHOY,
VIRGILIO CANJA, FELIX CASTILLO AND TEOFILO HERNAEZ,
GAUDENCIO ARNAEZ, BENJAMIN COSTOY, ERMIN
VILLANUEVA, MARCELINO AMAR, AND COURT OF APPEALS,
RESPONDENTS.
DECISION
BRION, J.:
Before us is a petition for review on certiorari[1] assailing the July 30, 2010
decision[2] and the November 25, 2011 resolution[3] of the Court of Appeals (CA),
Cebu City in CA-G.R. SP No. 85600. The CA affirmed with modification the decision
of the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) in DARAB Case
No. 6561, and declared the respondents, who were found bona fide tenants of their
respective landholdings, to be entitled to the continuous peaceful possession of
their home lots.
Facts of the Case
The present petition stemmed from a Complaint[4] to Maintain Status Quo (which
was later amended) filed by respondents Romeo Hemaez, Felix Castillo, Gaudencio
Arnaez, Teofilo Hernaez, Benjamin Costoy, Virgilio Canja, Nena Bayog, Venancio
Semilon, Gaudencio Villanueva, Ermin Villanueva, Marcelino Amar, Milagros
Villanueva, Virginia Dagohoy and Crisanto Canja, with the Provincial Agrarian
Reform Adjudicator (PARAD), Negros Occidental, on March 8, 1996.
The complainants (the present respondents) claimed that, as far back as 1967, they
have been tenant-tillers and actual occupants of parcels of land located at
Binalbagan and Himamaylan, Negros Occidental. The lands, which were
administered by Milagros Ramos, belonged to different owners. Most of the lands
were owned by Timoteo Ramos. Among the respondents, Timoteo's tenants are
Milagros Villanueva, Teofilo Hernaez, Crisanto Canja, Nena Bayog, Virginia Dagohoy,
Venancio Semilon, Gaudencio Villanueva, and Marcelino Amar.
Apart from their respective areas of tillage,[5] the respondents claimed to be in
possession of individual home lots[6] situated on separate parcels of land in Brgy.
Libacao, Binalbagan, Negros Occidental, designated as Lot No. 2047. Title to Lot
No. 2047 was originally registered under the name of Engracia Ramos, the spouse
of landholder Timoteo Ramos.
In 1990, the late Exequiel Hagoriles bought a portion of Lot No. 2047 from Amparo
Ramos-Taleon, daughter of Timoteo Ramos.
In 1993, Exequiel successfully caused the ejectment of respondent Marcelino Amar
from his home lot. This prompted the other respondents to file with the PARAD a
complaint against Exequiel and Amparo to refrain from disturbing them in their
peaceful possession of their home lots.
In their answers to the complaint, Exequiel and Amparo denied the existence of
tenancy relations between themselves and the respondents.
Thus, they contended that since the respondents are not tenants, they were not
entitled to home lots.
In a decision[7] dated May 19, 1997, the PARAD partly dismissed the respondents'
complaint for lack of evidence to support the existence of tenancy - specifically on
the element of sharing of harvests. However, the PARAD did not dismiss the
complaint with respect to respondents Milagros Villanueva (who pursued the case in
behalf of her husband Ernesto Villanueva), Virginia Dagohoy and Crisanto Canja
who were found to be lawful tenants of their respective landholdings based on the
emancipation patents (EPs) already issued to Ernesto Villanueva and Virginia
Dagohoy and receipts issued by Milagros Ramos for payments of lease rentals made
by Crisanto Canja. The PARAD held that, as bona fide tenants of their landholdings,
respondents Villanueva, Dagohoy and Canja were entitled to the continuous
peaceful possession of their home lots.

Exequiel filed a partial appeal of the PARAD's decision ordering him not to disturb
the possession of respondents Villanueva, Dagohoy and Canja of their home lots.
The aggrieved respondents, likewise, appealed the case to the DAPLAB.
In its decision[8] dated November 7, 2003, the DARAB affirmed the PARAD's ruling
with respect to respondents Villanueva, Dagohoy and Canja, but reversed the
PARAD's ruling as to respondents Romeo Hernaez, Felix Castillo, Gaudencio Arnaez,
Teofilo Arnaez, Benjamin Costoy, Virgilio Canja, Nena Bayog, Venancio Semilon,
Gaudencio Villanueva, Erwin Villanueva, and Marcelino Amar.
Significantly, the DARAB declared all the respondents to be bona fide
tenants of their respective landholdings. It discovered that EPs were soon to
be issued to the rest of the respondents, which meant that these respondents had
already been properly identified as tenant-beneficiaries under the Comprehensive
Agrarian Reform Program (CARP). Also, it found that said respondents had not been
remiss in their obligations to deliver lease rentals, which fact was evidenced by
receipts from the respondents' landowners. The DARAB, however, refused to rule on
whether the respondents were entitled to the possession of their home lots. It
considered the issue as a proper subject of an agrarian law implementation case
over which the DARAB has no jurisdiction.
Exequiel and Amparo moved for the reconsideration of the DARAB ruling but the
latter denied their motion in a resolution dated July 27, 2004. [9] Exequiel, now
substituted by his heirs (the present petitioners), appealed to the CA.
The petitioners insisted before the CA that respondents were not agricultural
lessees or tenants. And even if the respondents were tenants, the petitioners
claimed not to be bound by any tenancy agreement because Exequiel, their
predecessor-in-interest, was an innocent purchaser in good faith. The petitioners
further claimed that, at the time Exequiel bought a portion of Lot No. 2047 from
Amparo, it was annotated on the lot's title that the land was not tenanted.
In its assailed decision,[10] the CA did not accord merit to the petitioners'
arguments. It held that the petitioners, as transferees of Lot No. 2047, were bound
by the tenancy relations between the respondents and the lot's previous owners
(referring to the spouses Engracia and Timoteo Ramos), thus, they should maintain
the respondents' peaceful possession of their home lots.
The CA agreed with the DARAB in finding the respondents to be bona fide tenants
of their respective landholdings, but disagreed with the DARAB's "restrictive
interpretation" of the latter's jurisdiction to decide on the issue of whether the
respondents were entitled to remain in their home lots. The CA ruled that since a
home lot is incidental to a tenant's rights, the determination of the respondents'
rights to their respective home lots is a proper agrarian dispute over which the
DARAB has jurisdiction. Thus, the CA affirmed the DARAB's decision in favor of the
respondents, with modification that the same respondents were, likewise, entitled
to the continuous, peaceful possession of their respective home lots.
Upon the denial of their motion for reconsideration before the CA, the petitioners
filed the present petition for review on certiorari with this Court.
The Petition
The petitioners argue that the CA erred in awarding home lots to the respondents
and in ordering them to maintain the respondents' peaceful possession of these
home lots; that the CA was in no position to determine whether the respondents
were entitled to their home lots as this determination requires processes that the
Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) must first undertake as the agency with the
technical expertise to perform. For this reason, they contend that the DARAB
instead of ruling on the issue, advised the parties to submit the matter to the DAR
Secretary for proper resolution.
The petitioners maintain that the respondents are not their tenants, thus, they are
not obligated to provide the latter with home lots. They posit that the respondents'
houses should be transferred to the farmlands they are actually cultivating or to
other lands owned by their respective landlords. And should the respondents opt to
retain their houses on petitioners' land, then they must pay the petitioners
reasonable rent.
Notably, the petitioners point out that in 2004, the parties entered into a
Compromise Agreement that could have put an end to the present case if not for
the failure of the respondents' counsel to affix her signature to the document.
Under the Compromise Agreement, the petitioners offered to sell and the
respondents agreed to buy in instalments, portions of Lot No. 2047 that
corresponded to the respondents' respective home lots. This agreement, however,
was not submitted for the court's approval due to the absence of respondents'
counsel's signature.
The petitioners state that they attached a copy of the Compromise Agreement in
their motion for reconsideration before the CA, but the latter did not consider their
submission in resolving their motion.
Our Ruling
We find MERIT in the present petition.

The obligation to provide home lots to agricultural lessees or tenants rests upon the
landholder. Section 26(a) of R.A. No. 1199 or the "Agricultural Tenancy Act of the
Philippines," as amended by R.A. No. 2263,[11] provides:
Sec. 26. Obligations of the Landholder:
(a) The landholder shall furnish the tenant with a home lot as provided in section 22
(3): Provided, That should the landholder designate another site for such home lot than that
already occupied by the tenant, the former shall bear the expenses of transferring the
existing house and improvements from the home lot already occupied by the tenant to the
site newly designated by the former: Provided, further, That if the tenant disagrees to the
transfer of the home lot, the matter shall be submitted to the court for determination.
Under Section 22(3) of RA No. 1199, as amended, a tenant is entitled to a home lot
suitable for dwelling with an area of not more than three percent (3%) of the area
of his landholding, provided that it does not exceed one thousand square meters
(1,000 sq.m.). It shall be located at a convenient and suitable place within the
land of the landholder to be designated by the latter where the tenant shall
construct his dwelling and may raise vegetables, poultry, pigs and other animals
and engage in minor industries, the products of which shall accrue to the tenant
exclusively.[12] The agricultural lessee shall have the right to continue in the
exclusive possession and enjoyment of any home lot he may have occupied, upon
the effectivity of R.A. No. 3844,[13] which shall be considered as included in the
leasehold.[14]
In this case, the subject home lots were designated on a parcel of land separate
from the farmlands cultivated by the respondents. Title to such parcel of land, i.e.,
Lot No. 2047. was originally registered under the name of Engracia Ramos, the wife
of Timoteo.[15] Lot No. 2047 was not Timoteo's property.
The property relations of spouses Timoteo and Engracia Ramos were governed by
the old Civil Code[16] that prescribed the system of relative community or conjugal
partnership of gains. By means of the conjugal partnership of gains the husband
and wife place in a common fund the fruits of their separate property and the
income from their work or industry, and divide equally, upon the dissolution of the
marriage or of the partnership, the net gains or benefits obtained indiscriminately
by either spouse during the marriage.[17] Under Article 148 of the old Civil Code, the
spouses retain exclusive ownership of property they brought to the marriage as his
or her own; they acquired, during the marriage, by lucrative title; they acquired by
right of redemption or by exchange with other property belonging to only one of the
spouses; and property they purchased with the exclusive money of the wife or the
husband.[18]
Considering that Lot No. 2047 was originally registered under Engracia's name, it is
presumed that said lot is paraphernal, not conjugal, property. Paraphernal property
is property brought by the wife to the marriage, as well as all property she acquires
during the marriage in accordance with Article 148 (old Civil Code). [19] The wife
retains ownership of paraphernal property.[20]
Significantly, in 1976, Lot No. 2047 became subject of estate settlement
proceedings and was partitioned and distributed to Engracia's heirs, namely:
Timoteo Sr., Timoteo Jr., Milagros, Ubaldo, Andrea and Amparo, all surnamed
Ramos.[21] Entries of the approved project of partition and declaration of heirship
were annotated at the back of the lot's title.[22] Timoteo (Sr.)'s exact share of the
lot, however, was not identified in the records.
In 1993, Amparo Ramos-Taleon, Timoteo's daughter, sold a portion of Lot No. 2047
(her share of the lot) to Ezequiel Hagoriles.
Since Timoteo Sr. merely owns a portion of Lot No. 2047, it was error for
the CA to subject the whole of Lot No. 2047 for the use of the respondents'
home lots. Only Timoteo Sr., being the named landowner of most of the
respondents' landholdings, has the obligation to provide home lots to his tenants.
There is no obligation from the other co-owners of Lot No. 2047, including the
petitioners who were transferees of Amparo's share of the lot, to provide home lots
to the respondents.
Given the limited information in the records, we cannot definitely rule on the rights
of all the respondents to their home lots. There is need to delineate the portion of
Lot No. 2047 belonging to Timoteo Sr., if there is still any, and determine whether
the respondents' home lots fall within Timoteo's share of the lot. Only those
respondents who are Timoteo's tenants (namely: Milagros Villanueva, Teofilo
Hernaez, Crisanto Canja, Nena Bayog, Virginia Dagohoy, Venancio Semilon,
Gaudencio Villanueva, and Marcelino Amar[23]) and whose home lots are located
within Timoteo's portion of Lot No. 2047 can be guaranteed to the peaceful
possession of their home lots.
For the other respondents who are not tenants of Timoteo, and those who are
Timoteo's tenants but whose home lots do not fall within Timoteo's share of Lot No.
2047, their continuous possession of their home lots cannot be guaranteed. We
reiterate that it is the landholder who, among the co-owners of Lot No. 2047 is
Timoteo, Sr., is obligated by law to provide his tenants home lots within his
land. The petitioners are not transferees of Timoteo Sr. but are transferees
of Amparo who is not a landholder of the respondents; thus, the
petitioners may not be compelled to maintain the home lots located within
their acquired portion of Lot No. 2047.

At best, the issue on the respondents' entitlement to their home lots should be
referred to the DARAB for proper determination. The CA was correct in holding that
jurisdiction over this matter is with the DARAB, not with the Office of the DAR
Secretary, because it involves an agrarian dispute. Jurisdiction over agrarian
disputes lies with the DARAB.
An agrarian dispute refers to any controversy relating to tenurial arrangements,
whether leasehold, tenancy, stewardship, or otherwise, over lands devoted to
agriculture, including disputes concerning farmworkers associations or
representation of persons in negotiating, fixing, maintaining, changing, or seeking
to arrange terms or conditions of such tenurial arrangements. [24] Undeniably, the
present case involves a controversy regarding tenurial arrangements. The right to a
home lot is a matter arising from a landlord-tenant relationship.
In the event that the respondents are found not to be entitled to possess their
present home lots, they can demand from their landholders to designate another
location as their home lot. The landholder's obligation to provide home lots to his
tenants continues for so long as the tenancy relations exist and has not yet been
severed.
With respect to the parties' alleged Compromise Agreement, we rule that this
"agreement" has no effect to the resolution of the present case.
Parties to a suit may enter into a compromise agreement to avoid litigation or put
an end to one already commenced.[25] A compromise agreement intended to resolve
a matter already under litigation is a judicial compromise, which has the force and
effect of a judgment of the court. However, no execution of the compromise
agreement may be issued unless the agreement receives the approval of
the court where the litigation is pending and compliance with the terms of
the agreement is decreed.[26]
In this case, the petitioners admitted that their compromise agreement was not
submitted for court approval for failure of the respondents' counsel to sign the
agreement. The parties, however, are not prevented from pursuing their
compromise agreement or entering into another agreement regarding the subject
matter of this case provided that their stipulations are not contrary to law, morals,
good custom, public order, or public policy.[27]
We conclude that the CA erred in ordering the petitioners to maintain the
peaceful possession of all of the respondents to their home lots. The
petitioners' predecessor-in-interest in (a portion of) Lot No. 2047 was not a
landholder of the respondents, thus, they cannot be compelled to maintain the

home lots located within their portion of Lot No. 2047. The obligation to provide
home lots to the respondents rests upon their respective landholders, not with the
petitioners.
WHEREFORE, we hereby GRANT the present petition for review
on certiorari and REVERSE and SET ASIDE the decision dated July 30, 2010 and
resolution dated November 25, 2011 of the Court of Appeals, Cebu City in CA-G.R.
SP No. 85600.
Accordingly, we refer the case to the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication
Board to resolve with dispatch the respondents' rights, if any, to their respective
home lots.
SO ORDERED.
[1]
Filed under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
Penned by Associate Justice Pampio A. Abarintos, with Associate Justices Ramon

A. Cruz and Myra V. Garcia-Fernandez, concurring; rollo, pp. 20-34.
[2]
[3]
Id. at 36-37.
[4]
Docketed as DARAB Case No. R-0605-0038-96.
Id. at 82-83. Quoted from the DARAB decision, [t]he respective areas of tillage
with the corresponding rental payments are as follows:
[5]
Year Tenure was

Landowner Lease Rentals
Established
8
1. Milagros 60 ares Brgy. Payao, Binalbagan,
Timoteo
1967
cavans/croppin
Villanueva Neg. Occidental
Ramos
g
70
2. Romeo
1.30 has., Brgy. Payao,
Rafael
1966
cavans/croppin
Hernaez
Binalbagan, Neg. Occidental
Ramos
g
2.50 has. Sitio Suwangan, Brgy.
3. Gaudencio
Vicente
10% of the
Libacao, Himamaylan, Neg.
1976
Arnaez
Ferrero
produce
Occidental
4. Teofilo
1972
Timoteo
10% of the
Hernaez
Ramos
produce
Name
Area Location
Occidental
5. Crisanto
Canja
88 ares Brgy. Payao, Binalbagan,

Neg. Occidental

6. Benjamin
Costoy
Occidental
7. Virgilio
1.25 has. Brgy. Payao,
Canja
1.0 ha. Sitio Suwangan, Brgy.
8. Nena
Bayog
Occidental
9. Virginia
Dagohoy
1.0 ha. Brgy. Payao, Binalbagan,

Neg. Occidental
10. Venancio 40 ares. Brgy. Payao,

Semilon
11. Estelita
Bayog
12.
Gaudencio
Villanueva
13.
Marcelino
Amar

Occidental
Occidental
1.30 has (1.0 has. in CA
decision; rollo, p.22 )
1956
Timoteo
Ramos
14
cavans/croppin
g
1986
Marietta
Anteror Cruz
15% of the
produce
1981
Luciano
Tupaz
1966
Timoteo
Ramos
1976
Timoteo
Ramos
1976
Timoteo
Ramos
10% of the
produce
15
cavans/croppin
g
15
cavans/croppin
g
7
cavans/croppin
g
1981
Timoteo
Ramos
1984
Timoteo
Ramos
1972
Timoteo
Ramos
10% of the
produce
15
cavans/croppin
g
15
cavans/croppin
g
Id. at 22-23. Quoted from the CA decision, [t]he names of the occupants in the
subject landholding are as follows:
[6]
Name
1. Milagros Villanueva
2. Romeo Hernaez
3. Felix Castillo
4. Gaudencio Arnaez
5. Teofilo Hernaez
6. Crisanto Canja
7. Benjamin Costoy
8. Virgilio Canja
9. Nena Bayog
10. Virginia Hagonoy
11. Venancio Semilon
Area of Home Lots

270 sq.m.
270 sq.m.
342 sq.m.
196 sq.m.
84 sq.m.
190 sq.m.
110 sq.m.
110 sq.m.
170 sq.m.
94 sq.m.
110 sq.m.
12. Estelita Bayog

13. Gaudencio Villanueva
14. Ermin Villanueva
15. Marcelino Amar
[7]
Rollo, pp. 75-78.
[8]
Id. at 81-89.
[9]
Id. at 27.
[10]
137.75 sq.m.
88 sq.m.
10 sq.m.
500 sq.m.
Supra note 2.
Entitled AN ACT AMENDING CERTAIN SECTIONS OF REPUBLIC ACT NUMBERED

ONE THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED NINETY-NINE, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE
AGRICULTURAL TENANCY ACT OF THE PHILIPPINES, effective June 19, 1959.
[11]
[12]
Section 22(3) of Republic Act No. 1199, as amended by Republic Act No. 2263.
Entitled AN ACT TO ORDAIN THE AGRICULTURAL LAND REFORM CODE AND TO

INSTITUTE LAND REFORMS IN THE PHILIPPINES, INCLUDING THE ABOLITION OF
TENANCY AND THE CHANNELING OF CAPITAL INTO INDUSTRY, PROVIDE FOR THE
NECESSARY IMPLEMENTING AGENCIES, APPROPRIATE FUNDS THEREFOR AND FOR
OTHER PURPOSES, effective August 8, 1963.
[13]
[14]
Id., Section 24.
[15]
Rollo, p. 28.
Republic Act No. 386, entitled AN ACT TO ORDAIN AND INSTITUTE THE CIVIL
CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES, approved June 18, 1949.
[16]
[17]
Id., Article 142.
[18]
Id., Article 148.
[19]
Id., Article 135.
[20]
Id., Article 136.
[21]
Rollo, p. 28
[22]
Id.
[23]
Supra note 5.
Section 3(d) of Republic Act No. 6657 otherwise known as the COMPREHENSIVE
AGRARIAN REFORM LAW OF 1988.
[24]
[25]
Article 2028, CIVIL CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES, as amended.
[26]
Viesca v. Gilinsky, G.R. No. 171698, July 4, 2007, 526 SCRA 533.
[27]
Article 1306, CIVIL CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES, as amended.

G.R.
No.
206779
LEVI STRAUSS & CO., PETITIONER, VS. ATTY. RICARDO R. BLANCAFLOR, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS THE
DIRECTOR
GENERAL
OF
THE
INTELLECTUAL
PROPERTY
OFFICE,
RESPONDENT.
April 20, 2016
SECOND DIVISION
[ G.R. No. 206779, April 20, 2016 ]
LEVI STRAUSS & CO., PETITIONER, VS. ATTY. RICARDO R.
BLANCAFLOR, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS THE DIRECTOR
GENERAL OF THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY OFFICE,
RESPONDENT.
DECISION
BRION, J.:
We resolve the petition for review on certiorari[1] filed by the petitioner Levi Strauss
& Co. (Levi's) assailing the August 13, 2012[2] and April 17, 2013[3] resolutions of
the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 123957.
THE FACTS
Levi's is a corporation registered under the laws of the State of Delaware, United
States of America.[4]
On October 11, 1999, Levi's filed an application [5] before the Intellectual Property
Office (IPO) to register the mark TAB DEVICE covering various goods.[6]
The TAB DEVICE trademark is described as a small marker or tab of textile material,
appearing on and affixed permanently to the garment's exterior and is visible while
the garment is worn.[7]
On February 17, 2006, the trademark examiner rejected [8] Levi's trademark
application because there is nothing in the subject mark that serves to distinguish
Levi's goods; hence, the tab itself does not function as a trademark. [9] The
trademark examiner also stated that Levi's cannot exclusively appropriate the tab's
use because a tab of textile is customarily used on the products covered by the
trademark application.[10]
On July 5, 2006, Levi's appealed the examiner's rejection of the trademark
application to the IPO Director of Trademarks (Director).[11] The Director issued
adecision[12] that affirmed the trademark examiner's findings. On August 22, 2007,
Levi's filed a motion for reconsideration[13] of the Director's decision, which the
Director denied[14] for "lack of merit."
On March 24, 2011, Levi's filed its Appeal Memorandum [15] with the respondent IPO
Director-General, Atty. Ricardo R. Blancaflor (Director-General), and provided a list
of certificates of registration[16] in other countries covering "nearly identical TAB
DEVICE trademark registrations."
THE IPO DIRECTOR-GENERAL RULING
On March 12, 2012, the Director-General issued a decision [17] rejecting the TAB
DEVICE trademark application and dismissing Levi's appeal.[18]
The Director-General held that the TAB DEVICE mark is not distinctive because
there is nothing in the mark that enables a person to distinguish it from other
similar "tabs of textile."[19] The subject mark consists solely of a rectangular tab of
textile that does not point out the origin or source of the goods or services to
distinguish it from another.[20]
The Director-General adopted the Director's observations that there is the garment
industry practice of sewing small tabs of textile in the seams of clothing, which
Levi's cannot appropriate to its exclusive use by the registration of the TAB DEVICE
mark.[21]
The Director-General did not accord evidentiary weight to the certificates of
registrations of Levi's in other countries and held that the rights to a mark are not
acquired through registration in other countries. [22] The Director-General explained
that under the Intellectual Property Code, the mark's capability to distinguish one's
goods or services from another is the very essence of a mark registration. [23] The
registered marks are different from the subject TAB DEVICE mark. [24] The
certificates of registration also do not show that they cover similar goods covered
by the subject trademark application.[25]
Levi's only recourse was to file a Petition for Review with the CA within 15 days
from receipt of the IPO Director-General ruling, or until March 29, 2012, under Rule
43 of the Rules of Court to assail the IPO Director-General's ruling. [26]
On March 28, 2012, Levi's filed a Motion for Extension of Time (first motion for
extension) to file a verified petition for review with the CA; it sought an additional
15 days, or until April 13, 2012, to file the petition for review.[27] Levi's counsel
averred that it needed the extension because of pressure from other equally
important professional work and it needed to gather further evidence. [28]
On April 13, 2012, Levi's filed a Second Motion for Extension of Time;[29] it asked
this time for an additional 15 days, or until April 28, 2012, to file the petition for
review.
Levi's claimed that while the draft of the petition was almost complete, there was
yet again pressure from other equally urgent professional work; and the
consularized special power of attorney (SPA) needed for the filing of the petition
and its verification were still en route from the United States.[30] Levi's claimed that
the delay in the SPA consularization was due to the closed Philippine Consulate
Office in San Francisco, USA, from April 5, 2012 to April 9, 2012, in observance of
the Holy Week and the Araw ng Kagitingan holiday.[31]
THE CA RULING
On April 27, 2012, Levi's filed its petition for review (CA petition for review).[32]
On June 1, 2012, the CA granted the first motion for extension. [33]
On August 13, 2012, the CA issued a Resolution [34] dismissing Levi's petition
outright. The CA held that Levi's failed to present a compelling reason for the CA to
grant the second motion for extension.[35] According to the CA, Levi's should have
secured the necessary SPA earlier and anticipated the closure of the Philippine
Consulate Office due to the Philippine holidays. [36] Further, pressure from other
equally urgent professional work is not a compelling reason for an extension. [37]
On September 6, 2012, Levi's filed a motion for reconsideration of the CA dismissal
of the petition.[38] Levi's counsel explained that Levi's only decided to proceed with
the filing of the CA petition for review on April 3, 2012 and it was only on that date
that the SPA was executed and notarized.[39]
In a CA Resolution dated April 17, 2013,[40] the CA denied Levi's motion for
reconsideration. The CA held that Levi's should have been diligent enough to decide
before the end of the first fifteen days or until March 29, 2012 whether it would
proceed with the filing of the petition for review.[41] The first extension was not
granted to give Levi's time to decide on whether to file its petition, but to give
Levi's more time to gather further evidence and to finalize the petition. [42]
THE PETITION
Levi's filed the present petition for review on certiorari[43] to challenge the CA
resolutions which dismissed Levi's CA petition for review.
Levi's principally argues that there are compelling reasons to grant the second
motion for extension.[44]
Levi's avers that its SPA had already been executed and notarized as early as April
3, 2012.[45] In order to comply with Section 24,[46] Rule 132 of the Revised Rules on
Evidence, Levi's sought the Philippine consulate's authentication of the notarized
SPA.[47] Levi's, however, did not anticipate that the Philippine Consulate Office would
be closed during the Holy Week and the Araw ng Kagitingan holiday since these
were regular working days in the United States. [48]
Levi's also avers that there was no point for the CA to deny the second motion for
extension since the CA did not promptly act on Levi's first motion for extension and
no prejudice would accrue to the respondent by granting the second motion for
extension.[49] Levi's pointed out that the Court belatedly granted the first motion for
extension only on June 1, 2012, or only after three and a half months since Levi's
filing of the CA petition for review on April 27, 2012. [50]
THE ISSUE
The core issue of the petition is whether or not the CA gravely erred in dismissing
Levi's CA petition for review on the ground that Levi's filed the CA petition beyond
the extended reglementary period.
OUR RULING
We deny the petition for lack of merit.
Rule 43 of the Rules of Court governs the appeals from quasi-judicial agencies, such
as the IPO, to the CA. Section 1 of Rule 43 provides:
Section 1. Scope. This Rule shall apply to appeals from judgments or final
orders of the Court of Tax Appeals and from awards, judgments, final orders or
resolutions of or authorized by any quasi-judicial agency in the exercise of its
quasi-judicial functions. Among these agencies are the Civil Service Commission,
Central Board of Assessment Appeals, Securities and Exchange Commission, Office
of the President, Land Registration Authority, Social Security Commission, Civil
Aeronautics Board, Bureau of Patents, Trademarks and Technology Transfer,
National Electrification Administration, Energy Regulatory Board, National
Telecommunications Commission, Department of Agrarian Reform under Republic
Act No. 6657, Government Service Insurance System, Employees Compensation
Commission, Agricultural Invention Board, Insurance Commission, Philippine Atomic
Energy Commission, Board of Investments, Construction Industry Arbitration
Commission, and voluntary arbitrators authorized by law. (emphases supplied)
Section 4, Rule 43 of the Rules of Court provides for the period to appeal to the CA
from the judgments or orders of quasi-judicial agencies:
Section 4. Period of appeal. The appeal shall be taken within fifteen (15) days
from notice of the award, judgment, final order or resolution, or from the date of its
last publication, if publication is required by law for its effectivity, or of the denial of
petitioner's motion for new trial or reconsideration duly filed in accordance with the
governing law of the court or agency a quo. Only one (1) motion for reconsideration
shall be allowed. Upon proper motion and the payment of the full amount of the
docket fee before the expiration of the reglementary period, the Court of Appeals
may grant an additional period of fifteen (15) days only within which to file
the petition for review. No further extension shall be granted except for
the most compelling reason and in no case to exceed fifteen (15) days.
(emphasis and underscoring supplied)
The rule is clear that an appeal to the CA must be filed within a period of fifteen
(15) days. While an extension of fifteen (15) days and a further extension of
another fifteen (15) days may be requested, the second extension may be granted
at the CA's discretion and only for the most compelling reason.
Motions for extensions are not granted as a matter of right but in the sound
discretion of the court, and lawyers should never presume that their motions for
extensions or postponement will be granted or that they will be granted the length
of time they pray for.[51] Further, the general rule is that a second motion for
extension is not granted, except when the CA finds a compelling reason to grant the
extension.[52]
The CA correctly held that Levi's failed to present a compelling reason to grant the
second motion for extension.[53]
Levi's, by its own admission, only decided to proceed with the filing of the CA
petition for review after the lapse of the first fifteen-day period for filing. [54] Levi's
late decision necessarily delayed the execution and notarization of the SPA and,
consequently, the Philippine Consulate Offices' authentication of the SPA. Levi's
cannot excuse its delay by citing its failure to anticipate the Philippine Consulate
Office's closure due to the observance of the Philippine holidays. Certainly, Levi's
own delay is not a compelling reason for the grant of a second extension to file a
CA petition for review.
Levi's cannot also assume that its second motion for extension would be granted
since the CA did not immediately act on the first and second motions for extension.
In Go v. BPI Finance Corporation,[55] we held that a party cannot use the CA's
delayed action on a motion for extension as an excuse to delay the filing of the
pleading as a party cannot make any assumption on how his motion would be
resolved. "In fact, faced with the failure to act, the conclusion is that no favorable
action had taken place and the motion had been denied." [56]
While the CA's late action on Levi's motions for extension is a response that this
Court does not approve of, Levi's cannot use the CA's delay as an excuse to assume
that the CA granted its second motion for extension and delay the filing of the CA
petition for review.
To stress, the right to appeal is a statutory right, not a natural nor a constitutional
right.[57] The party who intends to appeal must comply with the procedures and
rules governing appeals; otherwise, the right of appeal may be lost or squandered.
[58]
The perfection of an appeal in the manner and within the period permitted by
law is not only mandatory, but jurisdictional, and the failure to perfect that appeal
renders the judgment of the court final and executory.[59]
It is true that in a number of instances, the Court has relaxed the governing periods
of appeal in order to serve substantial justice.[60] The instant case, however, does
not present itself to be an exceptional case to warrant the relaxation of the Rules on
procedure. The following pronouncement is applicable to the present case:
While petitioner pleads that a liberal, not literal, interpretation of the rules should
be our policy guidance, nevertheless procedural rules are not to be disdained as
mere technicalities. They may not be ignored to suit the convenience of a party.
Adjective law ensures the effective enforcement of substantive rights through the
orderly and speedy administration of justice. Rules are not intended to hamper
litigants or complicate litigation. But they help provide for a vital system of justice
where suitors may be heard in the correct form and manner, at the prescribed time
in a peaceful though adversarial confrontation before a judge whose authority
litigants acknowledge. Public order and our system of justice are well served by a
conscientious observance of the rules of procedure x x x. [61]
Levi's request for the Court to review its case on the merits should be denied as
well. The ruling of the IPO became final and executory after the period to appeal
expired without the perfection of Levi's' appeal. The Court, therefore, may no
longer review it.
WHEREFORE, we hereby DENY the petition for review on certiorari. The
resolutions dated August 13, 2012 and April 17, 2013, of the Court of Appeals in
CA-G.R. SP No. 123957 are AFFIRMED. Costs against the petitioner.
SO ORDERED.
[1]
Rollo, pp. 9-59.
Id. at 67-70. Penned by Associate Justice Angelita A. Gacutan and concurred in

by Associate Justices Fernanda Lampas Peralta and Manuel M. Barrios.
[2]
Id. at 72-74. Penned by Associate Justice Angelita A. Gacutan and concurred in

by Associate Justices Fernanda Lampas Peralta and Manuel M. Barrios.
[3]
[4]
Id. at 12.
[5]
Application No. 4-1999-007715. Id. at 129-130.
[6]
Id. at 249.
The various goods covered are pants, bib overalls, coveralls, jackets, shirts, shorts,
skirts, vests, blouses, denim, diaper covers, dresses, caps, shoes, hats, socks,
belts, culottes, t-shirts, suspenders, gloves and scarves, attache cases, brief cases,
wallets, and eyeglass cases.

Id. at 20. The TAB DEVICE is applied to goods by stitching an end of the tab into
one of the regular structural seams located on the garment's exterior, with a portion
of the tab visibly extending from the edge of the seam.
[7]
[8]
Id. at 136.
[9]
Id.
[10]
Id.
[11]
Id. at 172.
[12]
IPO Director of Trademarks Decision. Id. at 170-176.
[13]
Id. at 177-187.
[14]
Order dated March 7, 2011. Id. at 138-139.
[15]
Id. at 190-239.
[16]
Id. at 198-210.
[17]
Id. at 249-253.
[18]
Id. at 253.
[19]
Id. at 251.
[20]
Id. at 252.
[21]
Id. at 251.
[22]
Id. at 252.
[23]
Id.
[24]
Id.
[25]
Id.
[26]
Id. at 24.
[27]
Id. at 68.
[28]
Id.
[29]
Id. at 75-77.
[30]
Id. at 75-76.
[31]
Id. at 76.
[32]
Id. at 80-122
[33]
Id. at 24.
[34]
Id. at 67-70.
[35]
Id. at 69.
[36]
Id. at 70.
[37]
Id. at 69.
[38]
Id. at 25.
[39]
Id. at 73.
[40]
Id. at 72-74.
[41]
Id. at 73.
[42]
Id. at 73-74.
[43]
Id. at 9-51.
[44]
Id. at 27-31.
[45]
Id. at 30.
Section 24. Proof of official record. The record of public documents referred
to in paragraph (a) of Section 19, when admissible for any purpose, may be
evidenced by an official publication thereof or by a copy attested by the officer
having the legal custody of the record, or by his deputy, and accompanied, if the
[46]
record is not kept in the Philippines, with a certificate that such officer has the
custody. If the office in which the record is kept is in foreign country, the certificate
may be made by a secretary of the embassy or legation, consul general consul, vice
consul, or consular agent or by any officer in the foreign service of the Philippines
stationed in the foreign country in which the record is kept, and authenticated by
the seal of his office. (25a) (underscoring supplied).
[47]
Supra note 1, at 29-30.
[48]
Id. at 30.
[49]
Id. at 31.
[50]
Id.
Cosmo Entertainment Management, Inc. v. La Ville Commercial Corporation,

G.R. No. 152801, August 20, 2004, 437 SCRA 145, 150.
[51]
[52]
Id. at 150.
[53]
Supra note 1, at 69.
[54]
Id. at 73.
[55]
G.R. No. 199354, June 26, 2013, 700 SCRA 125, 131.
[56]
Id. at 131.
[57]
Id. at 132.
[58]
Id.
[59]
Id.
Boardwalk Business Ventures, Inc. v. Villareal, G.R. No. 181182, April 10, 2013,
695 SCRA 468, 481.
[60]
Cosmo Entertainment Management, Inc., supra note 51, at 151,

citing Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Court of Appeals, 351 SCRA 436.
[61]

G.R.
No.
186107
NARCISA M. NICOLAS, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND SPOUSES RALPH ADORABLE AND ROWENA
ADORABLE,
RESPONDENTS.
April 20, 2016
SECOND DIVISION
[ G.R. No. 186107, April 20, 2016 ]
NARCISA M. NICOLAS, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES AND SPOUSES RALPH ADORABLE AND ROWENA
ADORABLE, RESPONDENTS.
RESOLUTION
DEL CASTILLO, J.:
Assailed in this Petition for Review on Certiorari is the November 17, 2008
Decision[1] of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 31177 affirming with
modification the August 27, 2007 Judgment[2] of the Regional Trial Court (RTC),
Branch 274, Paraaque City finding Narcisa M. Nicolas (petitioner) guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of Estafa through Falsification of Public Document.
Based on Ralph T. Adorable's (Ralph) Complaint-Affidavit[3] dated September 12,
2000, petitioner, along with Catalina M. Cacho (Cacho), Primo G. Espiritu (Espiritu)
and Raquel Dagsil Cagadas (Cagadas), was charged, in an Information dated March
29, 2001 and filed before the RTC of Paraaque City, with the crime of Estafa
through Falsification of Public Documents. The accusatory portion of the Information
reads:
That sometime in December 1996 or prior thereto, in the City of Paraaque,

Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named
accused, being then private persons, conspiring and confederating together and all
of them mutually helping and aiding one another, by means of deceit, false
pretenses and fraudulent acts, did then and there willfully unlawfully and feloniously
defraud complainants Spouses Ralph Adorable and Rowena Sta, Ana Adorable in the
following manner, to wit: the complainants purchased 293 square meter lot from
the accused worth P644,600.00 and after having paid the same, the accused
mortgaged the said property to another person by signing the names of the
complainants on the Deed of Real Estate Mortgage and Deed of Absolute Sale
making it appear that they signed the same when in fact did not so participate as
they were in Belgium, and once in possession of the amount, accused appropriated,
applied and converted the same to their own personal use, to the damage and
prejudice of complainants Spouses Ralph Adorable and Rowena Sta. Ana Adorable,
in the aforementioned amount of P644,600.00.
CONTRARY TO LAW.[4]
On her arraignment on August 6, 2001, petitioner pleaded not guilty. Thereafter, a
pre-trial conference was conducted and terminated on October 8, 2002.
During the trial, the prosecution presented as witnesses Ralph and his brother Abel
Adorable (Abel) whose testimonies, woven together, established the following:
While in Belgium as an overseas worker, Ralph conveyed to Abel his interest in
acquiring a residential land in the Philippines. When Ralph came home in the first
week of December 1996, he met petitioner at her residence at Matatdo, San Isidro,
Sucat, Paraaque City. Abel introduced petitioner to Ralph as a real estate agent
and a friend of his mother-in-law. Petitioner showed a 293-square meter lot located
at Matatdo with a selling price of P2,500.00 per square meter. Petitioner claimed to
be the owner of the property though the title was not yet registered in her name.
She told Ralph that the registered owners, Conrado and Virginia Montero, will
transfer the title directly to him to avoid paying higher taxes. Ralph agreed and
gave a partial payment of P350,000.00[5] and the remaining balance to be paid in
installment. Soon after, a Deed of Absolute Sale[6] covering the property was
executed on December 4, 1996. Meanwhile, on December 15, 1996, Ralph went
back to Belgium. In January 1997, Abel informed him that the property is now
registered in his (Ralph) name under Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 119421.
[7]
In December 1997, however, petitioner asked from Abel the owner's duplicate
copy of the title, claiming that there is a mistake in the area which must be
corrected.
When Ralph returned to the Philippines, he visited the property. To his surprise,
there was a notice posted on said property which reads, "lot for sale." Upon inquiry
at the Registry of Deeds of Paraaque City, Ralph discovered that his title over the
property has already been transferred by virtue of a Deed of Absolute
Sale[8]purporting to have been executed by him in favor of Cagadas, Cacho and
Espiritu. Ralph's TCT No. 119421 was already cancelled and in lieu thereof TCT No.
138613[9]was issued in the name of Cagadas, while TCT No. 138614 [10] was issued
in the names of Cacho and Espiritu. Ralph denied his signature and that of his wife
Rowena in the Deed of Absolute Sale. He maintained mat they were in Belgium
when the said deed was notarized on October 8, 1998, Ralph also discovered mat
his property was previously mortgaged to the spouses Emilio and Magdalena
Marquez. He likewise denied his and his wife's signature on the Real Estate
Mortgage[11] for the same reason that they were out of the country when the
mortgage was allegedly executed on October 20, 1997. When confronted by Ralph
upon his return, petitioner asked for forgiveness because she sold the property. She
offered to swap a 300-square meter lot located in Greenheights Subdivision for the
sold lot. The proposed swapping did not, however, materialize since petitioner was
found to own only about 50 square meters of the Greenheights property. Repeated
request for petitioner to return the title was made by Abel and Ralph, but to no
avail. Consequently, petitioner was charged with the crime of estafa through
falsification of public document.
Petitioner denied forging the signature of Ralph and his wife in the Real Estate
Mortgage and in the Deed of Absolute Sale. She claimed that it was Abel who
mortgaged the subject property to the spouses Marquez and later sold the same to
Cacho, Espiritu and Cagadas.
Ruling of the Regional Trial Court
The RTC found prosecution witnesses Ralph and Abel and their testimonies credible
while it did not give weight and credence to petitioner's defense labeling it as an
afterthought, contrived and incredible. In its Judgment dated August 27, 2007, the
trial court found petitioner guilty as charged while Cacho, Espiritu and Cagadas
were acquitted, thus:
WHEREFORE, after duly considering the foregoing, the Court finds the accused
Narcisa Mendoza Nicolas GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Estafa
Through Falsification of Public Document as charged in the Information, and
accordingly therefore hereby penalizes the said accused to suffer the indeterminate
sentence of six (6) months and one (1) day of prision correccional as minimum, to
twenty (20) years of reclusion temporal as maximum, to pay the offended party the
sum of Php344,000.00 as indemnity, and costs, with accessory penalty of civil
interdiction during the period of the sentence and perpetual absolute
disqualification for the exercise of the right of suffrage.
As to accused Raquel Dagsil Cagadas, Catalina Cacho and Primo Espiritu, the Court
finds them not GUILTY as charged in the Information and accordingly therefore
hereby acquits the said accused therefrom.
SO ORDERED.[12]
Ruling of the Court of Appeals
Petitioner appealed to the CA. In its assailed Decision dated November 17, 2008,
the CA affirmed the RTC's Judgment, but modified the amount of actual damages
awarded. The CA ruled It was established in evidence that the owner's duplicate copy of TCT No. 119421
covering the Matatdo property was in the possession of the appellant as she
deceitfully took the same from Abel under the false pretense that the same was
needed for correction of the measurement of the area of the Matatdo property as
stated in the said TCT, when, in truth and in fact, what appellant did was to
mortgage and later on sell the Matatdo property, by making it appear that the
owners Sps. Ralph and Rowena participated therein when they did not in fact so
participate. It was admitted by appellant in the above quoted Agreement that she
was the one who sold the Matatdo property to third persons. Clearly, appellant, as
the material author, made it appear that Sps. Ralph and Rowena, who were then in
Belgium as they returned to the Philippines only in 2000, participated in the
execution of the Real Estate Mortgage dated 20 October 1997 (Exhibit "I") over the
Matatdo property in favor of Sps. Emilio and Magdalena Marquez, as well as in the
Deed of Absolute Sale dated 08 October 1998 (Exhibit "E") selling the Matatdo
property to appellant's co-accused Cacho, Epiritu and Cagadas, when said Sps.
Ralph and Rowena, as owners thereof, did not in fact do so, to their damage and
prejudice, Evidently, appellant is guilty of the complex crime of estafa through
falsification of public document. x x x x
xxxx
As previously discussed, the prosecution was only able to establish that appellant
received the total amount of Php572,000.00 as payment for the Matatdo property.
Since the amount of Php300,000.00 was already returned by the appellant to
Ralph, as admitted by the latter, only the remaining defrauded amount of
Php272,000.00 must be paid by appellant to Sps. Ralph and Rowena. [13]
Hence, the present Petition.
Petitioner raises the following issues:
I
WHETHER X X X THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED BY THE PROSECUTION, THAT THE
HONORABLE FOURTEENTH DIVISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS ADOPTED AS
BASIS FOR ITS DECISION, WAS SUFFICIENT TO APPROXIMATE THE DEGREE
REQUIRED BY LAW TO PROVE THE GUILT OF ACCUSED NARCISA M. NICOLAS

BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.
II
WHETHER XXX THE HONORABLE FOURTEENTH DIVISION OF THE COURT OF
APPEALS UNDERTOOK A REVIEW OF THE EVIDENCE BEYOND THE FINDINGS OF
THE TRIAL COURT.[14]
We deny the Petition
Verily, the resolution of the issues raised is factual in nature and calls for a review
of the evidence already considered in the proceedings below.
"Basic is the rule in this jurisdiction that only questions of law may be raised in a
petition for review under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court, The jurisdiction of
the Supreme Court in cases brought to it from the Court of Appeals is limited to
reviewing errors of law, the findings of fact of the appellate court being conclusive.
We have emphatically declared that it is not the function of this Court to analyze or
weigh such evidence all over again, its jurisdiction being limited to reviewing errors
of law that may have been committed by the lower court. x x x
x x x Where the factual findings of both the trial court and the Court of Appeals
coincide, [as in this case,] the same are binding on this Court. We stress that,
subject to some exceptional instances, [none of which is present in this case,] only
questions of law - not questions of fact - may be raised before this Court in a
petition for review under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court." [15]
Whether petitioner falsified the signatures of Ralph and his wife in the Deed of
Absolute Sale dated October 8, 1998 and the Real Estate Mortgage dated October
20, 1997 is a question of fact. Following the foregoing tenet, therefore, it is not
reviewable in this Rule 45 petition.
Moreover, this observation notwithstanding, we are convinced that the challenged
Decision upholding the existence of the element of the complex crime charged in
the Information appears to be justified on the basis of the findings of fact and
reasons relied upon by the CA. To us the conclusion drawn from such findings is not
based on mere speculation, surmises or conjecture as petitioner represents.
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED for lack of merit. Accordingly, the
assailed Court of Appeals Decision dated November 17, 2008 in CA-G.R. CR No.
31177 is hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
Carpio, (Chairperson), Brion, Mendoza, and Leonen, JJ., concur.
CA rollo, pp. 127-166; penned by Associate Justice Celia C. Librea-Leagogo and

concurred in by Associate Justices Mario L. Guaria III and Apolinario D. Bruselas,
Jr.
[1]
[2]
Records, pp. 805-820; penned by Judge Fortunito L. Madrona.
[3]
Id. at 4-6.
[4]
Id. at 2.
[5]
Id. at 291.
[6]
Id. at 292-293.
[7]
Id. at 294.
[8]
Id. at 303-304.
[9]
Id. at 308-309.
[10]
Id. at 310.
[11]
Id. at 311-312.
[12]
Id. at 796.
[13]
CA rollo, pp. 157 & 162.
[14]
Rollo, p, 15.
Soriamont Steamship Agencies, Inc. v. Sprint Transport Services, Inc., 610 Phil.
291, 300 (2009).
[15]

G.R.
No.
207659
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. FUNDADOR CAMPOSANO Y TIOLANTO, @ "Punday/Masta"

AND
HERMAN'
DE
LOS
REYES
"YOB,"
ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.
April 20, 2016
SECOND DIVISION
[ G.R. No. 207659, April 20, 2016 ]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS.
FUNDADOR CAMPOSANO Y TIOLANTO, @ "Punday/Masta"
AND HERMAN' DE LOS REYES @ "YOB," ACCUSEDAPPELLANTS.
DECISION
DEL CASTILLO, J.:
This is an appeal from the October 17, 2012 Decision [1] of the Court of Appeals (CA)
in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No, 04854 which affirmed with modification the March 15, 2010
Decision[2] of Branch 199, Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Las Pias City, in Criminal
Case No. 01-0048, finding appellants Fundador Camposano y Tiolanto alias
"Punday/Masta" (Camposano) and Herman de los Reyes alias "Yob" (De los Reyes)
(appellants, collectively) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder and
sentencing each of them to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpeiua,
Factual Antecedents
Appellants were indicted for murder for stabbing the 16-year old minor Esmeraldo
Ilao (Ilao) to death on January 11, 2001. The indictment against the two stemmed
from the following Amended Information:
That on or about the 11th day of January, 2001, in the City of Las Pias, Philippines,
and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused,
conspiring and confederating together and both of them mutually helping and
aiding each other, without justifiable motive with intent to kill and by means of
treachery and evident premeditation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously, attack, assault and stab with a deadly weapon (fan knife) one
Esmeraldo Ilao y Guillemer, a sixteen (16) year old minor, which directly caused his
death.
CONTRARY TO LAW.[3]
Appellants pleaded not guilty to the foregoing Amended Information during their
separate arraignment dates. After a pre-trial conference, trial on the merits
followed.
Version of the Prosecution
The prosecution presented the following witnesses: Fidel Barreno Flores (Flores),
Randy Gabion (Gabion), Alfred Kempis (Kempis), Joey Crudo (Crudo), Myrna IlaoSan Pedro (San Pedro), and Nicasio Saoi (Saoi). Their collective testimonies are
summarized as follows:
The first prosecution witness, Security Guard Flores, testified that at around 12:45
in the early morning of January 11, 2001, he was at the Al-ber Billiard Hall in
Zapote Plaza, Las Pias City playing billiards when he saw two persons chasing
another person down the road. From a distance of about two meters, Flores saw the
person being pursued fall face down on the ground. The two pursuers then stabbed
the person they were chasing with what looked to him (Flores) as ice picks. The
victim attempted to stand up but his two assailants continued to stab him, causing
him to fall down anew on the pavement. At that point, the people within the
immediate vicinity started to shout forcing the two assailants to flee from the crime
scene. But as the two assailants passed by the door of the billiard hall, Flores saw
their faces. Flores identified these assailants as Camposano, who was clad in an
orange shirt, and De los Reyes who was wearing a black shirt.
Flores approached the fallen victim after the two assailants had fled the crime
scene. Flores identified the victim as Ilao whom he (Flores) well knew because he
(Flores) used to rent a room in Ilao's house. He then brought Ilao to the Las Pias
District Hospital. But Ilao was already dead by the time they reached the hospital.
Gabion, the second prosecution witness, testified that on the early morning of
January 11, 2001, he was at the Al-ber Billiard Hall in Zapote Plaza where he
witnessed Camposano and De los Reyes take turns in stabbing Ilao. Gabion claimed
that he saw Ilao face down on the ground when Camposano went on top of him,
held him by the neck, and stabbed him in the chest and both sides of his abdomen.
Gabion claimed that he also saw De los Reyes, who was then in front of Ilao, stab
the latter's lower back.
Gabion then screamed at the assailants, and Camposano and De los Reyes took to
their heels in different directions. After this, Gabion went after Camposano but
retreated when the latter pointed an ice pick at him. He later went back to the
crime scene, only to find that Ilao had already been taken to a hospital.
The third prosecution witness, Kempis, testified that he was with Ilao when the
latter was stabbed to death. According to Kempis, he and Ilao were then attending
a birthday party at the Basa Compound in Zapote, Las Pias City when a certain
Ricky, a member of the Tropang Fugazi/Pugasi, told them that the herein appellants
whom this eyewitness had known "for a long time" were challenging Ilao to a fight,
a challenge which came as a surprise to the now deceased Ilao. After he and Ilao
had eaten goto at the Zapote Plaza they sensed that the assailants noticed their
presence so they scampered away. However, he (Kempis) was able to see when De
los Reyes hit Ilao's head with a "2 x 2" lumber, as he (Kempis) was only six meters
away from these two. He also saw the other appellant Camposano stab Ilao on the
chest with a tres cantos ice pick. Kempis fled to look for help but when he returned
with some friends, Ilao had already been brought to a hospital.
The fourth prosecution witness, Crudo, testified that just prior to the stabbing
incident, he and Ilao and two other friends, Ampy and Lloyd, decided to eat
porridge at the Zapote Plaza, Las Pias City at about 1:20 o'clock that early
morning of January 11, 2001. While there, he saw the appellants and five of their
companions. Sensing trouble, he (Crudo) and his companions quickly scampered
away in different directions, with the now deceased Ilao being joined by Ampy.
Unfortunately, Ilao tell down on the ground and in that situation De los Reyes
stabbed Ilao on the chest with a tres cantos ice pick. He (Crudo) then called for
their friends and went after the two appellants, but did not catch up with them.
The fifth prosecution witness, San Pedro, is the aunt of the late Ilao and his nearest
relative. She was presented to testify on the expenses incurred by them for the
hospitalization, burial, and other expenses of Ilao. This witness claimed that they
spent the sum of P35,000.00 for Ilao's hospitalization, burial and other expenses.
The sixth prosecution witness, Saoi, is the records custodian of the Medico Legal
Division of the National Bureau of Investigation. This witness identified Autopsy
Report No. N-01-36 which was prepared by Dr. Ronaldo Mendez who autopsied
Ilao's cadaver. Autopsy Report No. N-01-36 showed that the cause of Ilao's death
was stab wounds.
Version of the Defense
Both appellants denied the charges against them.
Camposano testified that at around 1:30 o'clock in the morning of January 11,
2001, he and his six companions, all members of the Fugazi/Pugasi Gang, were on
their way to a friend's house. As they were crossing Zapote bridge, someone threw
a pillbox at them, causing them to run away to avoid the explosion. They
encountered the Sad Army gang and a brawl ensued. As a result, he was stabbed in
the chest. Because of his wound, he was confined for a week at the Paraaque
Community Hospital. He claimed that he was arrested at the said hospital.
To corroborate Camposano's testimony, the defense presented the following
witnesses: Dr. Renato Borja (Dr. Borja), SJ04 Ernie Servando (SJ04 Servando),
Rizalina Suarez (Suarez), and Dr. Cornelio Carandang (Dr. Carandang). Their
collective testimonies are summarized as follows.
The first witness for the defense, Dr. Borja, a medical doctor, claimed that on
January 11,2001, past 12:00 o'clock in the early morning, Camposano came to the
emergency room of the Paraaque Community Hospital "stooped and clutching his
chest;" and that Camposano told him that there was a rumble during which he was
stabbed in the nipple area. Dr. Borja said that he treated Camposano for a wound
on his chest.
The second witness for the defense, SJ04 Servando, the Chief of the Records
Section of the Bureau of Jail Management and Penology of Las Pias City, testified
that according to the records of their office, Camposano had an injury at the time
he was committed to their office on January 17,2001.
The third witness for the defense, Suarez, is a civilian nurse at the Las Pias City
Jail. This witness testified that she personally attended to Camposano's stab wound
after he was committed to the Las Pifias City Jail on January 17, 2001. She claimed
that she dressed and sutured the wound and monitored Camposano's vital signs
and medications.
The fourth witness for the defense, Dr. Carandang, a medical consultant at the City
Health Office of Las Pifias City, testified that he examined Camposano on January
17, 2001 at around 10:35 o'clock in the morning; that Camposano had a stab
wound on the right chest; that Camposano had earlier been treated by another
physician who found Camposano to have sustained a stab wound of undetermined
depth on the right side of his chest.
Appellant De los Reyes interposed alibi, and denied any participation in the killing of
Ilao. He asserted that on the early evening of January 10, 2001, he was at the
house of a friend with whom he had a drinking spree that lasted until about 11:00
o'clock that same evening; that after this drinking session he invited his friends to
his house where they had supper and watched DVD movies. De los Reyes averred
that he and his aunt also watched DVD movies at home until 12:30 o'clock in the
early morning of January 11, 2001.
To support his alibi and denial, De los Reyes presented his friend Marco Polo Lyon
(Lyon) and his aunt Leticia Buencamino (Buencamino).
Lyon testified that he and De los Reyes were at his (Lyon's) house during their
drinking spree, which began at around 10:30 o'clock in the evening of January 10,
2001; that after this, they went to De los Reyes's house at Daniel Fajardo Street in
Las Pias City, where they took supper and watched DVD movies; and that at about
2:00 o'clock in the morning of the following day, they went home.
Buencamino, aunt of the appellant De los Reyes and a resident of 163 Daniel
Fajardo Street at Las Pias City, testified that at around 12:00 midnight that same
day, January 11, 2001, her nephew De los Reyes, and his friend went to their house
to watch DVD,
On March 15, 2010 the RTC of Las Pias City, Branch 199, rendered its Decision
finding appellants guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder and
sentenced each of these two to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. The RTC
appreciated the qualifying aggravating circumstance of treachery, having found that
both appellants employed means which directly and specially insured that their
slaying of Ilao was without risk to themselves on account of any retaliatory acts
that their victim might make or take. The RTC held that the assault that these two
mounted against their victim which resulted in the latter's violent death, was
sudden and unexpected, affording the latter no chance at all to defend himself.
The dispositive part of the RTC's Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, the court finds both accused FUNDADOR CAMPOSANO y TIOLANTO @
Punday/Masta and HERMAN DE LOS REYES @ Yob, GUILTY beyond reasonable
doubt of the crime of MURDER and is hereby sentenced to suffer a penalty of
RECLUSION PERPETUA with the accessory penalty of the law. Further, both accused
are hereby ORDERED to pay jointly and severally the heirs of the victim the
amounts of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and P35,000.00 as actual damages.
Moreover, inasmuch as moral damages are mandatory in cases of murder (without
need to allege and prove such damages), both accused is likewise ordered to
indemnify the heirs of the victim P50.000.00.
Lastly, since the killing of the minor victim was attended by treachery, his heirs are
entitled to exemplary damages in the amount of P25,000,00.

Let a copy of this Decision be furnished the Prosecution, the accused as well as
their counsels.
SO ORDERED.[4]
From this judgment, appellants interposed an appeal to the CA.
In its Decision of October 17, 2012, the CA upheld the RTC and ruled that
appellants killed Ilao with treachery. The CA agreed with the RTC that the
prosecution witnesses had positively identified the appellants as the perpetrators of
the crime.
The CA gave short shrift to the appellants' bare denial and alibi. The CA held that
the appellants did not at all prove that it was indeed physically impossible for them
to be at the crime scene during or at the time the crime was committed. In its
overall assessment, the CA considered the positive testimonies of the prosecution
witnesses far superior to the appellants' self-serving denial and alibi.
The CA thus disposed as follows:
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The assailed Decision of the trial court
dated March 15, 2010 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Appellants FUNDADOR
CAMPOSANO y TIOLANT[O] and HERMAN DE LOS REYES are found GUILTY beyond
reasonable doubt of MURDER and are hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of
reclusion perpetua. Appellants FUNDADOR CAMPOSANO y TIOLANT[O] and
HERMAN DE LOS REYES are also ordered to pay jointly and severally the heirs of
Esmeraldo Ilao the amounts of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, P35,000.00 as actual
damages, P50.000.00 as moral damages and P30,000.00 as exemplary damages.
SO ORDERED.[5]
Hence, the present recourse before this Court.
Assignment of Errors
In their Appellant's Brief,[6] appellants argue that the courts below erred in finding
that their guilt had been proved beyond reasonable doubt; that the testimonies of
the witnesses for the prosecution did not dovetail in all particulars: (1) with regard
to the weapon used in killing the victim, (2) with regard to the relative position of
the appellants when they inflicted the mortal stab wound/s on their victim; (3) with
regard to who between the two appellants was the first to inflict the stab wound on
the victim. Appellants also bewail that the witnesses for the prosecution could not
be capable of giving credible testimonies because they were members of a rival
fraternity. Appellants moreover insist that, in any event the CA, as did the RTC,
erred in appreciating against them the qualifying circumstance of treachery.
Our Ruling
After a careful review of the records of the case, this Court takes the view that both
the RTC and the CA correctly found that both appellants in fact committed the crime
of murder, qualified by treachery.
Clearly devoid of merit is the claim of appellants that the RTC gravely erred in
giving credence to the allegedly inconsistent and incredible accounts of the
prosecution witnesses, and in not sustaining the version of the defense, which
allegedly tended to establish their innocence.
It is settled that the assessment of the witnesses' credibility is best left to the trial
court because of its unique opportunity to scrutinize the witnesses first hand and
observe their demeanor, conduct, and attitude under grilling examination. [7] Here,
the alleged inconsistencies in the witnesses' testimonies, if they be such at all,
referred merely to minor and inconsequential details, which did not at all affect the
substance of their testimonies, much less impair their credibility. In the ultimate
analysis, what really matters in this case is that the prosecution witnesses did in
fact see that it was the appellants who assaulted and killed Ilao that tragic morning
of January 11, 2001. Whether the lethal weapon used to dispatch the victim was
a balisong knife or an ice pick, (plus a "2x2" piece of lumber as prosecution witness
Kempis mentioned in reference to what the appellant De los Reyes used in hitting
the late Ilao's head) is nowhere nearly so important or essential as the
incontrovertible fact that the prosecution witnesses did in fact see that it was the
two appellants who actually assaulted and actually killed Ilao. On this note, the CA
pertinently ruled:
xxx Whether appellants Camposano and De los Reyes used icepicks or knives is
immaterial. Due to the occurrence of the startling event, it is highly possible the
witnesses paid more attention to the stabbing incident than to the instrument being
used by the assailants. What cannot be discounted is the fact that the witnesses
saw the actual stabbing of the victim and the perpetrators of the crime. It is also
immaterial who between the two (2) assailants inflicted the first stab wound. Fidel
Barreno Flores, Alfred Kempis, Randy Gabion, and Joey Crudo were all present
when the stabbing incident happened and positively identified the perpetrators as
appellants Camposano and De los Reyes, xxx[8]
Hence, even assuming for argument's sake that there were inconsistencies in the
testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, particularly in regard to the weapon-ofdeath used, whether it was a balisong knife or an ice pick, these inconsistencies are
minor and inconsequential which even tend to bolster, rather than weaken, the
credibility of the witnesses, for they show that such testimonies were not contrived
or rehearsed.[9]
What is more, appellants failed to impute any ill motive against the prosecution
witnesses. Hence, the presumption is that the prosecution witnesses were not
impelled by ill will when they testified against the appellants; thus, their
testimonies are entitled to full faith and credence.[10]
Indeed, a critical examination of the witnesses' testimonies revealed that their
statements are consistent on all material points. The prosecution witnesses were in
fact able to identify the actual perpetrators and how these perpetrators carried out,
accomplished, or executed their criminal acts. Thus the first prosecution witness
Flores testified as follows:
Pros.
Luang:
Q:
Now, you stated that on January 11, 2001, at around quarter to one, you were at Al-Ber
Billiard Hall in Las Pias, am I correct?
A:
Yes, ma'am.
Q:
What were you doing there?
A:
I was playing.
Q:
And do you remember any unusual incident at that date and time Mr. Witness?
A:
Yes, ma'am.
Q:
What was that Mr, Witness?
A:
While I was playing there was chasing (Habulan).
Q:
Did you see these people who were involved at that "Habulan? "
A:
I saw, Ma'am.
Q:
Who was being chased?
A:
The victim, Ma'am.
Q:
Who' s the victim that you were referring to?
A:
Esmer, Ma'am.
Q:
This Esmer, is he the same Esmeraldo Ilao y Guillemer?
A:
Yes, Ma'am.
Q:
And who was chasing him, Mr, Witness?
A:
Masta and another one (1) wearing a black [t]-shirt who I do not know the name.
Q:
This Masta that you are talking about[,] who is he?
A:
That one, Ma'am.
INTERPRETER: Witness is pointing to the accused.
xxxx
Q:
Now, Mr. Witness, what happened next when you saw the accused and another
A:
Q:
A:
Q:
xxxx
A:
xxxx
Q:
A:
xxxx
Q:
A:
Q:
A:
Q:
A:
Q:
xxxx
A:
Q:
A:
Q:
A:
Q:
A:
Q:
A:
companion chasing Esmer?

Esmer was stabbed.
Who stabbed Esmer?
Masta, Ma'am.
Could you please describe to us how Masta stabbed Esmer?
While Esmer was running, he fell down and Masta was able to overtake him and when
his companion arrived, that one also helped him.
And what was the position of Esmer when Masta stabbed him? .
He tried to stand up and when he was stabbed at the right side of his body, he turned
with his back facing on his back
So when Masta stabbed him, he was still on the ground, x x x facing the ground?
Yes.
Now, you said that after Masta stabbed him at the right side of his body he turned his
back x x x back?
Yes, Ma'am.
When Esmer turned facing Masta now what happened next?
They again stabbed him.
Did you see what Masta used in stabbing Esmer?
Ice [p]ick Ma'am.
You stated that they stabbed him, did you mean the companion of Masta Mr. Witness?
Together with the companion of Masta.
Was the companion of Masta also armed with [a] weapon?
Yes, Ma'am.
What was he armed with?
Ice pick also Ma'am.
So both of them stabbed Esmer?
Yes, Ma'am.[11]
The second prosecution witness, Gabion gave this narrative about what transpired
on January 11, 2001 at the Al-ber Billiard Hall in Zapote Plaza, Las Pias City, thus -
Q:
A:
Q:
A:
Q:
A:
xxxx
Q:
A:
Q:
A:
Why do you know that he died on January 11, 2001?

Because he was repeatedly stabbed, Ma'am.
By whom?
By Masta and Yob, Ma'am,
Why are you so definite by saying that he was repeatedly stabbed by Masta and Yob?
I saw it, Ma'am.
Where was Esmeraldo Hao being stabbed by Yob and Masta, the accused in this case?
Near the Billiard Hall, Ma'am.
Where is this Billiard Hall located?
Zapote Plaza, Ma'am.
xxxx
PROS. LUANG:
Q:
When you saw the accused stabbing Esmeraldo Ilao, x x x what was the position of
Esmeraldo Ilao in relation [to] the accused?
A:
Esmer was lying down on the ground with his face downward and at that point Masta
went on top of the back of Esmer and held his neck with his left ann and began
stabbing him.
xxxx
Q:
How about Herman delos Reyes, where was he when Masta went on top of the back of
Esmer?
A:
He was in front.
Q:
Ofwhom?
A:
In front of Esmer, Ma'am.
Q:
And what was he doing?
A:
He stabbed him on this portion (Witness is pointing at the lower portion of his back.)[12]
The third prosecution witness, Kempis, testified in this wise
Pros. Luang:
Q:
Now Mr. Witness you mentioned a certain Yob and Masta who challenged Esmer for a
fight, during that party on January 10 at 11:00 in the evening, if you see that Yob and
Masta again, would you be able to identify them?
A:
Yes, Ma'am.
xxxx
Q:
Could you please point to them?
A:
That one.
INTERPRETER: Witness is pointing to a person, who answered by the name, Herman de los
Reyes.
PROS. LUANG: How about Masta?
A:
That one.
INTERPRETER: Witness is pointing to another person, who answered by the name, Fundador
Camposano alias Masta.
xxxx
Q:
What happen[ed] to Esmer?
A:
I saw that he was hit by Yob with a piece of wood (2x2)
Q:
How far away were you from Esmer when you saw Yob hit him with a 2x2 piece of
wood?
A:
From here up to the door of this courtroom.
PROS. LUANG: About six (6) meters Your Honor.
Q:
What did you do when you saw Yob hit Esmer with a piece of wood?
A:
I was shocked Ma'am.
Q:
What happened] after that?
A:
I saw M[a]sta stab Esmer.
Q:
And did you see what Masta used in stabbing Esmer?
A:
Yes, Ma'am.
Q:
What did he use?
A:
Q:
A:
Q:
A:
Q:
A:
Tres cantos ice pick.

And at what part of the body did he stab Esmer?
On the chest.
And what was Yob doing while Masta was stabbing Esmer?
He was hitting him on the head.
And what did you do while seeing this tiling happened [sic] to your friend Esmer?
I ran and asked for help."[13]
And the fourth prosecution witness, Crudo, provided this eyewitness account of the
tragedy that befell the late teenager Ilao -
Pros. Montesa:
Q:
Where was this place where you were eating porridge?
A:
At the plaza, Sir.
Q:
Can you tell us the exact address of the plaza?
A:
Zapote Plaza, Las Pias, Sir.
Q:
When you said we, who were your companions, Mr. Witness?
A:
Earner, Ampy, Lloyd and the other one whose name I do not know, Sir.
Q:
This Esmer you just mentioned, you are referring to the victim in this case, Esmeraldo
Ilao?
A:
Yes, Sir.
Q:
While you were eating porridge with these companions of yours, what happened next?
A:
We saw them, Sir.
Q:
You are referring to whom?
A:
They, Yob, Sir.
Q:
Who else?
A:
Masta, Sir,
Q:
Aside from Yob and Masta, who else?
A:
I do not know the others, Sir.
Q:
In your estimate, how many were they?
A:
About seven, Sir.
Q:
While you were eating porridge and you saw the group of Masta and Yob, what
happened?
A:
We moved a distance because I suspected that there would be x x x trouble, Sir.
Q:
What happened thereafter - after moving a distance from the group of Yob and Masta?
A:
We ran away and separated from each other, Sir.
Q:
What happened next?
A:
Ampy and Esmer separated from us.
Q:
After Ampy and Esmer separated themselves, what else happened?
A:
I saw Esmer fall down, then he stood up and ran again but Yob was able to overtake
him, Sir.
Q:
After seeing Esmer fail down and being overtaken by Yob, what happened next?
A:
He stabbed him, Sir.
Q:
Where?
A:
There, at Zapote Plaza, Sir.
Q:
I mean, where in his body did Yob stab Masta?
A:
Q:
A:
Q:
A:
Q:
A:
Q:
A:
Q:
A:
Q:
A:
Q:
A:
Q:
A:
Q:
A:
Q:
A:
Q:
A:
Q:
A:
Q:
A:
Q:
A:
Q:
A:
Q:
A:
Q:
A:
Here, Sir (Witness pointing to the left portion of his chest.)

How far were you when Yob stabbed Esmer?
More than 100 meters, Sir.
How many times did he stab him?
Once, Sir.
What did the other companions of Yob do?
I do not know, Sir.
What happened after Yob stabbed Esmer?
Their other companions ray away, Sir.
What did you do?
I called my other friends. Sir.
After calling your friends, what else happened?
We chased them, Sir.
What happened after that?
We were not able to overtake them, Sir.
What did you do with Esmer?
I heard that he was already in the hospital, Sir.
Have you known this Yob and Masta even before the incident?
Yes, Sir.
Why do you know them?
They used to be my friends, Sir.
Can you still remember the faces of these Yob and Masta if they are present here?
Yes, Sir.
Can you point to Yob?
That's him, Sir. (Witness pointing to a man wearing yellow t-shirt who when asked
answered by the name of Herman Delos Reyes.)
How about Masta?
That one, Sir. (Witness pointing to a person who answered by the name Fundador
Camposano.)
After learning that Esmer was already in the hospital, what did you do?
We went to him, Sir.
Where?
There, at the center near the Bamboo Organ, Sir.
What did you do at the center?
We visited Esmer, sir.
After visiting him, what did you do?
No more, Sir.[14]
To reiterate, this Court sees no irreconciliable inconsistencies in the foregoing

testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. In fact, the four prosecution witnesses
positively identified Camposano and De los Reyes as the persons who authored and
caused the violent death of Ilao as they were all eyewitnesses to the bloody
incident. The prosecution witnesses' accounts differed only with regard to the
weapon/s used. What remained constant was their straightforward and categorical
testimonies that they personally know the appellants and that they were physically
present when these appellants assaulted and killed Ilao. Moreover, it is equally
settled that in terms of evidentiary weight, affirmative testimony is decidedly

superior to negative testimony. And, as above noted, the prosecution witnesses
delivered affirmative testimonies in contradistinction to the defense witnesses who
took shelter under prosaic denials and alibis.
Appellant Camposano claimed that he was at the Parafiaque Community Hospital
at: around 1:30 o'clock in the morning of January 11, 2001, during the alleged time
of the commission of the crime; that he likewise suffered a stab wound as a result
of a rumble between his gang, Tropang Pugasi/Fugazi, and the rival gang Sad Army
to which the deceased Ilao supposedly belonged; and that this stab wound required
immediate medical treatment and a one-week confinement at the aforementioned
hospital.
On the other hand, appellant De los Reyes claimed that on the evening of January
10, 2001, and early morning of January 11, 2001, he was at home watching DVD
after a night of drinking alcohol with a few friends.
Both claims are gratuitous and self-serving.
It is settled that for the defense of alibi to prosper, it must be proved that it was
physically impossible for the accused to be present at the scene of the crime at the
time of its commission. Here, appellants utterly failed to prove that it was physically
impossible for both of them to be at the crime scene at the time the crime was
committed. Their claims on this score must fall flat on their faces if only because
both appellants are also residents of Las Pias where the violent slaying of Ilao
happened.
This Court is likewise convinced that treachery attended the killing. "There is
treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against the person,
employing means, methods, or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly
and specially to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the
defense which the offended party might make,"[15] "The essence of treachery is that
the attack comes without a warning and in a swift, deliberate, and unexpected
manner, affording the hapless, unarmed, and unsuspecting victim no chance to
resist or escape."[16] This is the very scenario brought to light by the prosecution's
evidence in this case.
For here, the evidence on record conclusively showed that the appellants assaulted
and killed Ilao while he was face down on the ground. The appellants took
advantage of their victim's defenseless and helpless position to inflict the fatal stab
wounds, giving their victim no chance at all to retaliate or defend himself. In fact,
as shown in the records, Camposano went on top of Ilao and held him by the neck
and stabbed him on the chest. Appellant De los Reyes, on the other hand, stabbed
the victim in his lower back. Given these actual, incontrovertible facts, the
conclusion is inevitable that treachery attended the commission of the crime.
Nevertheless, the civil damages awarded by the CA can stand some modification.
Based on prevailing jurisprudence, both awards of civil indemnity and moral
damages in favor of Ilao's heirs should be increased from P5 0,000.00 to
P75,000.00.[17] The award of exemplary damages should likewise be increased from
P25,000.00 to P75,000.00.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals
dated October 17, 2012 in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 04854, is AFFIRMED, subject to
the MODIFICATION that Fundador Camposano y Tiolanto @ "Punday/Masta" and
Herman de los Reyes @ "Yob" are ordered to solidarity pay the heirs of Esmeraldo
Ilao the increased amounts of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral
damages, and another P75,000.00 as exemplary damages. All damages awarded
shall earn interest at the rate of 6% per annum from finality of this Decision until
fully paid.
SO ORDERED.
Carpio, (Chairperson) Brion Mendoza, and Leonen, JJ., concur.
CA rollo, pp. 160-178; penned by Associate Justice Danton Q. Bueser and

concurred in by Associate Justices Amelita G, Tojentino and Ramon R. Garcia.
[1]
[2]
Records, pp. 445-463, penned by Presiding Judge Joselito DJ, Vibandor.
[3]
Records, p. 36.
[4]
Id. at 463,
[5]
CA rollo, p. 177.
[6]
Id. at 68-92.
People v. Bantiling, 420 Phil. 849,863 (2001) citing People v. Omhrog, 335 Phil.
556, 564 (1997).
[7]
[8]
CA rollo, p. 168.
[9]
People v. Bautista, 636 Phil. 535, 552 (2010).
[10]
People v. Quilang, 371 Phil. 243,255 (1999).
[11]
TSN, 28 June 2001, pp. 10-18.
[12]
TSN, May 23, 2002, pp. 7-17.
TSN, January 27,

2004, 16-26.
[13]
[14]
TSN, October 26, 2006, pp. 6-13.
[15]
REVISED PENAL CODE, Art. 14 (16).
[16]
People v. Dela Cruz, 626 Phil. 631, 640 (2010).
[17]
People v. Roxas, G.R. No. 218396, February 10, 2016.

G.R.
No.
205002
COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS OF THE PORT OF BATANGAS, AND THE BUREAU OF
CUSTOMS, PETITIONERS, VS. PILIPINAS SHELL PETROLEUM CORPORATION (PSPC), WILLIE J. SARMIENTO, PSPC
VICE-PRESIDENT
FOR
FINANCE
AND
TREASURER
AND
ATTY.
CIPRIANO
U.
ASILO,
RESPONDENTS.
April 20, 2016
SECOND DIVISION
[ G.R. No. 205002, April 20, 2016 ]
COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS OF

THE PORT OF BATANGAS, AND THE BUREAU OF CUSTOMS,
PETITIONERS, VS. PILIPINAS SHELL PETROLEUM
CORPORATION (PSPC), WILLIE J. SARMIENTO, PSPC VICEPRESIDENT FOR FINANCE AND TREASURER AND ATTY.
CIPRIANO U. ASILO, RESPONDENTS.
DECISION
DEL CASTILLO, J.:
"Forum shopping exists if the [suits] raise identical causes of action, subject matter,
and issues[; thus, t]he mere filing of several cases based on the same incident does
not necessarily constitute forum shopping." [1]
This Petition for Review on Certiorari[2] assails the June 11, 2012 Decision[3] and the
August 28, 2012 Resolution[4] of the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) in C.T.A. EB Case
No. 744.
Factual Antecedents
Respondent Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation (PSPC) is a domestic corporation
engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling petroleum products for
distribution in the Philippines.[5]
On January 30, 2009, petitioner Distinct Collector Juan N, Tan, the Collector of
Customs of the Port of Batangas, issued a demand letter[6] asking respondent PSPC
to pay the excise tax and value-added tax (VAT), plus penalty on its importation of
catalytic cracked gasoline (CCG) and light catalytic cracked gasoline (LCCG) for the
years 2006 to 2008 in the total amount of P21,419,603,310.00.
Respondent PSPC, however, refused to heed the demand and, instead, issued a
letter dated February 13, 2009 questioning the factual or legal basis of the demand.
[7]
On February 18, 2009, petitioner District Collector issued another

letter[8] reiterating the demand for the payment of the said unpaid taxes.
On March 5, 2009, respondent PSPC appealed the matter to petitioner
Commissioner of Customs (COC) Napoleon Morales.[9] Pending the resolution of the
said appeal, petitioner COC ordered petitioner District Collector to observe status
quo.[10]
On November 11, 2009, petitioner COC denied the appeal and ordered respondent
PSPC to pay the unpaid taxes to avoid the application of Section 1508 [11] of the
Tariff and Customs Code of the Philippines (TCCP).[12]
Unfazed, respondent PSPC moved for reconsideration[13] but petitioner COC denied
the same in his letter[14] dated November 26, 2009.
On December 3, 2009, respondent PSPC filed with the CTA a Petition for
Review[15] docketed as CTA Case No. 8004 assailing the Letter-Decisions dated
November 11 and 26, 2009 of petitioner COC. Respondent PSPC likewise filed a
Verified Motion for the issuance of a Suspension Order against the collection of
taxes with a prayer for immediate issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order
(TRO).[16]
On December 9, 2009, the CTA First Division issued a Resolution granting
respondent PSPC's application for a TRO for a period of 60 days or until February 7,
2010.[17]
On February 9, 2010, after due hearing on the Verified Motion, the CTA First
Division issued a Resolution[18] denying respondent PSPC's request for a suspension
order.
In light of the denial of the Verified Motion, petitioner District Collector issued a
Memorandum dated February 9, 2010 ordering the personnel of petitioner Bureau
of Customs (BOC) in the Port of Batangas to hold the delivery of all import
shipments of respondent PSPC to satisfy its excise tax liabilities.[19]
On February 10, 2010, respondent PSPC filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC),
Fourth Judicial Region, Batangas City, Branch 3, a Complaint for Injunction with
prayer for the ex-parte issuance of a 72-hour TRO,[20] docketed as Civil Case No.
8780, to enjoin the implementation of the Memorandum dated February 9, 2010. In
the Verification and Certification[21] attached to the Complaint for Injunction,
respondent Vice President for Finance and Treasurer Willie J. Sarmiento (Sarmiento)
declared that there is a pending case before the CTA, however, it involves different,
issues and/or reliefs.
On the same day, the RTC issued a 72-hour TRO, which it later extended to 17
more days.[22]
On March 19, 2010, petitioners filed with the CTA a Motion to Cite respondents
PSPC, Sarmiento, and Atty. Cipriano U. Asilo for Direct Contempt of Court. [23] As per
the Resolution dated July 7, 2010, the said Motion, docketed as CTA Case No. 8121,
was consolidated with the main case, CTA Case No. 8004.[24]
Meanwhile, petitioner District Collector filed a Complaint-Affidavit [25] for Perjury
under Article 183 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) against respondent Sarmiento in
relation to the Verification and Certification he filed before the RTC of Batangas City,
where he declared that the Petition for Review PSPC filed with the CTA does not
involve the same issues and/or reliefs.
On April 8, 2010, an Information[26] for Perjury against respondent Sarmiento,
docketed as Criminal Case No. 52763, was filed before Branch 1 of the Municipal
Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), Batangas City.
On August 9, 2010, the MTCC rendered a Resolution [27] dismissing the case for
Perjury for lack of probable cause, which later became final and executory.[28]
Ruling of the Court of Tax Appeals Division
On October 18, 2010, the CTA Third Division rendered a Resolution [29] denying the
Motion to Cite respondents in Direct Contempt of Court. Although the parties in the
CTA case and the Batangas injunction case are the same, the CTA found that the
rights asserted and the reliefs prayed for are different. [30] It pointed out that the
CTA case assails the Letter-Decisions dated November 11 and 26, 2009, while the
Batangas injunction case opposes the Memorandum dated February 9, 2010. [31] The
CTA also opined that a decision in one case would not result in res judicata in the
other case.[32] Thus, it ruled that the filing of the Batangas injunction case does not
constitute forum shopping,[33] And since no forum shopping exists, the CTA found no
reason to cite respondents in direct contempt of court.
Feeling aggrieved, petitioners moved for reconsideration [34] but the CTA Third
Division denied trie same in its Resolution[35] dated March 9, 2011.
Ruling of the Court of Tax Appeals En Banc
Unfazed, petitioners elevated the matter to the CTA En Banc via a Petition for
Review.[36]
On June 11, 2012, the CTA En Banc rendered a Decision affirming the Resolutions
dated October 18, 2010 and March 9, 2011 of the CTA Third Division.
Petitioners sought reconsideration of the Decision.
On August 28, 2012, the CTA En Banc rendered a Resolution denying petitioners'
motion for reconsideration.
Issue
Hence, petitioners filed the instant Petition for Review on Certiorari raising the sole
issue of whether the CTA committed a reversible error when it ruled that
respondents did not commit willful and deliberate forum shopping. [37]
Petitioners' Arguments
Petitioners contend that the CTA seriously erred in finding respondents not guilty of
willful and deliberate forum shopping considering that the Verified Motion filed
before the CTA and the Complaint for Injunction filed before the RTC of Batangas
involve exactly the same parties, the same rights, and the same reliefs.
[38]
Petitioners claim that the material allegations in both pleadings are based on the
same set of facts;[39] that both cases substantially raise the same issues; [40] and
that both seek to enjoin the enforcement of Section 1508 of the TCCP.[41] Petitioners
further claim that the phrase "to refrain or stop from exercising any action
described in, under or pursuant to, Section 1508 of the TCCP" in the prayer of the
Verified Motion is all-encompassing as it includes whatever relief respondent PSPC
sought in the Complaint for Injunction filed before the RTC. [42] Moreover, petitioners
allege that the filing of the Complaint for Injunction was done in utter disrespect of
the CTA exclusive jurisdiction;[43] that it was a calculated maneuver of respondents
to undermine the CTA's denial of their prayer for the issuance of a suspension
order;[44] and that it should not be allowed, as it constitutes forum shopping.
[45]
Finally, petitioners assert that the dismissal of the perjury case against
respondent Sarmiento does not estop them from claiming mat respondents are
guilty of forum shopping, as the elements of perjury are not the same as that of
contempt via willful forum shopping.[46]
Respondents' Arguments
Respondents, on the other hand, argue that the issue of forum shopping may no
longer be re-opened or re-litigated, as this has long been resolved with finality in
the criminal case for perjury filed against respondent Sarmiento. They insist that
the dismissal of the criminal complaint for perjury against respondent Sarmiento on
the ground that there is no forum shopping for which reason the third element of
perjury is wanting, is binding on the CTA.[47] Thus, petitioners are barred by prior
judgment[48] and by the principle of collusiveness of judgment. [49] In addition,
respondents maintain that the Batangas injunction case is different from the case
pending before the CTA as the former pertains to importations already released and
transferred to the possession of respondent PSPC while the latter pertains to "future
importations" of respondent PSPC.[50]
Our Ruling
The Petition must fail.

In a nutshell, petitioners contend that respondents should be cited for direct
contempt of court pursuant to Section 5,[51] Rule 7 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure, as amended, which states that the submission of a false certification on
non-forum shopping constitutes indirect or direct contempt of court, and that the
willful and deliberate commission of forum shopping constitutes direct contempt of
court.
We do not agree.
Under prevailing jurisprudence, forum shopping can be committed in three ways, to
wit:
(1) filing multiple cases based on the same cause of action and with the same prayer, the
previous case not having been resolved yet (litis pendentia);
(2) filing multiple cases based on the same cause of action and [with] the same prayer, the
previous case having been finally resolved (res judicata); or
(3) filing multiple cases based on the same cause of action but with different prayers (splitting
of causes of action, where the ground for dismissal is also either litis pendentia or res
judicata)[52]
Corollarily, there is forum shopping when a party seeks a favorable opinion in
another forum, other than by an appeal or by certiorari, as a result of an adverse
opinion in one forum, or when he institutes two or more actions or proceedings
grounded on the same cause, hoping that one or the other court would make a
favorable disposition on his case.[53] In other words, "[f]orum shopping exists when
a piirty repeatedly avails himself of several judicial remedies in different courts,
[either] simultaneously or successively, all [of which are] substantially founded on
the same transactions and the same essential facts and circumstances, and all
raising substantially the same issues either pending in or already resolved adversely
by some other court."[54]
Hence, to constitute forum shopping the following elements must be present:
(1) identity of the parties or, at least, of the parties who represent the same interest in both
actions;
(2) identity of the rights asserted and relief prayed for, as the latter is founded on the same set of
facts; and
(3) identity of the two preceding particulars, such that any judgment rendered in the other
action will amount to res judicata in the action under consideration or will constitute litis
pendentia.[55]
In this case, a careful reading of the Verified Motion in the CTA case vis-a-vis the
Complaint for Injunction filed with the RTC of Batangas reveals that although both
cases have the same parties, originated from the same factual antecedents, and
involve Section 1508 of the TCCP, the subject matter, the cause of action, the issues
involved, and the reliefs prayed for are not the same.
The subject matter and the causes of action are not the same.
The subject matter in the CTA case is the alleged unpaid taxes of respondent PSPC
on its importation of CCG and LCCG for the years 2006 to 2008 in the total amount
of P21,419,603,310.00, which is sought to be collected by petitioners. On the other
hand, the subject matter of the Batangas injunction case is the 13
importations/shipments of respondent PSPC for the period January to February
2010, which respondent PSPC claims are threatened to be seized by petitioners
pursuant to the Memorandum dated February 9, 2010 issued by petitioner District
Collector.
Also, the cause of action in the CTA case is based on the Letter-Decisions of
petitioner COC, finding respondent PSPC liable for excise taxes and VAT; while the
cause of action in the Batangas injunction case is the Memorandum dated February
9, 2010, ordering the personnel of petitioner BOC in the Port of Batangas to hold
the delivery of all import shipments of respondent PSPC.
The issues raised are not the same.
Furthermore, the issues raised are not the same. Respondent PSPC filed the CTA
case to assail the Letter-Decisions of petitioner COC, finding it liable to pay excise
taxes and VAT on its importation of CCG and LCCG. Thus, in the Petition for Review,
the main issue involved is the validity of the Letter-Decisions; while in the Verified
Motion, the issue raised is respondent PSPC's entitlement to a suspension order
pending the resolution of the validity of the Letter-Decisions.
On the other hand, respondent PSPC filed the Batangas injunction case to question
the validity of the Memorandum dated February 9, 2010 and to oppose the seizure
of the 13 importations/shipments on the ground that petitioners no longer have
jurisdiction over the subject importations/shipments as these have been discharged
and placed in its Batangas refinery since 90% of the import duties due on the said
shipments have been paid. To support its case, respondent PSPC interposed that
Section 1508 of the TCCP is available only if petitioner BOC has actual physical
custody of the goods sought to be held, a situation not present in the case of the
said importations/shipments; that petitioners have no reason to seize the 13
importations/shipments, as only two were CCG and only one was LCCG; and that
the Memorandum dated February 9, 2010 deprives respondent PSPC of its property
without due process of law. From the arguments interposed by respondent PSPC in
the Batangas injunction case, it is clear that the issue to be resolved by the RTC is
limited to the validity of the Memorandum dated February 9, 2010.
The reliefs prayed for are not the same.
Likewise, a comparison of prayers in the CTA case and Batangas injunction case
shows that the reliefs prayed for are not the same.
PETITION FOR
REVIEW
VERIFIED MOTION
(CTA)
(CTA)
WHEREFORE, it is
WHEREFORE, it is respectfully
respectfully prayed that the prayed that the Honorable Court:
Honorable Court:
a. Immediately upon the filing of the
a. Give due course to the
instant Petition and Verified Motion,
instant Petition for Review; ISSUE, a [TRO] effective for such
and
number of days as sufficient for the
Honorable Court to hear, consider and
b. Upon due consideration, issue a Suspension Order, ordering,
reverse andnullify the
commanding and directing
Letter-Decision dated 11 [petitioners], their officers,
November 2009 and
subordinates, personnel and agents,
Letter-Decision dated 26 and/or any other person acting on
November 2009 issued by their behalf or authority, to refrain or
[petitioner] COC and render stop from exercising any action
a Decision finding
described in, under, or pursuant to,
[respondent] PSPC not
Section 1508 of the TCCP, including
liable for any of the excise holding delivery or release of
taxes and the VAT thereon imported articles, and/or from
demanded by [petitioner]
performing any act of collecting the
COC, and permanently
disputed amounts by distraint, levy,
enjoining [petitioners],
seizure, impounding, or sale of the
their officer's,
importations of [respondent] PSPC,
subordinates, personnel
and/or from collecting excise taxes
and agents, or any other and VAT on future importations of
person acting on their
CCGs and LCCGs by [respondent]
behalf or authority, from PSPC; and
demanding and/or
collecting by any manner b. Thereafter, after due
from [respondent] PSPC proceedings, ISSUE a
any and all duties and
SUSPENSION
excise taxes, including any ORDER ordering,commanding,
VAT thereon, on the
and directing [petitioners], their
COMPLAINT FOR
INJUNCTION
(RTC)
WHEREFORE, it is
respectfully prayed of the
Honorable Court that:
1) Upon filing of the instant
complaint, a 72-hour [TRO]
be issued ex
parteRESTRAINING
[petitioners], their assigns,
agents, employees,
representatives or any
person under their
direction and/or control
from entering the Refinery
or property of
[respondent] PSPC and/or
seize, confiscate, or
forcibly take possession of
the imported shipments of
[respondent] PSPC that
are already in the latter's
physical custody and/or
possession;
2) After due notice and
hearing, that a [TRO] and/or
writ of preliminary
injunction be ISSUED on
such bond as the Honorable
Court may require; and
3) After hearing on the
merits, render judgment
subject CCG and LCCG officers, subordinates, personnel

making the writ of
importations, as well as
and agents, and/or any other person injunction PERMANENT.[58]
from collecting excise taxes acting on their behalf or authority,
and VAT on future
to refrain or stop from exercising
importations of
any action described in, under, or
CCGs/LCCGs by
pursuant to, Section 1508 of the
[56]
[respondent] PSPC.
TCCP, including holding delivery
or release of imported articles,
and/or from performing any act of
collecting the disputed amounts by
distraint, levy, seizure, impounding,
or sale of importations of
[respondent] PSPC, and/or from
collecting excise taxes and VAT on
future importations of CCGs and
LCCGs by [respondent] PSPC,
during the pendency of the instant
case.[57]
In the CTA case, respondent PSPC seeks the reversal of the Letter-Decisions of
petitioner COC in order to prevent petitioners from imposing payment of excise tax
and VAT for importations of CCG and LCCG for the years 2004 to 2009. Pending the
resolution of the said case, respondent PSPC filed a Verified Motion praying for the
issuance of a suspension order to prevent petitioners from exercising any action
pursuant to Section 1508 of the TCCP based on the Letter-Decisions of petitioner
COC. While in the Batangas injunction case, respondent PSPC seeks to prevent
petitioners from entering its refinery and from seizing its importations pursuant to
Section 1508 of the TCCP by virtue of the Memorandum dated February 9, 2010.
Since the subject matter, the cause of action, the issues raised, and the reliefs
prayed for are not the same, respondents are not guilty of forum shopping.
Accordingly, the CTA did not err in denying the Motion to Cite respondents in Direct
Contempt of Court.
WHEREFORE, the Petition is hereby DENIED. The assailed Decision dated June
11, 2012 and the Resolution dated August 28, 2012 of the Court of Tax Appeals in
C.T.A. EB Case No. 744 are hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
Brion, (Acting Chairperson), Mendoza, Reyes,* and Leonen, JJ., concur.
Per raffle dated November 10, 2014.
[1]
Paz v. Atty. Sanchez, 533 Phil. 503, 510 (2006).
[2]
Rollo, Volume I, pp. 404-450.
Id. at 452-461; penned by Associate Justice Caesar A. Casanova and concurred

in by Presiding Justice Ernesto D. Acosta, Associate Justices Juanito C. Castafieda,
Jr., Lovell R. Bautista, Erlinda P. Uy, Olga Palanca-Enriquez, Esperanza R. FabonVictorino, Cielito N. Mindaro-Grulla, and Amelia R. Cotangco-Manalastas.
[3]
[4]
Id. at 463-unpaged.
[5]
Id. at 485.
[6]
Id. at unpaged-465.
[7]
Id. at 409.
[8]
Id. at 466-470.
[9]
Id. at 471.
[10]
Id. at 473.
SEC. 1508. Authority of the Collector of Customs to Hold the Delivery or Release
of Imported Articles. Whenever any importer, except the government, has an
outstanding and demandable account with the Bureau of Customs, the Collector
shall hold the delivery of any article imported or consigned to such importer unless
subsequently authorized by the Commissioner of Customs, and upon notice as in
seizure cases, he may sell such importation or any portion thereof to cover the
outstanding account of such importer; Provided, however, That at any time prior to
the sale, the delinquent importer may settle his obligations with the Bureau of
Customs, in which case the aforesaid articles may be delivered upon payment of
the corresponding duties and taxes and compliance with all other legal
requirements.
[11]
[12]
Rollo, Volume I, p. 474.
[13]
Id. at 410.
[14]
Id. at 475-476.
[15]
Id. at 477-543.
[16]
Id. at 544-572.
[17]
Id. at 413.
[18]
Id. at 573-576.
[19]
Id. at 577.
[20]
Id. at 578-601.
[21]
Id. at 599.
[22]
Id. at 454.
[23]
Id. at 623-643.
[24]
Id. at 455.
[25]
Rollo, Vol. III, pp. 2879-2893.
[26]
Id. at 2836-2838.
[27]
Id. at 1958-1962; penned by Acting Presiding Judge Eleuterio L. Bathan.
[28]
Id. at 2071.
Rollo, Vol. I, pp. 649-656; penned by Associate Justices Lovell R. Bautista, Olga
Palanca-Enriquez and Amelia R. Cotangco-Manalastas.
[29]
[30]
Id. at 654.
[31]
Id.
[32]
Id. at 655.
[33]
Id.
[34]
Id. at 657-675.
[35]
Id. at 676-682.
[36]
Id. at 683-718.
[37]
Id. at 421.
[38]
Rollo, Volume III, pp. 3031-3043.
[39]
Id. at 3037.
[40]
Id. at 3039.
[41]
Id. at 3040.
[42]
Id. at 3038.
[43]
Id. at 3031.
[44]
Id. at 3041.
[45]
Id. at 3042-3043.
[46]
Id. at 3044.
[47]
Id. at 1848-1849.
[48]
Id. at 1850-1851.
[49]
Id. at 1851-1852.
[50]
Id. at 1898.
Sec. 5. Certification against forum shopping. The plaintiff or principal party

shall certify under oath in the complaint or other initiatory pleading asserting a
claim for relief, or in a sworn certification annexed thereto and simultaneously filed
therewith: (a) that he has not theretofore commenced any action or filed any claim
involving the same issues in any court, tribunal or quasi-judicial agency and, to the
best of his knowledge, no such other action or claim is pending therein; (b) if there
is such other pending action or claim, a complete statement of the present status
thereof; and (c) if he should thereafter learn that the same or similar action or
claim has been filed or is pending, he shall report that fact within five (5) days
therefrom to the court wherein his aforesaid complaint or initiatory pleading has
been filed.
[51]
Failure to comply with the foregoing requirements shall not be curable by mere
amendment of the complaint or other initiatory pleading but shall be cause for the
dismissal of the case without prejudice, unless otherwise provided, upon motion
and after hearing. The submission of a false certification or non-compliance with

any of the undertakings therein shall constitute indirect contempt of court, without
prejudice to the corresponding administrative and criminal actions. If the acts of the
party or his counsel clearly constitute willful and deliberate forum shopping, the
same shall be ground for summary dismissal with prejudice and shall constitute
direct contempt, as well as a cause for administrative sanctions.
Heirs of Marcelo Sotto v. Palicte, G.R. No. 159691, February 17, 2014, 716
SCRA 175, 188.
[52]
[53]
Municipality of Taguig v. Court of Appeals, 506 Phil. 567, 575 (2005).
[54]
Chua v. Metropolitan Bank & Trust Company, 613 Phil. 143, 153 (2009).
[55]
Adao v. Attys. Docena and Acol, Jr., 564 Phil. 448, 452 (2007).
[56]
Rollo, Volume I, p. 180.
[57]
Id. at 208.
[58]
Id. at 237-238.

A.C.
ARTHUR
No.
S.
TULIO,
COMPLAINANT,
VS.
ATTY.
7110
GREGORY
April 20, 2016
THIRD DIVISION
F.
BUHANGIN,
RESPONDENT.
[ A.C. No. 7110, April 20, 2016 ]

ARTHUR S. TULIO, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. GREGORY F.
BUHANGIN, RESPONDENT.
DECISION
PERALTA, J.:
Before us is a Complaint for Disbarment filed by Arthur S. Tulio (Tulio) against
respondent Atty. Gregory F. Buhangin (Atty. Buhangin), docketed as A.C. No. 7110
for Gross Dishonesty in violation of the Lawyer's Oath and the Code of Professional
Responsibility.
In his Complaint dated March 8, 2006,[1] Tulio narrated that he became acquainted
with Atty. Buhangin even during the time when he was a surveyor and not yet a
lawyer. He alleged that as a surveyor then, Atty. Buhangin was the one who
prepared survey plans for the complainant in connection with the estate left by his
mother. Eventually, when he became a lawyer, Tulio sought his legal advice
concerning a property owned by his mother which was then transferred in the
names of third parties.
On June 29, 2000, by virtue of Tulio's agreement with his siblings, Atty. Buhangin
prepared and notarized a Deed of Waiver of Rights dated June 29, 2000 which was
signed by all of his siblings in his favor. Thereafter, Tulio engaged the services of
Atty. Buhangin to represent him in filing a case for specific performance and
damages which was docketed as Civil Case No. 4866-R entitled "Heirs of Angelina
S. Tulio, represented by Arthur S. Tulio vs. Heirs of Artemio E. Patacsil, represented
by Lennie Ayuste" before the Regional Trial Court of Baguio City, Branch 3.
[2]
Through his efforts, Tulio claims that he and the defendants in Civil Case No.
4866-R agreed to a settlement and that he exclusively paid the defendants.
On December 10, 2005, to Tulio's surprise, Atty. Buhangin represented his siblings
and filed a complaint against him over legal matters which he had entrusted to him.
The complaint was docketed as Civil Case No. 6185-R pending before the Regional
Trial Court of Baguio City, Branch 7 and entitled "Deogracias S. Tulio, et.al. vs.
Arthur S. Tulio" for rescission of the deed of waiver of rights which he himself
prepared and notarized. Tulio further averred that Atty. Buhangin made
misrepresentations in the complaint since he knew beforehand that his siblings
waived their rights in his favor over the parcel of land covered by TCT No. 67145
even before Civil Case No. 4866-R was filed.
On January 2, 2006, Tulio immediately filed a Motion to Disqualify[3] Atty. Buhangin

for his unethical conduct in gross violation of his duties and responsibilities as a
lawyer. Subsequently, on January 11, 2006, Atty. Buhangin filed a Motion to
Withdraw[4] as counsel. It was stated in the said motion that Atty. Buhangin: "due
to conflict of interest, undersigned respectfully requests that he be allowed by this
Honorable Court to withdraw his appearance in this case as counsel for the
plaintiff."
Complainant alleged that the actions of Atty. Buhangin were deliberate and
intentional in order to serve his own personal interests against his interests as his
client, hence, constitutes gross dishonesty in violation of his oath and responsibility
as a lawyer and notary public.
Thus, the instant complaint for disbarment against Atty. Buhangin.
On April 5, 2006, the Court resolved to require Atty. Buhangin to file his Comment
relative to the complaint filed against him.[5]
In compliance, Atty. Buhangin submitted his Comment[6] on January 12, 2007,
where he admitted that indeed he had been engaged as legal counsel of the Estate
of Angeline Tulio, represented by the heirs of Angeline Tulio which included among
others Deogracias S. Tulio, Gloria Tulio-Bucaoto, Tita Tulio-Guerrero, Anthony Tulio
and complainant Tulio. He, however, asserted that his legal representation was
neither personal nor directed in favor of complainant Tulio alone but instead in the
latter's capacity as an heir of Angeline Tulio. Atty. Buhangin disputed Tulio's claim
that the latter personally engaged his services as legal counsel for Civil Case No.
4866-R and insisted that his legal representation was made for and in behalf of the
heirs of Angeline Tulio. Atty. Buhangin alleged that Tulio abused the confidence
lodged upon him by his siblings by executing the deed of waiver of rights in his
favor, for the purpose of depriving the other heirs of Angeline Tulio their lawful
shares in the estate of their mother. He maintained that there was no conflict of
interest when he filed the complaint for the declaration of nullity of the waiver of
rights as he was in fact merely protecting the interests of the other heirs of
Angeline Tulio.
On February 14, 2007, the Court then resolved to refer the instant case to the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines for investigation, report and
recommendation/decision.[7]
Mandatory conferences between the parties were set on July 24, 2007 and
September 3, 2007. However, only complainant appeared without counsel, while
Atty. Buhangin failed to appear in both instances despite prior notice. Thus, the IBP,
in its Order dated September 3, 2007, directed Atty. Buhangin to show cause why
he should not be given anymore the chance to participate in the proceedings before
the Commission. Both parties were likewise directed to submit their verified Position
Papers. Again, only Tulio submitted his Position Paper while Atty. Buhangin failed
anew to comply with the Order of the Commission.
In his Position Paper dated October 9, 2007, Tulio refuted Atty. Buhangin's
allegation that he represents the heirs of Angeline Tulio, and that his legal
representation is not personal to him alone. Tulio pointed out that in his motion to
withdraw as counsel, Atty. Buhangin had, in fact, admitted that he is withdrawing
from the case due to conflict of interest. Tulio likewise denied that he meant to
defraud and deprive his siblings of their shares. He asserted that it was actually
Atty. Buhangin who drafted, prepared and even notarized the deed of waiver of
rights, thus, if he knew the same to be fraudulent, why then would he prepare and
even notarize the same.
To prove that he had, in fact, engaged the legal services of Atty. Buhangin for his
own benefit and personal interest, Tulio submitted the correspondences made and
prepared by Atty. Buhangin prior to the institution of Civil Case No. 4866-R
addressed to Rebecca F. Patacsil which were dated August 29, 2000 and October
16, 2000, respectively. Thus, Tulio maintains that Atty. Buhangin violated his
lawyer's oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility when he acted as counsel
for his siblings in Civil Case No. 6185-R.
In its Report and Recommendation, the IBP-CBD found Atty. Buhangin to have
violated not only his lawyer's oath but also the Code of Professional Responsibility,
and recommended that he be meted the penalty of suspension for two (2) months.
The IBP-CBD found Atty. Buhangin guilty of violating the rule on conflict of interest
since it believed that in Civil Case No. 4866-R, there was indeed an attorney-client
relationship existing between Tulio and Atty. Buhangin, and not between the latter
and the heirs of Angeline Tulio. It further held that when Atty. Buhangin filed a
complaint against Tulio in representation of his other siblings over legal matters
which the former entrusted to him, he clearly violated the trust and confidence
reposed to him by his client.
In a Notice of Resolution No. XX-2013-599 dated May 11, 2013, the IBP-Board of
Governors adopted and approved in toto the Report and Recommendation of the
IBP-CBD.
No motion for reconsideration has been filed by either party.
RULING
We concur with the findings of the IBP-CBD except as to the imposable penalty.
Rule 15.03 of the Code reads:
Canon 15 - A lawyer shall observe candor, fairness and loyalty in all his dealings
and transactions with his clients.
Rule 15.03 - A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by written
consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts.
Under the afore-cited rule, it is explicit that a lawyer is prohibited from representing
new clients whose interests oppose those of a former client in any manner, whether
or not they are parties in the same action or on totally unrelated cases. The
prohibition is founded on the principles of public policy and good taste. It behooves
lawyers not only to keep inviolate the client's confidence, but also to avoid the
appearance of treachery and double-dealing for only then can litigants be
encouraged to entrust their secrets to their lawyers, which is of paramount
importance in the administration of justice.[8]
In Hornilla v. Atty. Salunat,[9] the Court discussed the concept of conflict of interest,
to wit:
There is conflict of interest when a lawyer represents inconsistent interests of two
or more opposing parties. The test is "whether or not in behalf of one client, it is
the lawyer's duty to fight for an issue or claim, but it is his duty to oppose it for the
other client. In brief, if he argues for one client, this argument will be opposed by
him when he argues for the other client." This rule covers not only cases in which
confidential communications have been confided, but also those in which no
confidence has been bestowed or will be used. Also, there is conflict of interests if
the acceptance of the new retainer will require the attorney to perform an act which
will injuriously affect his first client in any matter in which he represents him and
also whether he will be called upon in his new relation to use against his first client
any knowledge acquired through their connection. Another test of the inconsistency
of interests is whether the acceptance of a new relation will prevent an attorney
from the full discharge of his duty of undivided fidelity and loyalty to his client or
invite suspicion of unfaithfulness or double dealing in the performance thereof.[10]
The rule prohibiting conflict of interest was fashioned to prevent situations wherein
a lawyer would be representing a client whose interest is directly adverse to any of
his present or former clients. In the same way, a lawyer may only be allowed to
represent a client involving the same or a substantially related matter that is
materially adverse to the former client only if the former client consents to it after
consultation. The rule is grounded in the fiduciary obligation of loyalty. Throughout
the course of a lawyer-client relationship, the lawyer learns all the facts connected
with the client's case, including the weak and strong points of the case. Knowledge
and information gathered in the course of the relationship must be treated as
sacred and guarded with care. It behooves lawyers not only to keep inviolate the
client's confidence, but also to avoid the appearance of treachery and doubledealing, for only then can litigants be encouraged to entrust their secrets to their
lawyers, which is paramount in the administration of justice. The nature of that
relationship is, therefore, one of trust and confidence of the highest degree.
Hornilla case provides an absolute prohibition from representation with respect to
opposing parties in the same case. In other words, a lawyer cannot change his
representation from one party to the latter's opponent in the same case, as in this
case.
Atty. Buhangin's allegation that he represents for and in behalf of the Heirs of
Angeline Tulio and not personal or exclusive to complainant cannot be given any
credence. First, Atty. Buhangin himself admitted in his Motion to Withdraw that he
was withdrawing his appearance in Civil Case No. 6185 against Tulio due to conflict
of interest. Secondly, it cannot be denied that there was an exclusive attorneyclient relationship between Tulio and Atty. Buhangin as evidenced by the demand
letters which Atty. Buhangin prepared specifically as counsel of Tulio. Thirdly, as
correctly observed by the IBP, other than his bare assertion that he was
representing the estate and the Heirs of Angeline Tulio, Atty. Buhangin failed to
satisfactorily show any circumstance that he was actually representing the Heirs of
Angeline Tulio and not solely for Tulio.
Also, we take note that in both Civil Case No. 4866-R (Heirs of Angeline S. Tulio
represented by Arthur S. Tulio vs. Heirs of Artemio Patacsil) and Civil Case No.
6185-R (Deogracias S. Tulio, et. al. vs. Arthur Tulio), the subject property under
dispute, particularly TCT No. T-67145, is one and the same. This is also the same
subject property of the Deed of Waiver of Rights which the plaintiffs in Civil Case
No. 6185-R have executed and signed in favor of Tulio, which Atty. Buhangin later
on used against Tulio. Clearly, the series of Atty. Buhangin's actions in protecting
the rights and interest of Tulio over the subject property before and after the filing
of Civil Case No. 4866-R, to the preparation of the Deed of Waiver of Rights in favor
of Tulio runs counter and in conflict to his subsequent filing of Civil Case No. 6185-R
and his imputation of fraud against Tulio. There is no question that Atty. Buhangin
took an inconsistent position when he filed Civil Case No. 61 85-R against Tulio
whom he has defended and protected as client in the past. Even if the inconsistency
is remote or merely probable or even if he has acted in good faith and with no
intention to represent conflicting interests, it is still in violation of the rule of conflict
of interest.
Atty. Buhangin's subsequent withdrawal of his appearance as counsel in Civil Case
No. 6185-R came too late as by the mere filing of the complaint against Tulio, it
manifested his disloyalty and infidelity to Tulio as his client. That the representation
of conflicting interest is in good faith and with honest intention on the part of the
lawyer does not make the prohibition inoperative. [11]
Canon 17 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that a lawyer owes
fidelity to the cause of his client and shall be mindful of the trust and confidence
reposed on him. His highest and most unquestioned duty is to protect the client at
all hazards and costs even to himself. The protection given to the client is perpetual
and does not cease with the termination of the litigation, nor is it affected by the
party's ceasing to employ the attorney and retaining another, or by any other
change of relation between them. It even survives the death of the client. [12]
Likewise, Atty. Buhangin's conduct in the course of the proceedings before the IBP
is also a matter of concern. Despite due notices, he failed to attend all the
mandatory conferences set by the IBP. He also ignored the IBP's directive to file his
position paper. Indubitably, because of Atty. Buhangin's refusal to comply with the
orders and directives of the IBP, the case which was filed in 2006 dragged on for
several years. Clearly, this conduct runs counter to the precepts of the Code of
Professional Responsibility and violates the lawyer's oath which imposes upon every
member of the Bar the duty to delay no man for money or malice.
In Ngayan v. Atty. Tugade,[13] we ruled that [a lawyer's] failure to answer the
complaint against him and his failure to appear at the investigation are evidence of
his flouting resistance to lawful orders of the court and illustrate his despiciency for
his oath of office in violation of Section 3, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court.
Atty. Buhangin's failure to submit his position paper without any valid explanation is
enough reason to make him administratively liable since he is duty-bound to
comply with all the lawful directives of the IBP, not only because he is a member
thereof, but more so because IBP is the Court-designated investigator of this case.
[14]
As an officer of the Court, respondent is expected to know that a resolution of
this Court is not a mere request but an order which should be complied with
promptly and completely. This is also true of the orders of the IBP.[15]
We would have merely affirmed the recommended penalty by the IBP-CBD on Atty.
Buhangin, i.e., suspension from the practice of law for two (2) months. However,
considering that aside from his violation of the rule on conflict of interest, he has
also shown wanton disregard of the IBP's orders which caused undue delay in the
resolution of this case and we deemed it appropriate to modify and increase the
recommended penalty of suspension from the practice of law from two (2) months
to six (6) months.
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Gregory F. Buhangin is hereby held GUILTY of
representing conflicting interests in violation of Rule 15.03, Canon 15 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. Accordingly, he is hereby SUSPENDED from the

practice of law for a period of six (6) months, with a WARNING that a repetition of
the same or similar acts in the future will be dealt with more severely.
Let copies of this Decision be furnished the Office of the Bar Confidant, to be
appended to Atty. Buhangin's personal record. Further, let copies of this Decision be
furnished the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and the Office of the Court
Administrator, which is directed to circulate them to all the courts in the country for
their information and guidance.
SO ORDERED.
Velasco, Jr., (Chairperson), Perez, Reyes, and Jardeleza, JJ., concur.
May 25, 2016

NOTICE OF JUDGMENT
Sirs / Mesdames:
Please take notice that on April 20, 2016 a Decision, copy attached hereto, was
was received by this Office on May 25, 2016 at 9:47 a.m.
Very truly yours,

(SGD)WILFREDO V. LAPITAN
[1]
Rollo, pp. 1-2.
[2]
Id. at 5-9.
[3]
Id. at 18-20
[4]
Id. at 21-22.
[5]
Id. at 23.
[6]
Id. at 27-31.
[7]
Id. at 33.
Orola v. Atty. Ramos, A.C. No. 9860, September 11, 2013, 705 SCRA 350, 357
(2013)
[8]
[9]
453 Phil. 108 (2003).
[10]
Hornilla v. Atty. Salunat, supra, at 111-112. (Citations omitted)
[11]
Quiambao v. Atty. Bamba, 565 Phil. 126, 135 (2005).
[12]
Heirs of Lydio Falame v. Atty. Baguio, 571 Phil. 428, 442 (2008).
[13]
271 Phil. 654, 659 (1991).
[14]
Vecino v. Atty. Ortiz, Jr., 579 Phil. 14, 16-17 (2008).
[15]
Gone v. Atty. Ga, 662 Phil. 610, 617 (2011).

A.M.
No.
P-16-3437
[Formerly
OCA
IPI
No.
11-3665-P]
PROSECUTOR III LEO C. TABAO, PETITIONER, VS. SHERIFF IV JOSE P. CABCABIN, OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF COURT,
REGIONAL
TRIAL
COURT,
TACLOBAN
April 20, 2016
THIRD DIVISION
CITY,
RESPONDENT.
[ A.M. No. P-16-3437 [Formerly OCA IPI No.

11-3665-P], April 20, 2016 ]
PROSECUTOR III LEO C. TABAO, PETITIONER, VS. SHERIFF
IV JOSE P. CABCABIN, OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF COURT,
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, TACLOBAN CITY, RESPONDENT.
DECISION
PERALTA, J.:
This administrative matter stems from the letter-complaint dated 11 April 2011 filed
by Deputy Prosecutor Leo C. Tabao, accusing Sheriff IV Jose P. Cabcabin of the
Office of the Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court of Tacloban City of Abuse of
Authority and Gross Irregularity in the Performance of Duties relative to Criminal
Case Nos. 2009-11-537 (Violation of Section 5[1], R.A. 7610[2]), 2009-11-538
(Violation of Sec. 6[3], R.A. 9208[4]) and 2009-11-539 (Violation of Sec. 4 (a)[5] and
(e)[6], R.A. 9208), all entitled "People of the Philippines vs. Danilo Miralles y
Aguirre, et al."
The antecedent facts are as follows:
On January 8, 2010, the Office of the City Prosecution of Tacloban City filed the
aforesaid three (3) criminal cases before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of said city
and they were raffled off to Branch 7, presided by Judge Crisologo S. Bitas. [7]
On February 2, 2011, after the prosecution had presented its witnesses, Judge Bitas
issued an Order[8] finding probable cause to hold Danilo Miralles for trial for violation
of Section 4 (a) and (e) of Republic Act (RA) No. 9208, and directing him to put up
a bailbond of Forty Thousand Pesos (P40,000.00) for each of the 3 criminal cases.
On February 4, 2011, Sheriff Cabcabin issued a Certification [9] to the effect that
Miralles has voluntarily surrendered himself to the former to avail of his right to bail
for his temporary liberty in connection with the said 3 cases before the RTC, Branch
7. On the same day, Judge Bitas approved the One Hundred Twenty Thousand
Pesos (P120,000.00) cash bail bond posted by Miralles before the Office of the Clerk
of Court.[10]
In his complaint dated April 11, 2011, Prosecutor Tabao assailed the authority of
Sheriff Cabcabin to issue the said certification, considering that no arrest warrant
had yet been issued against Miralles, to wit:
When RTC-7 issued the Order of 02 February 2011 x x x where it found probable
cause against accused MIRALLES, the court, instead of issuing the
corresponding warrant of arrest against MIRALLES as required by the
Rules, granted him bail in the reduced amount of P40,000.00 even when
said accused never filed a Motion To Fix Bail much less, a Motion to Reduce
Bail.
Consequently, there being no warrant of arrest against MIRALLES we then find it
very intriguing and very hard to understand what the basis was of CABCABIN in
entertaining MIRALLES. What was MIRALLES surrendering for when there was no
arrest warrant against him? Did he verify and ask MIRALLES to show the warrant of
arrest against him so he can determine the amount of bail? Was MIRALLES escorted
and under police custody when he went to CABCABIN?
February 4, 2011, when MIRALLES went to surrendered (sic) to CABCABIN, is
(sic) FRIDAY. Judge Bitas was in his Court (as shown by the fact that he approved
the cash bond also on the same day). Why did CABCABIN, who is not a person in
authority, allow MIRALLES to surrender to him? He should have directed MIRALLES
to surrender to Judge Bitas instead of him. Judge Bitas could then have noted and
certified that MIRALLES surrendered to him and is now in custody of the law thereby legally paving the way for him to post his cash bail bond.
But then again there is the unexplained situation of how can an accused
person surrender himself to a judge when there is no warrant of arrest
against him.[11]
On June 21, 2011, the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) directed Sheriff
Cabcabin to Comment on the complaint of Prosecutor Tabao. [12]
In his comment dated July 14, 2011, Sheriff Cabcabin admitted that he issued the
Certification dated February 4, 2011 to the effect that Miralles voluntarily
surrendered himself to avail of his right to bail, but only after the said accused had
posted cash bond in the total amount of P120,000.00 for the 3 criminal cases. He
further explained that:
Accused DANILO MIRALLES initially surrendered at Branch 7 of this Court [RTC] but
since the Sheriff in said branch was out of the office on official business said
accused was accompanied by a personnel in Branch 7 to the Office of the Clerk of
Court for the purpose of posting his bond.
It is not only the Presiding Judge in Branch 7 who requests Sheriffs in the Office of
the Clerk of Court, in the absence of the branch Sheriff, to issue such certification
all the Presiding Judges in Branches 6, 7, 8, 9 & 34 also require us Sheriffs to issue
said Certificate of Voluntary Surrender before the bond approved by them.
Accused DANILO A. MIRALLES, voluntarily surrendered to this Court [RTC]. I was

working in the Office of the Clerk of Court when he posted his cash bond. I merely
issued a Certification that he voluntarily surrendered, which he truly did. The
certification was required by the Presiding Judge of Branch 7 before the bond was
approved. As to why accused voluntarily surrendered when there is yet no warrant
of arrest, I have no knowledge anymore of this. He entered the Office of the Clerk
of Court where I was at that time and then he manifested that he was surrendering
and that he was going to post bail, which he did. It is a common occurrence in this
Court [RTC] that accused go to the branch to voluntarily surrender in order to post
his bail and upon request of the Presiding Judge concerned, the Sheriff issues a
Certificate to this effect.[13]
In his Supplemental Manifestation dated July 26, 2011, Sheriff Cabcabin submitted
photocopies of Orders issued by different Branches of the RTC of Tacloban City,
directing him to release accused from court custody after posting their respective
cash bond in order to prove that it is a common practice in the RTC to allow
accused to voluntarily surrender to court sheriffs for purposes of posting bail bond
for their temporary liberty.[14] He also admitted having no idea as to the source of
authority that sheriffs have to allow accused to voluntarily surrender to them, to
wit:
x x x I have just inherited this practice from my predecessors. And considering that
such surrender is made upon request of the Court [RTC], I always take it as lawful
and nothing unlawful at all. Because had I been advised by my superiors that such
practice was irregular and therefore unlawful, I would not have definitely done it.
And because of this act of mine I am really very sorry and I apologize [to] this
Court [RTC] for not having been extra careful in entertaining this matter. I promise
I will not repeat the same mistake.[15]
In a Report[16] dated July 22, 2014, the Court, upon recommendation of the OCA
that the charge in the complaint appears to be serious but cannot be resolved on
the basis of the records due to conflicting versions presented by the parties,
referred the administrative complaint to the Executive Judge of the RTC of Tacloban
City, for investigation, report and recommendation.
On December 2, 2014, Executive Judge Alphinor C. Serrano conducted a hearing
where the parties adopted the same evidence they submitted before the OCA. [17]
In his Investigation Report dated February 10, 2015, Judge Serrano found Sheriff
Cabcabin guilty of Simple Irregularity in the Performance of Duties and
recommended that he be fined the amount of Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00)
with stern warning that a repetition of the same act shall be dealt with more
severely.
In resolving the sole issue of whether Sheriff Cabcabin has the authority to receive
the voluntary surrender of Miralles as shown in his Certification dated February 4,
2011, Judge Serrano found him liable for simple irregularity in the performance of
the complained act which was not within the scope of his official functions as
embodied in the Revised Manual for Clerks of Court, thus:
It is a principle in the Law of Public Officers that "an administrative officer has only
such powers as are expressly granted to him and those necessarily implied in the
exercise thereof. These powers should not be extended by implication beyond what
may be necessary for their just and reasonable execution." (Kilusang Bayan vs.
Dominguez, 205 SCRA 92). Thus, every public officer is guided by law in the
execution of its official function.
In order to resolve the foregoing issue, it is necessary to define what are the duties
of respondent as Sheriff IV under existing laws and regulations.
Under the 2002 Revised Manual for Clerks of Court, (Chapter VI, D, 2.1.5), a
deputy Sheriff IV, V and VI have the following duties:
2.1.5.1. serves and/or executes all writs and processes of the Courts and
other agencies, both local and foreign;
2.1.5.2. keeps custody of attached properties or goods;
2.1.5.3. maintains his own record books on writs of execution, writs of
attachment, writs of replevin, writs of injunction, and all other processes
executed by him;
2.1.5.4. submits periodic reports to the Clerk of Court;
2.1.5.5. does related tasks and performs other duties that may be assigned
by the Executive Judge and/or Clerk of Court;
The duty of a sheriff is to execute judgments and orders of a Court. Perusal of the
above-quoted responsibilities pertaining to a Sheriff IV reveals that it is not one of
the official duties of respondent to entertain the voluntary surrender of accused
Miralles for the purpose of posting cash bond. While the said act of surrendering to
respondent is not expressly mentioned, it cannot also be implied from the express
duties of a Sheriff IV under the law.
Respondent in his answer justified his act by saying that he pursued such action
because he only inherited such process from his predecessors. He justified further
by saying that all presiding judges of Branch 6, 7, 8, 9 and 34 request him to
entertain the voluntary surrender of accused in their respective Court who want to
post bond.
However, had Judge Bitas or the Executive Judge issued a specific Order allowing
accused Miralles to surrender to Respondent, that task would have fallen under:
"does related tasks and performs other duties that may be assigned by the
Executive Judge and/or Clerk of Court."
Failing this, and without the said Order, Respondent has no authority to receive the
voluntary surrender of accused Miralles.
Respondent went beyond his official duties when he entertained the voluntary
surrender of accused Miralles, without any order from Judge Bitas, the Executive
Judge or the Clerk of Court. He was not mindful of his duties as a Sheriff IV. Said
act amounts to a misfeasance which renders any public officer liable under the law.
The evidences (Court Orders) submitted/offered by Respondent in his defense had
nothing to do with the case and were therefore irrelevant. Respondent cannot
escape administrative sanction by interposing his justifications that it was a
common practice which he just inherited from his predecessors. The same has no
merit.
Respondent having been in the government service for a long period of time should
have had a clear understanding of his official duties under the law. If, indeed, it
became a[n] established practice, and pursued such action upon the behest of the
presiding judges of RTC Tacloban, he should have clarified the same, and secured
the written order from the judge concerned, or much better, refused to perform an
act not sanctioned bylaw.[18]
The Court adopts the findings of the Investigating Judge, but modifies the
recommended penalty.
Section 1, Canon IV[19] of the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel [20] states that
court personnel shall at all times perform official duties properly and with diligence.
Section 7 thereof also provides that court personnel shall not be required to
perform any work outside the scope of their job description, viz.:
Sec. 7. Court personnel shall not be required to perform any work or
duty outside the scope of their assigned job description. (Emphasis supplied)
The foregoing rules are rooted in the constitutional principle that public office is a
public trust; hence, all public officers and employees, including court personnel in
the Judiciary, must serve the public with utmost responsibility and efficiency.
[21]
"Exhorting court personnel to exhibit the highest sense of dedication to their
assigned duty necessarily precludes requiring them to perform any work outside the
scope of their assigned job description, save for duties that are identical with or are
subsumed under their present functions." [22] Diligent and proper performance of
official duties thus impels that court personnel should be well aware of and duly act
within the scope of their assigned duties and responsibilities.
Under 2.2.4 of Chapter VI, Volume I of the 2002 Revised Manual for Clerks of Court
- which defines the general functions of all court personnel in the judiciary - the
Sheriff IV is tasked with serving writs and processes of the court; keeping custody
of attached properties; maintaining the record book on writs of execution, writs of
attachment, writs of replevin, writs of injunction, and all other processes; and
performing such other duties as may be assigned by the Executive Judge, Presiding
Judge and/or Branch Clerk of Court. Under 2.1.5 of the same Chapter, the Deputy
Sheriffs IV,V and VI are similarly tasked to serve writs and processes of the court;
to keep custody of attached properties; to maintain the record book on writs of
execution, writs of attachment, writs of replevin, writs of injunction, and all other
processes; and to do related tasks and perform other duties that may be assigned
by the Executive Judge and Clerk of Court.
It bears emphasis that while the sheriff may perform other tasks and duties
assigned by the said Judges or Clerks of Court, the same should be "related"
thereto, i.e., (1) within the scope of his job description, or (2) identical with or
subsumed under his present functions.
As aptly noted by the Investigating Judge, Sheriff Cabcabin's act of entertaining the
voluntary surrender of an accused in a criminal case for purposes of posting cash
bail bond is neither expressly stated nor can be necessarily implied from the job
description of a court sheriff. Such act is beyond the scope of his assigned job
description, and is hardly identical with or is subsumed under his present duties and
functions, as defined in the 2002 Revised Manual for Clerks of Court.
To justify his act of certifying the voluntary surrender of Miralles for the purpose of
availing of his right to bail, Sheriff Cabcabin tries to make much of the Orders [23] of
other Judges in the RTC of Tacloban City in different criminal cases. [24] However,
while the said orders authorized him to release the concerned accused in the
criminal cases after having posted sufficient bail bonds, nowhere can it be inferred
therein that he was also authorized to accept the voluntary surrender of the
accused. Contrary to his claim, there is no evidence on record to prove that Judges
in other Branches of the said RTC had requested sheriffs in the Clerk of Court to
issue a certificate of voluntary surrender, in the absence of their Branch Sheriffs.
Neither can he invoke that it was a common practice inherited from his
predecessors for a sheriff to entertain voluntary surrender of an accused without
authority from the judge or clerk of court, for it is basic that ignorance of the law
excuses no one from compliance therewith[25] and that laws are repealed only by
subsequent ones, and their violation or non-observance shall not be excused by
disuse, or custom or practice to the contrary.[26]
For performing an act beyond the clear scope of his duties and responsibilities, the
Court finds that Sheriff Cabcabin violated Section 1,[27] in relation to Section 7,[28]of
Canon IV of the Court of Conduct of Court Personnel, and holds him liable for
simple misconduct, which is a transgression of some established rule of action, an
unlawful behavior, or negligence committed by a public officer.[29] Under Section 46,

D(2) of the Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (RRACS),
[30]
simple misconduct is considered a less grave offense punishable by suspension
of one (1) month and one (1) day to six (6) months, for the first offense; and
dismissal from the service for the second offense.
Under Section 47[31] of the RRACS, payment of fine in place of suspension is allowed
when the respondent committed the offense without abusing the powers of his
position or office. The same provision[32] adds that payment of fine in lieu of
suspension shall be available in less grave offenses where the penalty imposed is
less than 6 months or less at the ratio of 1 day of suspension from the service to 1
day fine. In this case, the Court adopts the P5,000.00 fine recommended by the
Investigating Judge, there being no showing that Sheriff Cabcabin abused his
authority when he issued the questioned certification of voluntary surrender, and
considering that he was very sorry and apologetic for not having been extra careful
in the performance of his duties.[33] However, since he has filed an application for
optional retirement effective at the end of December 2015, it is no longer viable to
indicate that he should be sternly warned for repetition of the same act.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court finds respondent Sheriff IV Jose P.
Cabcabin of the Office of the Clerk of Court, Regional Trial Court, Tacloban City,
guilty of Simple Misconduct, and imposes a FINE of Five Thousand Pesos
(P5,000.00) to be deducted from his retirement benefits. Let a copy of this decision
be attached to his personal records.
SO ORDERED.
May 26, 2016

NOTICE OF JUDGMENT
Sirs / Mesdames:
Very truly yours,

Section 5. Child Prostitution and Other Sexual Abuse. - Children, whether male or
female, who for money, profit, or any other consideration or due to the coercion or
influence of any adult, syndicate or group, indulge in sexual intercourse or
lascivious conduct, are deemed to be children exploited in prostitution and other
sexual abuse.
[1]
The penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium period to reclusion perpetua shall
be imposed upon the following:
(a) Those who engage in or promote, facilitate or induce child prostitution which
include, but are not limited to, the following:
(1) Acting as a procurer of a child prostitute;
(2) Inducing a person to be a client of a child prostitute by means of written or oral
advertisements or other similar means;
(3) Taking advantage of influence or relationship to procure a child as prostitute;
(4) Threatening or using violence towards a child to engage him as a prostitute; or
(5) Giving monetary consideration goods or other pecuniary benefit to a child with
intent to engage such child in prostitution.
(b) Those who commit the act of sexual intercourse of lascivious conduct with a
child exploited in prostitution or subject to other sexual abuse; Provided, That when
the victims is under twelve (12) years of age, the perpetrators shall be prosecuted
under Article 335, paragraph 3, for rape and Article 336 of Act No. 3815, as
amended, the Revised Penal Code, for rape or lascivious conduct, as the case may
be: Provided, That the penalty for lascivious conduct when the victim is under
twelve (12) years of age shall be reclusion temporal in its medium period; and
(c) Those who derive profit or advantage therefrom, whether as manager or owner
of the establishment where the prostitution takes place, or of the sauna, disco, bar,
resort, place of entertainment or establishment serving as a cover or which
engages in prostitution in addition to the activity for which the license has been
issued to said establishment.
[2]
"Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination
Act."
Section 6. Qualified Trafficking in Persons. - The following are considered as
qualified trafficking:
[3]
(a) When the trafficked person is a child;

(b) When the adoption is effected through Republic Act No. 8043, otherwise known
as the "Inter- Country Adoption Act of 1995" and said adoption is for the purpose of
prostitution, pornography, sexual exploitation, forced labor, slavery, involuntary
servitude or debt bondage;
(c) When the crime is committed by a syndicate, or in large scale. Trafficking is
deemed committed by a syndicate if carried out by a group of three (3) or more
persons conspiring or confederating with one another. It is deemed committed in
large scale if committed against three (3) or more persons, individually or as a
group;
(d) When the offender is an ascendant, parent, sibling, guardian or a person who
exercises authority over the trafficked person or when the offense is committed by
a public officer or employee;
(e) When the trafficked person is recruited to engage in prostitution with any
member of the military or law enforcement agencies;
(f) When the offender is a member of the military or law enforcement agencies;
and
(g) When by reason or on occasion of the act of trafficking in persons, the offended
party dies, becomes insane, suffers mutilation or is afflicted with Human
Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) or the Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome
(AIDS).
[4]
"Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003."
Section 4. Acts of Trafficking in Persons. - It shall be unlawful for any person,

natural or juridical, to commit any of the following acts:
[5]
(a) To recruit, transport, transfer; harbor, provide, or receive a person by any

means, including those done under the pretext of domestic or overseas
employment or training or apprenticeship, for the purpose of prostitution,
pornography, sexual exploitation, forced labor, slavery, involuntary servitude or debt
bondage;
[6]
(e) To maintain or hire a person to engage in prostitution or pornography;
In Jorda v. Bitas, 718 SCRA 1 (2014), the Court found Judge Bitas guilty of gross
ignorance of the law for fixing Danilo Miralles' bail and reducing the same motu
proprio, without allowing the prosecution to present its defense, despite the fact
that the accused was charged with Qualified Trafficking P2,000,000.00 but not more
than P5,000,000.00. The Court suspended Judge Bitas from the service for a period
of three (3) months and one (1) day without pay, and warned that a repetition of a
similar offense will warrant the imposition of a more severe penalty.
[7]
[8]
Rollo, p. 6.
[9]
Id. at 7.
[10]
Id. at 9.
[11]
Id. at 4-5. (Emphasis in the original)
[12]
Id. at 11.
[13]
Id. at 14.
[14]
Id. at 15-19.
[15]
Id. at 15.
[16]
Id. at 22.
[17]
1. Exhibit "A" and series - Administrative Complaint of Prosecutor Tabao;

2. Exhibit "B" - Order dated February 2, 2011 of Judge Bitas;
3. Exhibit "C" - Certification dated February dated February 4, 2011 issued by

Sheriff Cabcabin;
4. Exhibit "D" - Cash bail bond receipt dated February 4, 2011 issued by Marilyn
G. Padilla, Office of the Clerk of Court;
5. Exhibit "E" - Cash bail bond dated February 4, 2011 approved by Judge Bitas;
6. Exhibit "F" - Notice dated February 4, 2011 issued by Judge Bitas, informing
any officer of the law that Miralles has posted cash bond in the amount of
P120,000.00 in connection with the 3 criminal cases;

7. Exhibit" 1" - Answer of Sheriff Cabcabin;
8. Exhibit "2" - Release Order dated January 31, 2011 issued by Judge Serrano;
9. Exhibit "3" - Release Order dated July 28, 2011 issued by Judge Salvador Y.
Apurillo;
10. Exhibit "4" - Release Order dated May 25, 2011 issued by Judge Apurillo;
and
11 Exhibit "5" - Release Order dated June 3, 2008 issued by Judge Apurillo.
[18]
Rollo, pp. 59-61.
[19]
Performance of Duties.
[20]
A.M. No. 03-06- 13-SC. Effective June 1, 2004.
[21]
Executive Judge Apita v. Estanislao, 661 Phil. 1, 9 (2011).
[22]
Id. at 9-10.
[23]
Rollo, pp. 16-19.
Id. People v. Johan Babiano, Criminal Case No. 2011-01-65 for Estafa; People v.
Cristina D. Arreola, Criminal Case No. 2010-05-259 for Estafa; People v. Perlita
Lacandazo, Criminal Case No. 2011-05-313 for Estafa; and People v. Emmanuel
Balano, Criminal Case No. 2004-09-628 for Homicide.
[24]
[25]
New Civil Code, Art. 3.
[26]
Id., Art. 7.
Sec. 1. Court personnel shall at all times perform official duties properly and
with diligence. They shall commit themselves exclusively to the business and
responsibilities of their office during working hours.
[27]
Sec. 7. Court personnel shall not be required to perform any work or duty
outside the scope of their assigned job description.
[28]
[29]
Campos, et al. v. Judge Campos, 681 Phil. 247, 254 (2012), citing China
Banking Corporation v. Janolo, Jr., 577 Phil. 176, 181 (2008).

Civil Service Commission Resolution No. 11-01502, promulgated on November
18, 2011. Same as in Sec. 52(B)(2), Rule IV, of the Revised Uniform Rules on
Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, Resolution No. 99-1936 dated August 31,
1999.
[30]
Section 47. Penalty of Fine. - The following are the guidelines for the penalty of
fine:
[31]
1. Upon the request of the head of office or the concerned party and when
supported by justifiable reason/s, the disciplining authority may allow the payment
of fine in place of suspension if any of the following circumstances are present:
a. When the functions/nature of the office is impressed with national interest
such as those involved in the maintenance of peace and order, health and
safety, education; or
b. When the respondent is actually discharging frontline functions or those
directly dealing with the public and the personnel complement of the office is
insufficient to perform such function; and
c. When the respondent committed the offense without utilizing or abusing the
power of his/her position.
Section 47. Penalty of Fine. - The following are the guidelines for the penalty of
fine:
[32]
xxxx
2. The payment of penalty of fine in lieu of suspension shall be available in Grave,
Less Grave and Light Offenses where the penalty imposed is for six (6) months or
less at the ratio of one (1) day of suspension from the service to one (1) day fine;
Provided, that in Grave Offenses where the penalty imposed is six (6) months and
one (1) day suspension in view of the presence of mitigating circumstance, the
conversion shall only apply to the suspension of six (6) months. Nonetheless, the
remaining one (1) day suspension is deemed included therein.
[33]
Rollo, p. 15.

A.M.
No.
RTJ-14-2385
[Formerly
A.M.
No.
14-4-115-RTC]
OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, PETITIONER, VS. JUDGE ROMEO B. CASALAN, [FORMERLY A.M. NO. 14-4115-RTC (REPORT ON THE FINANCIAL AUDIT CONDUCTED IN THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT [RTC], BRANCHES 13 AND
65,
CULASI
AND
BUGASONG,
ANTIQUE)].RESPONDENT.
April 20, 2016
THIRD DIVISION
[ A.M. No. RTJ-14-2385 [Formerly A.M. No.
14-4-115-RTC], April 20, 2016 ]
OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, PETITIONER, VS.
JUDGE ROMEO B. CASALAN, [FORMERLY A.M. NO. 14-4-115RTC (REPORT ON THE FINANCIAL AUDIT CONDUCTED IN THE
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT [RTC], BRANCHES 13 AND 65,
CULASI AND BUGASONG, ANTIQUE)].RESPONDENT.
DECISION
PERALTA, J.:
This administrative matter arose from the judicial audit and inventory of cases
conducted on August 7 and 8, 2012 in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Culasi,
Antique, Branch 13 and the RTC of Bugasong, Antique, Branch 65, both presided
over by the Hon. Romeo B. Casalan as regular judge and acting presiding judge,
respectively.
In a Memorandum[1] dated August 30, 2012, the Judicial Audit Team of the Office of
the Court Administrator (OCA) reported that as of August 8, 2012, Branch 13, the
regular court of Judge Casalan, has a caseload of Two Hundred and Twelve (212)
pending cases, comprising of Eighty-nine (89) criminal cases and One Hundred and
Twenty-Three (123) civil and other cases. The team made the following findings and
observations:
1. Fifteen (15) criminal cases and Thirty (33) civil and other cases are submitted for
decision beyond the Ninety (90)-day reglementary period to decide them;
2. Four (4) criminal cases and Twenty-five (25) civil and other cases have pending
motions/incidents which are submitted for resolution beyond the mandatory period
to resolve them;
3. Six (6) criminal cases and Thirteen (13) civil and other cases have no further
setting or action for at least One (1) month from the date of the last court
action/setting;
4. A criminal case and a civil case have not been acted upon since the time the
information and the complaint were filed in court;
5. Ten (10) cases have been pending in the docket of the court for 10 years or
more; Seven (7) cases for Nine (9) years and 3 cases for Eight (8) years;
6. Case records do not contain an index of case events and are not stitched;
7. Pleadings, orders, notices, minutes of court sessions, returns and other relevant
papers or documents are not immediately attached to the case folders
orexpediente;
8. Some pleadings and court orders/issuances are merely inserted in the case
folders;
9. Cases for Declaration of Nullity of Marriages are docketed as special civil action;
10. Leniency in granting postponements; and
11. Hearings are conducted only on the 1st 2 weeks of the month, while the 3rd and
4th weeks of the month are devoted to Branch 64, Bugasong, Antique and inhibited
cases in Branches 10, 11 and 12 are heard on Mondays of the scheduled hearings in
Branch 64.
In a Memorandum[2] dated August 28, 2012, the Judicial Audit Team of the OCA also
reported that as of August 7, 2012, Branch 65, where Judge Casalan was
designated as acting presiding judge, has a caseload of Two Hundred and Thirtytwo (232) pending cases, comprising of One Hundred and Fifty-three (153) criminal
cases and Seventy-nine (79) civil and other cases. The team then made the
following findings and observations:
1. A criminal case and a civil case are submitted for decision beyond the 90-day
reglementary period to decide them;
2. Fourteen (14) civil and other cases have pending motions/incidents which are
submitted for resolution beyond the mandatory period to resolve them;
3. Eight (8) criminal cases and 14 civil and other cases have no further settings or
actions for at least 1 month from the date of the last court action/setting;
4. A criminal case and Twelve (12) civil and other cases have not been acted upon
since the time of filing;
5. Pleadings, orders, notices, minutes of court sessions, returns and other relevant
papers or documents are not immediately attached/stitched to the case folders
or expediente and not in the order of the date of the receipt or issuance thereof;
and
6. Each and every page of the documents attached/stitched to the case folders are
not paginated.
As a result of the foregoing judicial audit and inventory of cases, the OCA, through
the said memoranda dated August 28 and 30, 2012, directed Judge Casalan to
comply as follows:
1. To explain why the cases submitted for decision were not decided within the
reglementary period, to decide the same within 2 months from notice, and to
submit copies of such decisions;
2. To explain why the pending motions/incidents were not resolved within the
mandatory period, to immediately resolve the same and submit copies of such
resolutions;
3. To submit copies of the orders issued in cases with pending motions/incidents for
resolution which were still within the mandatory period to resolve at the time of the
audit;
4. To immediately act on the cases where no action has been made since the time
of their filing, and submit copies of the actions thereon;
5. To direct the Officer-in-Charge to attach to the case records an index of case
events, to stitch all case folders, and to docket cases for Declaration of Nullity of
Marriage as an ordinary civil action;
6. To expedite the disposition of cases which have been pending in the docket of the
court for eight years or more and to submit a quarterly report on the status of
cases which have been pending in the court docket for 8 years or more, and to
submit a quarterly report on the status of such cases; and
7. To strictly comply with Administrative Circular No. 76-2007 (Submission of
Semestral Docket Inventory Report) and Administrative Circular No. 61-2001
(Revised Rules, Guidelines, and Instructions on Accomplishing Monthly Report of
Cases), and to direct the Officer-in Charge to amend the Monthly Report of Cases
submitted to the Statistical Reports Division, Court Management Office.
In a letter[3] dated November 28, 2012, Judge Casalan requested an extension of
two (2) months within which to comply with the memoranda, given the number of
cases to be resolved in both courts.
On February 18, 2013, the OCA directed anew Judge Casalan to immediately
comply with the memoranda, and reminded him that extensions will no longer be
granted as the subject cases have been long overdue.
On September 30, 2013, the OCA directed Judge Casalan to explain his failure to
submit copies of the decisions with regard to the audit conducted in Branch 13, RTC
of Culasi, Antique, with a warning that the matter will be reported to the Court for
the filing of appropriate administrative charges should he still fail to abide by the
directives of the OCA.
Judge Casalan failed to comply with the OCA directives until he reached the
mandatory retirement age of Seventy (70) years old on March 2, 2014.
In its Memorandum dated March 6, 2014, the OCA recommended that Judge
Casalan be fined in the amount equivalent to three (3) months' salary at the time of
his retirement for undue delay in the disposition of cases and for insubordination, to
be deducted from his retirement/gratuity benefits.
The OCA stressed that Judge Casalan's refusal to comply with the repeated
directives in its memoranda is a show of disrespect not only to its authority over
lower court judges and personnel, but also to the Court's lawful order and directive.
It added that he has also been remiss in his duty to dispense justice without delay
as required under the Constitution and Canon 6, Section 5 of the New Code of
Judicial Conduct which provides that judges shall perform all judicial duties,
including the delivery of reserved decisions efficiently, fairly and with reasonable
promptness. In particular, the OCA found, thus:
The judicial audit conducted in his court in Branch 13 showed that Judge Casalan
had fifty-three (53) cases submitted for decision, majority of which were already
beyond the mandatory period to decide. He also had forty-one (41) cases with
pending motions and incidents for resolution that were not resolved and nineteen
(19) dormant cases. In Branch 64 where he was the acting presiding judge, four (4)
cases were not decided and twenty-one (21) cases with pending motions were not
resolved.
A review of the Monthly Report of Cases for the month of December 2013 of Branch
13, RTC, Culasi, Antique, showed that ten (10) out of the fifty-three (53) cases
subject of the memorandum were decided. In Branch 64, RTC, Bugasong, the
Monthly Report of Cases for September 2013 disclosed that Civil Case Nos. 0192
and 0182 have not yet been decided. Incidentally, Judge Antonio M. Natino of the
RTC, Iloilo City, x x x. Iloilo is now the acting presiding judge of Branch 64, RTC,
Bugasong, Antique.
The Court has stressed in a plethora of cases that the rules prescribing the time
within which certain acts must be done or certain proceedings are mandatory for
the orderly and speedy discharge of judicial business. Delay in the disposition of
cases deprives the litigants of their right to speedy disposition of their cases and
tarnished the image of the judiciary. Similarly, procrastination among members of
the judiciary in rendering decisions and taking appropriate actions on the cases
before them not only cause great injustice to the parties involved but also invite
suspicion of ulterior motives on the part of the judge, in addition to the fact that it
erodes the faith and confidence of our people in the judiciary, lowers its standards
and brings it into disrepute.
We note that Judge Casalan had, for a time, presided over two (2) courts and was
also designated by the Court to hear the inhibited cases in all the RTC branches in
San Jose, Antique. However, his designations in other courts will not exonerate him
from any administrative liability for delay because Judge Casalan should have
requested for an extension of time to decide or asked for his relief to try and decide
the inhibited cases in San Jose if he thinks that he could not handle his workload.
Consequently, it is clear that Judge Casalan should be administratively held liable
under Section 9 (1) and Section 11 (b), Rule 140 of the Rules of Court and Section
5, Canon 6 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary for
undue delay in rendering a decision or order and for his defiance to comply with the
OCA directives. These are considered less serious charges punishable by suspension
from office without salary and other benefits for not less than one (1) month, but
not more than three (3) months, or a fine of more than P10,000.00, but not
exceeding P20,000.00
The fine imposed vary in each case, depending chiefly on the number of cases or
matter undecided or unresolved, respectively, within the reglementary period and
the presence of aggravating or mitigating circumstances. In some cases, fines more
than the maximum amount were imposed when the undue delay was coupled with
other offenses. x x x
xxx
Considering the number of cases that were left undecided and motions unresolved
and the fact that he defied the orders sent to him, the maximum penalty of
suspension from office for three (3) months is in order. However, in view of Judge
Casalan's retirement from the service on March 2, 2014, the only penalty that the
Court can impose against him is a fine, pursuant to the rule that the retirement of a
judge does not release him from liability incurred while in the active service. As
such, a penalty of fine equivalent to three (3) months salary at the time of Judge
Casalan's retirement should be imposed.[4]
The Court sustains the findings and recommendation of the OCA.
Records disclose the undisputed delay in the disposition of numerous cases
assigned to Branches 13 and 64 which was then presided by Judge Casalan, despite
the OCA's directives for the immediate resolution of such cases. Despite the grant
of his request for a 2-month extension to comply with the directives, he still failed
to resolve the pending cases subject of the memoranda dated August 28 and 30,
2012. In fact, as of December 2013, the List of Cases pending before Branch 13
indicates that Twenty (20) civil cases, Seventeen (17) special proceedings, and 17
criminal cases are already deemed submitted for decision but have yet to be
decided despite the lapse of the 90-day reglementary period. With respect to
Branch 64, the monthly report of September 2013 states that 4 civil cases, 5
special proceedings, and a criminal case are already deemed submitted for decision
but are still undecided despite the lapse of the reglementary period. No sufficient
justification or valid reason is offered by Judge Casalan for his failure to decide the
said cases within the reglementary period. Hence, he should be held
administratively liable for such gross inefficiency.
In Re: Report on the Judicial Audit Conducted in the RTC, Br. 4, Dolores, Eastern
Samar,[5] the Court ruled that:
Section 15, Article VIII of the Constitution states that judges must decide all cases
within three months from the date of submission. In Re: Report on the Judicial
Audit Conducted at the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (Branch 1), Surigao City, the
Court held that:
A judge is mandated to render a decision not more than 90 days from the
time a case is submitted for decision. Judges are todispose of the court's
business promptly and decide cases within the period specified in the
Constitution, that is, 3 months from the filing of the last pleading, brief or
memorandum. Failure to observe said rule constitutes a ground for
administrative sanctionagainst the defaulting judge, absent sufficient

justification for his noncompliance therewith.
Rule 1.02, Canon 1 of the Code of Judicial Conduct states that judges should
administer justice without delay. Rule 3.05 of Canon 3 states that judges shall
dispose of the court's business promptly and decide cases within the required
periods. In Office of the Court Administrator v. Javellana, the Court held that:
A judge cannot choose his deadline for deciding cases pending before him. Without
an extension granted by this Court, the failure to decide even a single case within
the required period constitutes gross inefficiency that merits administrative
sanction.
The Code of Judicial Conduct, specifically Canon 3, Rule 3.05 mandates
judges to attend promptly to the business of the court and decide cases
within the periods prescribed by law and the Rules. Under the 1987
Constitution, lower court judges are also mandated to decide cases within 90 days
from submission.
Judges must closely adhere to the Code of Judicial Conduct in order to
preserve the integrity, competence and independence of the judiciary and make the
administration of justice more efficient. Time and again, we have stressed the
need to strictly observe this duty so as not to negate our efforts to
minimize, if not totally eradicate, the twin problems of congestion and
delay that have long plagued our courts.
In Office of the Court Administrator v. Garcia-Blanco, the Court held that the 90day reglementary period is mandatory. Failure to decide cases within the
reglementary period constitutes a ground for administrative liability except when
there are valid reasons for the delay.[6]
Concededly, the honor and integrity of the judicial system is measured not only by
the fairness and correctness of decisions rendered, but also by the efficiency with
which disputes are resolved.[7] "Thus, judges must perform their official duties with
utmost diligence if public confidence in the judiciary is to be preserved. There is no
excuse for mediocrity in the performance of judicial functions. The position of judge
exacts nothing less than faithful observance of the law and the Constitution in the
discharge of official duties."[8]
Meanwhile, the OCA duly noted that Judge Casalan's failure to comply with the
directives in its memoranda dated August 28 and 30, 2012 also constitutes
insubordination and disrespect for the Court's lawful orders and directives. It bears
emphasis that judges should treat directives from the OCA as if issued directly by
the Court and comply promptly and conscientiously with them since it is through
the OCA that the Court exercises its constitutionally-mandated administrative
supervision over all courts and the personnel thereof.[9] Unjustified failure to comply
with such directives constitutes misconduct and exacerbates administrative liability.
[10]
Failure to resolve cases submitted for decision within the period fixed by law
constitutes a serious violation of Section 16,[11] Article III of the Constitution. Failure
to render decisions and orders within the reglementary period is also a breach of
Rule 3.05,[12] Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct and Section 5, [13] Canon 6 of
the New Code of Judicial Conduct. Classified as less serious charges under Section
9,[14] Rule 140 of the Rules of Court,[15] undue delay in rendering decision or order,
and violation of Supreme Court rules, directives and circulars, are penalized with
either suspension without pay for a period of not less than One (1) month, but not
more than Three (3) months, or a fine of more than P10,000.00, but not more than
P20,000.00.[16]
In light of the numerous "submitted for decision" cases that Judge Casalan left
undecided within the reglementary period, and the fact that he failed to comply
with the directives in the OCA's memoranda without valid reason despite the grant
of his request for a 2-month extension, the Court upholds the maximum penalty it
recommended, i.e., a fine in the amount equivalent to Three (3) months' salary at
the time of his retirement, to be deducted from his retirement/gratuity benefits.
WHEREFORE, the Court finds Judge Romeo B. Casalan of the Regional Trial Court
of Culasi, Antique, Branch 13, GUILTY of the less serious charges of undue delay
in rendering decision or order and of violation of Supreme Court rules and
directives, under Section 9, Rule 140 of the Rules of Court. Pursuant to Section 11
of the same Rule, he is ORDERED to pay a FINE in the amount equivalent to Three
(3) months' salary at the time of his retirement for undue delay in the disposition of
cases and for insubordination, to be deducted from his retirement/gratuity benefits.
SO ORDERED.
May 25, 2016

NOTICE OF JUDGMENT
Sirs / Mesdames:
Very truly yours,

[1]
Annex "A," records.
[2]
Annex "B," id.
[3]
Annex "C," id.
[4]
Citations omitted.
[5]
562 Phil. 301 (2007).
Re: Report on the Judicial Audit Conducted in the RTC, Br. 4, Dolores, Eastern
Samar, supra, at 313-314. (Emphasis in the original; citations omitted.)
[6]
Re: Report on the Judicial Audit conducted in the RTC - Branch 56, Mandaue City,
658 Phil. 533, 540-541 (2011).
[7]
[8]
Id., citing Petallar v. Pullos, 419 SCRA 434, 438 (2004).
[9]
Office of the Court Administrator v. Judge Bagundang, 566 Phil. 149, 158 (2008).
[10]
Id.
Sec. 16. All persons shall have the right to a speedy disposition of their cases
before all judicial, quasi-judicial or administrative bodies.
[11]
CANON 3 - A JUDGE SHOULD PERFORM OFFICIAL DUTIES HONESTLY, AND WITH

IMPARTIALITY AND DILIGENCE
[12]
xxxx
Rule 3.05 - A judge shall dispose of the court's business promptly and decide cases
within the required periods.
[13]
CANON 6 - COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE
xxxx
Section 5. Judges shall perform all judicial duties, including the delivery of reserved
decisions, efficiently, fairly and with reasonable promptness.
[14]
Section 9. Less Serious Charges. - Less serious charges include:
1. Undue delay in rendering decision or order, or in transmitting records of a case;

xxxx
4. Violation of Supreme Court rules, directives, and circulars;
xxx
[15]
As amended.
[16]
Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, Section 11. Sanctions.
xxxx
B. If the respondent is guilty of a less serious charge, any of the following sanctions
shall be imposed:
1. Suspension from office without salary and other benefits for not less than one (I)
month no more than three (3) months; or
2. A fine of more than P10,000.00 but not exceeding P20,000.00.

G.R.
No.
192428
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ELPEDIO CASTAAS Y ESPINOSA ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
April 20, 2016
THIRD DIVISION
[ G.R. No. 192428, April 20, 2016 ]
ELPEDIO CASTAAS Y ESPINOSA ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
DECISION
PEREZ, J.:
Before us for review is the Decision[1] of the Court of Appeals, Nineteenth Division in
CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 00014 dated 31 March 2009, which dismissed the appeal of
appellant Elpedio Castaas y Espinosa and affirmed with modification the
Judgment[2] of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Naval, Biliran, Branch 16, in
Criminal Case No. N-2295, finding appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
crime of Statutory Rape.
In line with the ruling of this Court in People v. Cabalquinto,[3] the real name and
identity of the rape victim, as well as the members of her immediate family, are not
disclosed. The rape victim shall herein be referred to as A A A, and her mother as
BBB.
Appellant was charged with the crime of rape in an Information, the accusatory
portion of which reads as follows:
That on or about the 12th day of JANUARY, 2004, at about 10:30 o'clock in the
morning, more or less, at Brgy. Banlas, Municipality of Maripipi, Biliran Province,
Philippoines (sic), and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, said accused,
actuated by lust and taking advantage ofthe innocence of [AAA], a 4-year old minor
Day Care Pupil, did then and there brought the latter to the house of a certain Esok,
and thereafter accused wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously laid her down and he, in
turn took off his pants and underwear, laid on top of said minor [AAA] against her,
to her damage and prejudice.
CONTRARY TO LAW with the aggravating circumstances of abuse of superior
strength and that victim is a minor child 4 years of age.[4]
Appellant pleaded not guilty to the crime charged. Trial on the merits ensued.
AAA, who was only four (4) years old at the time of the commission of the crime,
and five (5) years old when she took the witness stand, stated that she knows the
appellant as "tatay Pedio." She testified that she had been sexually abused by the
latter two (2) times. The first time was in the house of a certain Uncle Haludo. The
second time was on 12 January 2004 when appellant brought her to the house of a
certain Uncle Isok. With no one else in the house, appellant removed AAA's panty,
touched and kissed her vagina, sexually abused and had sexual intercourse with
her.[5]
BBB, AAA's mother, confirmed that AAA was four (4) years old at the time of the
commission of the crime and this was supported by AAA's birth certificate presented
in court. BBB narrated that in the morning of said date, she had asked AAA to
bathe. Appellant, who was a neighbor and who was within the area, then
interrupted to say in the vernacular, "karigo Eday para makiiha an hiras" which
means "take a bath, Eday, to take away the itchiness." After the bath, when AAA
was without underwear, BBB noticed AAA's female anatomy to be reddish. BBB
asked AAA the reason for the redness and AAA replied that appellant had kissed it.
BBB then brought AAA to her mother's house, and there AAA revealed that
appellant sexually molested her or "hupit. " Thus, BBB took AAA to the hospital for
medical examination.[6]
AAA was physically examined by Dr. Noel Albeda on 12 January 2004. Per his
Medical Certificate dated 12 January 2004:
Awake, concious (sic), coherent, ambulatory and not in CP distress.
Pelvic Exam: (+) hypermia (sic) at both labial, minor folds.
(+) tenderness at hymenal area with slight application of cotton buds
POSITIVE for Spermatozoal Examination.[7]
During direct examination, Dr. Albeda explained that AAA's vaginal opening was
reddish due to friction or hematoma from an object which could include a sexual
organ. There was tenderness at the hymenal area as an examination of which
caused AAA to complain; which examination yielded positive results for presence of
spermatozoa. Dr. Albeda opines that someone forced himself into AAA's female
anatomy but could not penetrate due to its smallness in size and thus the discharge
outside it. There was trauma on the labia minora and spermatozoal specimen was
found in the hymenal area, by the mouth of the vagina, on the face of the labia
minora.[8]
Appellant, for his part, denied the charges. He testified that he knows AAA because
they are neighbors. He claimed that on 12 January 2004, at 9 o'clock in the
morning, AAA approached him and went to his house as she often did. There was
no one else around at that time. Appellant claimed that AAA placed herself on his
lap while he was merely wearing underwear. Appellant confessed that when he
reached orgasm, he slapped AAA on her vagina. Appellant admitted to being
inebriated that time.[9]
On 30 November 2004, appellant was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
statutory rape. The dispositive portion of the RTC Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, this [c]ourt finds the accused Elpedio Castaas
Y Espinosa GUILTY in Criminal Case No. N-2295; hereby imposing upon him the
penalty of DEATH by lethal injection.
The accused shall pay [AAA] the amount of P75,000.00 as moral damages and to
further pay P50,000.00 in civil indemnity for the rape committed. [10]
On intermediate review, the Court of Appeals rendered the assailed decision
affirming with modification the trial court's judgment, to wit:
WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, the assailed Decision of the Regional
Trial Court dated November 30, 2004 finding accused-appellant Elpedio Castaas y
Espinosa guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Rape is hereby AFFIRMED with
MODIFICATION. Accordingly, accused-appellant is sentenced to suffer the penalty
of reclusion perpetua and is ordered to indemnify AAA the amounts of P75,000.00
as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages and P25,000.00 as exemplary
damages.[11]
Appellant filed the instant appeal. In a Resolution[12] dated 04 August 2010,
appellant and the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) were asked to file their
respective supplemental briefs if they so desired. OSG manifested that it was
adopting its brief filed before the appellate court [13] while appellant filed his
Supplemental Brief[14]in which he insists that if he indeed raped AAA, such a violent
act would have left a physical sign or mark.
We affirm the appellant's conviction.
Rape is committed as follows:
Article 266-A. Rape; When and How committed. - Rape is committed 1. By a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the
following circumstances:
a. Through force, threat or intimidation;
b. When the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious;
c. By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority; and
d. When the woman is under twelve (12) years of age or is demented, even
though none of the circumstances mentioned above be present.
xxxx
Article 266-B. Penalties - Rape under paragraph 1 of the next preceding article shall
be punished by reclusion perpetua.
xxxx
The death penalty shall also be imposed if the crime of rape is committed with any
of the following attendant circumstances:
xxxx
5) When the victim is a child below seven (7) years old;
xxxx
Statutory rape is committed by sexual intercourse with a woman below twelve (12)
years of age regardless of her consent, or the lack of it to the sexual act. Proof of
force, intimidation, or consent is unnecessary. These are not elements of statutory
rape as the absence of free consent is conclusively presumed when the victim is
below the age of twelve. At that age, the law presumes that the victim does not
possess discernment and is incapable of giving intelligent consent to the sexual act.
To convict an accused of the crime of statutory rape, the prosecution carries the
burden of proving; (1) the age of the complainant; (2) the identity of the accused;
and (3) the sexual intercourse between the accused and the complainant. [15]
In rape cases, primordial is the credibility of the victim's testimony because the
accused may be convicted solely on said testimony provided it is credible, natural,
convincing and consistent with human nature and the normal course of things.
[16]
Testimonies of child victims are given full weight and credit, for when a woman
or a girl-child says that she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary
to show that rape was indeed committed. Youth and maturity are generally badges
of truth and sincerity.[17]
The prosecution presented proof of the required elements of statutory rape. AAA's
age, only four (4) years old at the time of the crime, was shown by her Birth
Certificate; she was born on 6 February 1999 while the alleged rape was committed
on 12 January 2004.[18] AAA also positively identified in court appellant as the
perpetrator of the crime.[19] AAA, in the painstaking and degrading public trial, in all
of her five (5) years, also related the painful ordeal of her sexual abuse by
appellant. AAA's testimony was found by the trial court, which had the better
position to evaluate and appreciate testimonial evidence, to be more credible than

that of the defense.[20] Following are pertinent portions:
Q
A
[AAA], do you know a certain "Pedio"?

Yes, Sir.
Q
A
0 Please point him out if he is inside this office [.]

A That man. (Witness pointing to a man who when asked of his name answered Elpedio
Castaas)
Q
A
Personally, how do you call him?

Tatay Pedio.
Q
A
What did your Tay Pedio do to you?

"Guinhupit ako." (Meaning: "He sexually abused me.")
Q
A
Who sexually abused you?

Tay Pedio.
xx
xx
Q
A
On January 12, 2004, do you remember what your Tay Pedio do to you?
Yes, Sir.
Q
A
What did your Tay Pedio do to you?

I was undressed by him.
Q
A
In whose house?
In the house of Uncle Isok.
Q
A
After your Tay Pedio undressed you, what did he do to you?

I was sexually abused.[21]
Even during cross-examination, AAA clearly testified, to wit:
Q
A
[AAA], when you said you were sexually abused by Pedio, you mean to tell this [c]ourt that
he touched your vagina?
Yes, Sir.
Q
A
And that time when your Tay Pedio touched your vagina, your panty was in its place?
No more.
Q
A
Who removed your panty?

Tay Pedio?
Q
A
And in your affidavit [AAA], you also mentioned that your Tay Pedio kissed your vagina?
Yes, Sir.
Q
A
And that time when your Tay Pedio kissed your vagina, your panty was still in its place?
No more.
xx
xx
Q
A
And your Tay Pedio did no other act except touching and kissing your vagina?
He sexually abused me, he succeeded in having sexual intercourse with me.
Q
A
That was after he touched your vagina?

Yes, Sir.
Q
A
[AAA], was there anybod[y] who told you what to say to this [c]ourt?
None Sir.[22]
The medical report and the testimony of the examining physician, Dr. Albeda,
confirm the truthfulness of the charge. Appellant, however, only confesses to having
had an ejaculation near AAA's female anatomy but denies having sexual contact or
intercourse with AAA. He asserts that the absence of hymenal lacerations supports
his statements.
The Court rebuffs this defense of denial. Aside from being weak, it is self-serving
evidence which pales in comparison to AAA's and BBB's clear narration of facts and
positive identification of appellant. Moreover, the Court disbelieves that appellant
could only have had a spontaneous ejaculation without having done other acts to
bring about the same. The medical findings of AAA's hyperemia at both her labial
folds, the tenderness at her hymenal area and the presence of spermatozoa
evidence that sexual contact did occur. Mere spanking of AAA's female anatomy
could not have caused these conditions. The Court also has said often enough that
in concluding that carnal knowledge took place, full penetration of the vaginal
orifice is not an essential ingredient, nor is the rupture of the hymen necessary; the
mere touching of the external genitalia by the penis capable of consummating the
sexual act is sufficient to constitute carnal knowledge. To be precise, the touching
of the labia majoraor the labia minora of the pudendum by the penis constitutes
consummated rape.[23]
Appellant's contention that the Information filed against him did not clearly state
the elements of the crime as it did not state the gravamen of the crime of rape,
that is, sexual intercourse or sexual assault through insertion of any instrument or
object[24] also deserves scant consideration.
While generally, an accused cannot be convicted of an offense that is not clearly
charged in the information, this rule is not without exception. The right to assail the
sufficiency of the information or the admission of the evidence may be waived by
the accused.[25] As held in People v. Torillos:[26]
Appellant contends that the information tailed to specify the acts which constituted
the crime. It is too late in the day for him to assail the insufJiciency of the
allegations in the information. He should have raised this issue prior to his
arraignment by filing a motion to quash. Failing to do so, he is deemed to have
waived any objection on this ground pursuant to Rule 117, Section 9 (formerly
Section 8) of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure x x x
xxxx
In People v. Palarca, the accusatory portion of the information failed to specifically
allege that the rape was committed through force or intimidation, although the
prosecution was able to establish by evidence that the appellant was guilty of rape
as defined under Article 266-A, paragraph (I) (a) of the Revised Penal Code.
Similarly, the appellant failed to object to the sufficiency of the information or to the
admission of evidence. In affirming his conviction, it was held that an information
which lacks certain essential allegations may still sustain a conviction when the
accused fails to object to its sufficiency during the trial, and the deficiency was
cured by competent evidence presented therein[27]. (Emphasis supplied and
citations omitted)
Herein, if there was any missing allegation of carnal knowledge, the Court believes
the appellant had been adequately informed of the nature and the cause of the
accusation against him by the initial complaint filed against him together with the
supporting affidavits of the witnesses and the medical examination of AAA. Thus:
That on or about 10:30 o'clock in the morning of January 12, 2004, at Barangay
Banlas, Maripipi, Biliran, Philippines and within the preliminary jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused with deliberate intent, with lewd
designs approached AAA, 4 years old, Day Care Pupil, and bring it to the house of
one Esok did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously had sexual
intercourse with the victim which was against her will.[28]
Notably, appellant has belatedly first raised this issue on appeal. He failed to raise
this before the trial court. Relevantly, appellant neither interposed objection to the
prosecution's presentation of evidence of carnal knowledge. In fact, he actively
participated during trial and was able to present his defense evidence.
In sum, appellant's guilt of the crime charged was established beyond reasonable
doubt.
Statutory rape, penalized under Article 266 A (1), paragraph (d) of the Revised
Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 8353 or the Anti-Rape Law of 1997,
carries the penalty of reclusion perpetua unless attended by qualifying
circumstances defined under Article 266-B. In the instant case, as the victim, AAA,
is below seven (7) years old, or four (4) years old at the time of the crime, the
imposable penalty is death. The passage of Republic Act No. 9346 debars the
imposition of the death penalty without declassifying the crime of qualified rape as
heinous. Thus, the appellate correctly reduced the penalty from death penalty
to reclusion perpetua.
We, however, modify the appellate court's award of damages and increase it as
follows: P100,000.00 as civil indemnity, P100,000.00 as moral damages, and
P100,000.00 as exemplary damages pursuant to prevailing jurisprudence, [29] the
most recent of which is People v. Jugueta.[30] Further, the amount of damages
awarded should earn interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the
finality of this judgment until said amounts are fully paid.[31]
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Decision dated 31 March 2009 of the Court
of Appeals of Cebu City, Nineteenth Division, in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 00014, finding
appellant Elpedio Castaas y Espinosa guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime
of statutory rape in Criminal Case No. N-2295, is hereby AFFIRMED WITH
MODIFICATION. Appellant Elpedio Castaas y Espinosa is ordered to pay the
private offended party as follows: P100,000.00 as civil indemnity, P100,000.00 as
moral damages, P100,000.00 as exemplary damages. He is FURTHER ordered to
pay interest on all damages awarded at the legal rate of six percent (6%) per
annum from the date of finality of this judgment.
No pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.
Velasco, Jr., (Chairperson), Peralta, Reyes, and Jardeleza, JJ., concur.
May 30, 2016

NOTICE OF JUDGMENT
Sirs / Mesdames:
Very truly yours,

Rollo, pp. 2-15; Penned by Associate Justice Priscilla J. Baltazar-Padilla with

Associate Justices Franchito N. Diamante and Edgardo L. Delos Santos concurring.
[1]
[2]
Records, pp. 43-54; Presided by Presiding Judge Enrique C. Asis.
[3]
533 Phil. 703 (2006).
[4]
Records, p. 21.
[5]
TSN, 6 October 2004, pp. 2-6.
[6]
TSN, 13 October 2004, pp. pp. 11-18.
[7]
Records, p. 4.
[8]
TSN, 13 October 2004, pp. 2-11.
[9]
[10]
Records, p. 54.
[11]
Rollo, p. 14.
[12]
Id. at 20-21
[13]
Id. at 31-33.
[14]
Id. at 37-40.
[15]
People v. Mingming, 594 Phil. 170, 186 (2008).
[16]
People v. Pascua, 462 Phil. 245, 252 (2003).
People v. Aguilar, 628 SCRA 437, 447 citing People v. Corpuz, 517 Phil. 622,
636-637 (2006).
[17]
[18]
TSN, 13 October 2004, p. 12 and Records, p. 32.
[19]
TSN, 6 October 2004, p. 2.
[20]
Records, p. 51.
[21]
[22]
[23]
See People v. Campuhan, 385 Phil. 912, 921 (2000).
[24]
CA, rollo, p. 45.
[25]
People v. Navarro, 460 Phil. 565, 575 (2003).
[26]
448 Phil. 287(2003).
[27]
Id. at 298.
[28]
Records, p. 1.
[29]
People v. Gambao, G.R. No. 172707, 1 October 2013, 706 SCRA 508.
[30]
G.R. No. 202124, 5 April 2016.
[31]
People v. Vitero, G.R. No. 175327, 3 April 2013, 605 SCRA 54, 69.

G.R.
PEOPLE
No.
OF
April 20, 2016
THE
PHILIPPINES,
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
214349
VS.
LEO
MENDOZA,
ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
THIRD DIVISION
[ G.R. No. 214349, April 20, 2016 ]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. LEO
MENDOZA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
DECISION
PEREZ, J.:
On appeal is the June 27, 2014 Decision[1] of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R.
CR-HC No. 01048-MIN which affirmed with modification the April 16, 2012
Judgment[2] of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Davao City, Branch 12, finding
appellant Leo Mendoza guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape defined
and penalized under Articles 266-A and 266-B of the Revised Penal Code. [3]
The Antecedents
The appellant was charged in an Information[4] dated May 31, 2005, whose
accusatory portion reads as follows:
"That on or about December 3, 2004, in the City of Davao, Philippines and within
the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, accused LEO MENDOZA, who is the
grandfather of complainant-victim [AAA],[5] a nine (9) year old minor, by means of
force and intimidation and taking advantage of his moral ascendancy over the
herein victim, [AAA], did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously have
carnal knowledge of her, against her will.
CONTRARY TO LAW."
On arraignment, the appellant pleaded not guilty. During the pre-trial conference,
the prosecution and the defense stipulated, among others, that: (1) AAA was the
granddaughter of the appellant; (2) AAA was nine (9) years old at the time of the
alleged incident of rape; (3) AAA was at appellant's house on the day of the
incident; and (4) AAA's step-grandmother, YYY, confronted the appellant on
December 7, 2004 about the vaginal pain of AAA.
Thereafter, trial on the merits ensued with the prosecution presenting the following
witnesses: the victim herself, AAA; her mother, XXX; her step-grandmother, YYY;
and the examining physician, Dr. Vita P. Ogatis (Dr. Ogatis).
AAA testified that she was nine years old and that the incident happened at around
1:00 p.m. of December 3, 2004 at the appellant's house. During that time, YYY was
at the public market[6] and only AAA and the appellant were left at the house.[7] AAA
recounted that while inside the bedroom, the appellant quickly undressed her and
mounted her. Using his hand to open AAA's vagina, the appellant inserted his penis
into her private part. The forced sexual intercourse caused AAA to cry out in pain
but was ordered by the appellant to keep her mouth shut. [8] AAA was also warned
by the appellant not to tell anyone about the incident. [9] In spite of the warning,
AAA related her misfortune to YYY after the latter noticed that she was sick.
[10]
When YYY confronted the appellant, he denied having done anything to AAA and
even mauled her for lying.[11] On cross-examination, AAA stated that when she was
made to hold the appellant's penis, it was soft[12] and that it touched the side of her
vagina.[13]
YYY began her testimony by stating, in open court, that she was the live-in partner
of the appellant and that XXX, who was residing someplace else, is the daughter of
the appellant from his first wife. XXX has a daughter, AAA, who was then living with
YYY and the appellant in the latter's house. AAA is, therefore, the granddaughter of
the appellant.
YYY narrated that in the morning of December 6, 2004, she saw AAA going back
and forth to the comfort room. This prompted her to ask AAA what had happened
to her and if she was suffering from stomach ache. AAA disclosed that her vagina
was painful and that the appellant had sexual intercourse with her.[14] In the
evening of that same day, AAA developed a fever. As AAA still had fever on the
following day, December 7, 2004, YYY had her panty removed. Upon closer
inspection, YYY observed that AAA's vagina was swollen. YYY confirmed that when
she confronted the appellant about AAA's claim of molestation, he got angry,
accused AAA of lying and physically hurt the child-victim. Due to her own poor state
of health and kidney trouble, it was only in February 2005 that YYY reported the
rape incident to the police and had AAA medically examined.[15]
Dr. Ogatis, who was then a resident physician of the Department of Obstetrics and
Gynecology at the Davao Medical Center, conducted an anogenital examination on
AAA on February 16, 2005. She issued the corresponding medical
certificate[16] bearing the following conclusions:
Anogenital Exam
Genitali
Crescentic hymen.
a
(+) Partial healed laceration at 7 o'clock position of the hymen.
Erythematous vulva.
Erythematous perihymenal area.
(+) Foul smelling, greenish vaginal discharge.
Anus
Good sphincteric tone

Impression
1. Disclosure of Sexual Abuse.

2. Medical Evaluation Revealed: Genital Findings Definitive for Penetrating Injury.
NOTE: Pending laboratory Result.
When called to testify in court for the prosecution, Dr. Ogatis thorougly explained
the contents of the above-stated medical report. According to her, the examination
done on AAA was extensive and accurate as she can already see the whole hymenal
area and the external genitalia. Dr. Ogatis noted that AAA's entire vulva as well as
her perihymenal area, the outer portion of the hymen, were both reddish. She
mentioned that the redness of a person's genitalia may be due to a number of
factors including trauma. Dr. Ogatis further testified that the presence of partially
healed laceration at 7 o'clock position of AAA's hymen was caused by a penetrating
injury or penetration. Dr. Ogatis opined that the injury sustained by AAA was
consistent with her disclosure of sexual abuse by the appellant. However, she
conceded that the foul smelling, greenish vaginal discharge could be attributable to
the presence of infection or poor perineal hygiene on the part of the patient.
During her testimony, XXX confirmed that she is the mother of AAA. According to
her, AAA's date of birth is May 12, 1996[17] as shown by the Certificate of Live
Birth[18] marked during pre-trial and referred to during trial.
When his turn at the trial came, the appellant testified in his own defense.
Although the appellant acknowledged that AAA was his granddaughter being the
child of his daughter, XXX,[19] he denied the accusation against him. The appellant
testified that at the time of the alleged rape on December 3, 2004, he and his two
sons were playing the guitar at the balcony of his house while AAA was in the living
room. He claimed that the rape charge was a mere fabrication and coincided with
the fact that his live-in partner, YYY, wanted to separate from him. The appellant
insisted that he could have not raped his granddaughter because he loves her. He
also argued that his erectile dysfunction raised doubts as to his culpability.
On the basis of the appellant's claim that he was suffering from an erectile
dysfunction, the trial court ordered that he be subjected to a medical examination
that could have assessed the state of his virility.
Dr. Herbert Calubay (Dr. Calubay), a urologist at Davao Medical Center, conducted a
fertility examination on the appellant. His examination revealed that the probability
of the appellant having erectile dysfunction was low[20] and that in fact, the
appellant had no potency problems and was still capable of erection. [21]
The RTC's Ruling
After trial, the RTC convicted the appellant. The dispositive portion of its judgment
states:
WHEREFORE, Premises Considered, JUDGMENT is hereby rendered finding Accused
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape in Criminal Case No. 57,297-05
as defined and penalized in Article 266-A and 266-B of the Revised Penal Code and
the said Accused is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty ofReclusion
Perpetua and to pay [AAA] the sum of Seventy Five Thousand (P75,000.00) Pesos
in the above-mentioned criminal case as civil indemnity and Fifty Thousand
(P50,000.00) Pesos for the above-mentioned case as moral damage.
Under Article 29 of the Revised Penal Code, the Accused who is detained is hereby
entitled to the full credit of his preventive imprisonment, if agreed voluntarily in
writing to abide by the rules and regulations imposed upon convicted prisoners.
If he did not agree, he shall be entitled to 4/5 of his preventive imprisonment.
SO ORDERED.[22]
The RTC gave full credence to the testimony of AAA who narrated her painful
experience in a clear, convincing and unwavering manner. The trial court reasoned
out that AAA would not allow herself to be subjected to a medical examination of
her private parts or exposed herself to the humiliation of a rape trial wherein she
was accusing her own grandfather of sexual abuse unless she was telling the truth.
On the other hand, the RTC rejected appellant's defense of denial. The trial court
reiterated the well-settled rule that denial is an inherently weak defense that cannot
prevail over the positive testimony of the prosecution witness that the appellant
committed the crime. Moreover, the trial court held that the appellant failed to
substantiate his claim that he was incapable of erection and that the same was
belied by his own testimony that he had sexual contact with YYY at certain
intervals.
The CA's Ruling
On appeal, the appellant raised as issue the lack of the element of carnal
knowledge to constitute the crime of rape since his alleged "soft or limp penis
touched only the outer side of the outer tip of the female organ,"[23] as stated by
AAA during her cross-examination. He argued that absent any showing of the
slightest penetration of the female organ, there can be no consummated rape.
Finding that the element of carnal knowledge was duly established by the
prosecution, the CA affirmed with modification the RTC's judgment of conviction in
a Decision[24] the dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The 16 April 2012 Decision of the Regional
Trial Court, Branch 12, Davao City, in Criminal Case No. 57,297-05,
isAFFIRMED with MODIFICATION that accused-appellant Eco Mendoza is ordered
to pay AAA the amounts of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral
damages and P30,000.00 as exemplary damages.
The Issue
In the resolution of November 17, 2014, the Court required the parties to submit
their respective supplemental briefs within thirty (30) days from notice. However,
both parties manifested that they will no longer file the required briefs as they had
already exhaustively and extensively discussed all the matters and issues of this
case in the briefs earlier submitted with the CA. Hence, in this appeal, the Court will
rule on the lone assignment of error made by the appellant in his brief before the
CA, to wit:
THE COURT A QUO ERRED WHEN IT CONVICTED APPELLANT DESPITE FAILURE OF
THE PROSECUTION TO PROVE CARNAL KNOWLEDGE BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.
[25]
The Court's Ruling

The appeal is without merit.
Under Article 266-A paragraph I of the Revised Penal Code, rape is committed by a
man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following
circumstances:
a)
Through force, threat, or intimidation;
b)
When the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious;
c)
By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority; and
d)
When the offended party is under twelve (12) years of age or is demented, even though none
of the circumstances mentioned above be present.
If committed by a grandfather against his granddaughter under eighteen (18) years

of age, the rape is qualified pursuant to Article 266-B of the same Code, to wit:
xxxx
of the following aggravating/qualifying circumstances:
1) When the victim is under eighteen (18) years of age and the offender is a
parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity
within the third civil degree, or the common-law spouse of the parent of the victim;
xxxx
Based on the foregoing provisions, the elements of qualified rape are: (1) sexual
congress; (2) with a woman; (3) [done] by force and without consent; (4) the
victim is under eighteen (18) years of age at the time of the rape; and (5) the
offender is a parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or
affinity within the third civil degree, or the common-law spouse of the parent of the
victim.[26]
The presence of the qualifying circumstances of minority and the relationship of
AAA to appellant, which were both alleged in the information, were indisputable.
The records reveal that from the very beginning, the appellant recognized that AAA
is his grandchild and was still a minor at the time the alleged rape transpired. In the
course of trial, the prosecution and defense witnesses were in agreement with
respect to AAA's minority and that blood relationship exists particularly the
ascendancy of appellant over AAA. AAA's minority was further established by the
presentation of her Certificate of Live Birth showing that she was just eight-and-ahalf [8 1/2] years old when the rape was committed.
Essentially, the only matter left for the Court to determine is whether carnal
knowledge took place. Carnal knowledge is proven by proof of the entry or
introduction of the male organ into the female organ; the touching or entry of the
penis into the labia majora or the labia minora of the pudendum of the victim's
genitalia constitutes consummated rape.[27]
The alleged act of forced coitus is actually a factual matter wherein the
determination of guilt or innocence of the accused largely depends on the victim's
testimony considering the intrinsic nature of the crime in which only two persons
are normally involved.[28] In this case, the presence of the aforesaid element was
proven by the prosecution particularly when AAA gave a vivid account of her ordeal
during her direct examination, viz:
Q:
A:
AAA, you said you are 9 years old. Do you know when were you born?
No, sir.
Q:
A:
Are you still studying?

No, sir.
Q:
A:
Have you studied before?

Yes, sir.
Q:
How far have you gone to school?
A:
Grade I.
Q:
A:
Do you know Lolo Leo?

Yes, sir.
Q:
A:
AAA, do you know this man wearing an orange T-shirt?

Yes, sir.
Q:
A:
How do you call him?

Masoy.
Q:
A:
Why do you call him Masoy?

He is my mother's father.
Q:
A:
Who is this woman beside you?

She is my mother.
Q:
A:
Where does Masoy live now, still in Malabog?

No more.
Q:
A:
Where does he sleep now?

In jail.
Q:
A:
Why is he in jail?
Because he touched me.
Q:
A:
When was this?

December 3, 2004.
Q:
A:
What did he do to you?

He mounted on me.
Q:
A:
When you said "gisakyan", what do you mean by that?

"Jer-jer".
Q:
A:
What is "jer-jer"?
Sexual intercourse (gi-iyot).
Q:
A:
Where did this happen?

In the house.
xxxx
Q:
A:
During that time, December 3, 2004, what time, more or less, did this happen?
One o' clock.
Q:
A:
In the morning, or in the afternoon?

Noontime.
Q:
A:
Where was your mother at that time?

She was at the public market.
Q:
A:
What about the other occupants, if there are any, where arc they?
Some of them were in the barrio.
Q:
A:
How did Masoy had sex with you on December 3, 2004?

He inserted his penis inside my vagina.
Q:
A:
How did you feel when he inserted his penis?

I cried.
Q:
A:
You allowed Masoy to let his penis enter your vagina?

No, sir.
Q:
A:
Did you have clothes at that time?

Yes, sir.
Q:
A:
How did he enter his penis when you had clothes?

He undressed me.
Q:
A:
What was undressed?

Everything.
Q:
A:
Were you wearing blouse, t-shirt, pants or skirl?

I was wearing t-shirt and short pants.
Q:
A:
Where did this happen, inside the house or outside the house?
Inside the house.
Q:
A:
When you say inside the house, was this inside the bedroom, in the kitchen, or in the
living room?
Inside the bedroom.
Q:
A:
Whose room is that?

Masoy and his wife.
Q:
A:
Where was the wife of Masoy at that time?

She was also in the market.
Q:
A:
Why was the wife of Masoy in the market?

She bought viand.
COURT:
Q:
A:
The wife of Masoy is the mother of your mother?

Yes, Your Honor.
xxxx
COURT:
Q:
A:
Your Lolo Masoy is an old man already?

Yes, Your Honor.
Q:
A:
Now, when his penis entered your vagina, was it limp or standing?
It was limp.
PROS. GARCIA, JR.:

Q:
A:
It entered your vagina even his penis was limp?

Yes, sir.
Q:
A:
Was it easily placed inside, or was it difficult for him to have it entered?
It easily entered inside.
COURT:
Q:
A:
Why, did he open your vagina?

Yes, Your Honor.
Q:
A:
What did [he] use?

Hand, Your Honor.
xxxx
Q:
A:
Did you tell this to your Lola or to your Mama?

Yes, sir.
Q:
A:
Who was the first one to know, your Lola, or your Mama?
Lola.
xxxx
Q:
A:
xxxx
What did you tell your Lola?

I told her: "He touched me, La".
Q:
A:
What did your Lola take that after hearing what you said?
She got mad.
Q:
A:
Mad at whom, to you, or Masoy?

She got mad at Masoy.
Q:
A:
What did Lola do to Masoy?

She had Masoy incarcerated.
xxxx
Q:
A:
After your reported to your Lola, what did Masoy do or what was the reaction of Masoy?
He mauled me.
Q:
A:
Who mauled you?

Lolo Masoy.
Q:
A:
Why did he do this?

Because he is saying that I am telling a lie.
xxxx[29]
It can be gleaned from the foregoing excerpts the credibility and believability of
AAA's claim of sexual assault. She rendered a clear, coherent and convincing
narration of the rape incident and positively identified the appellant as the
perpetrator of the crime. As a rule, the Court accords full weight and credit to the
testimony of a rape victim,[30] more so, if she were a child-victim for youth and
immaturity are badges of truth and sincerity.[31] AAA, a girl of tender years, would
not accuse her own grandfather of a crime so serious as rape [32] nor would she allow
herself and her family to endure the social scourge and the psychological stigma of
rape if her accusation is false or fabricated.[33] Human reason dictates that a rape
victim will not come out in the open unless her motive is to obtain justice and to
have the felon apprehended and punished.[34]
It bears stressing that the RTC had similar appreciation of AAA's testimony. Basic is
the rule that the Court will not interfere with the judgment of the trial court in
passing upon the credibility of the witnesses or the veracity of their respective
testimonies unless a material fact or circumstance has been overlooked which, if
properly considered, would affect the outcome of the case. [35] The trial court is in a
better position to determine the credibility of witnesses having heard and observed
firsthand their behavior and manner of testifying during trial. [36] The application of
the aforesaid rule becomes more stringent in cases where findings of the trial court
are sustained by the CA.[37] In the instant case, the Court finds no compelling
reason to contradict the factual findings of the lower courts as they do not appear
to be unfounded or arbitrary.
In his futile attempt to exonerate himself from culpability, the appellant mainly
interposed the defense of denial and relied on the following testimony of AAA in
having this Court believe that there was no penetration:
xxxxx
Q:
A:
Your Lolo is already old?

Yes.
Q:
A:
Was his penis still erect when he was on top of you?

Yes.
Q:
A:
And you testified that you were also made to touch the penis of your Lolo?
Yes.
Q:
A:
But the penis was soft when you touch?

Yes.
COURT:
Q:
A:
It was not erect?

Yes.
Q:
A:
If its not erect it did not enter your vagina?

Yes.
Q:
A:
Up to where?
On the side.
Q:
A:
On the side of where?

On the side of my vagina.
Court:
Can you demonstrate. You go inside together with the interpreter and the stenographer
you point where exactly the penis of you lolo touch your vagina.
(STENOGRAPHER, INTERPRETER AND THE WITNESS WENT INSIDE THE
BATHROOM AND IT WAS POINTED OUT BY THE WITNESS THAT THE PENIS
OF HER LOLO WAS JUST OUTSIDE OR THE OUTER LIP OF HER VAGINA. IT
DID NOT ENTER HER VAGINA.)[38]
At first glance, it might appear that the statements made by AAA during her crossexamination were conflicting. However, a careful review of the aforequoted
testimony discloses that AAA was merely being responsive to questions propounded
to her in such fashion which were not necessarily reflective of the sequence of
events that led to the rape incident. The description made by AAA that appellant's
penis was soft would not suffice to discredit her testimony that she cried out in pain
when the penis was forcibly inserted into her vagina. As ruled by this Court
in People v. Ablog,[39] softness is relative and that softness may not be to such a
degree that penetration is impossible. In the same case, the Court declared that it
may even be the touching by the victim of the sexual organ of the accusedappellant which transformed its initially soft condition to hardness.
Actually, Dr. Calubay negated the appellant's claim that he was suffering from
erectile dysfunction. Dr. Calubay even testified to the contrary concluding that there
was no evidence ofimpotency on the part of the appellant and therefore, he is
capable of consummating a sexual act.
Quite possibly, appellant's genitalia grazed the side or outer lip of AAA's vagina but
it did not automatically discount the fact that forced coitus did happen.
Significantly, AAA's claim that she was raped was corroborated by the medico-legal
finding of Dr. Ogatis who concluded that partially healed laceration on the private
part of AAA was brought about by a penetration. When the testimony of a rape
victim is consistent with the medical findings, there is sufficient basis to conclude
that there has been carnal knowledge.[40]
Even if the Court concede to the alleged inconsistencies in the testimony of AAA,
such discrepancies will not detract from the fact that she categorically identified the
appellant as the culprit and recounted in detail the crime of rape committed against
her.[41] Considering AAA's background, who at a very young age was no longer going
to school, she cannot be expected to answer each and every question thrown at her
with precision. The Court ratiocinated in People v. Manayan that, "An error-free
testimony cannot be expected from children of tender years, most especially when
they are recounting details of harrowing experiences, those that even adults would
rather bury in oblivion. To be sure, the testimony of a young rape victim may not be
described as flawless; but its substance, veracity and weight are hardly affected by
the triviality of her alleged inconsistencies. On the contrary, they may even
reinforce her credibility, as they have probably arisen from the naivete of a child,
confused and traumatized by the bestial acts done to her person." [42]
In further support of his defense of denial, the appellant hinted that it was
impossible for him to rape AAA because his two (2) sons were also in the house at
the time the rape allegedly transpired. Time and again, the Court ruled that lust is
no respecter of time and place, thus, rape can be committed even in places where
people congregate, in parks, along the roadside, within the school premises, inside
a house where there are other occupants, and even in the same room where other
members of the family are also sleeping.[43] For this very reason, the Court rejects
appellant's claim that the presence of his two (2) sons at the crime scene was a
deterrent and indicate the impossibility of his commission of the crime of rape.
Moreover, the appellant subtly insinuates that the accusation for rape was instigated
by his wife who wanted to leave him. On this score, the appellant has shown no
solid grounds to prove his insinuation and consequently, it deserves scant

consideration.
Therefore, weighed against the positive testimonies of the prosecution witnesses
supported by physical evidence consistent with the prosecution's attestation that
AAA was raped, the appellant's defense of denial must fail. The defense of denial
has been invariably viewed by the Court with disfavor for it can easily be concocted
and is a common and standard defense ploy in prosecutions for rape. [44] In order to
prosper, the defense of denial must be proved with strong and convincing
evidence[45] and the appellant miserably failed in this regard.
All told, the Court is convinced that the appellant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt
of qualified rape.
As previously mentioned, the imposable penalty for qualified rape is death.
However, in view of the enactment of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9346, the imposition
of the penalty of death is prohibited. In lieu thereof, the penalty of reclusion
perpetua without eligibility for parole is to be meted on appellant pursuant to
Sections 2 and 3 of the same Act. Considering that the lower courts failed to qualify
that the penalty of reclusion perpetua is without eligibility for parole, this omission
should be rectified.[46]
Coming now to appellant's pecuniary liabilities, the Court finds it necessary to
modify the amounts of civil indemnity, moral damages and exemplary damages.
Prevailing jurisprudence,[47] most notably People v. Jugueta,[48] pegs all these at
P100,000.00 each. As such, the CA's awards of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity,
P75,000.00 as moral damages, and P30,000.00 as exemplary damages are all
increased to P100,000.00. In addition, all damages awarded shall earn interest at
the rate of six percent (6%) per annum, from date of finality of this judgment until
fully paid.[49]
WHEREFORE, the Court AFFIRMS the June 27, 2014 Court of Appeals Decision in
CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 01048-MIN with MODIFICATIONS. Appellant Leo Mendoza is
found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Qualified Rape, and
sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole.
He is ordered to pay the victim AAA the following: (a) P100,000.00 as civil
indemnity; (b) P100,000.00 as moral damages; (c) P100,000.00 as exemplary
damages; and (d) interest of six percent (6%) per annum on all damages awarded
from the date of finality of this judgment until fully paid.
SO ORDERED.
Velasco, Jr., (Chairperson), Leonardo-De Castro,* Peralta, and Reyes, JJ., concur.
May 25, 2016

NOTICE OF JUDGMENT
Sirs / Mesdames:
Very truly yours,

Additional Member per Raffle dated March 21, 2016.
CA rollo, pp. 84-95; penned by CA Associate Justice Pablito A. Perez and

concurred in by Associate Justices Ronuilo V. Borja and Henri Jean Paul B. Inting.
[1]
[2]
Records pp. 196-220; penned by Judge Pelagio S. Paguican.
With the enactment of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 8353 (The Anti-Rape Law of
1997), Article 335 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 3815 (The Revised Penal Code) was
amended reclassifying in the process the crime of rape as a crime against persons.
The Anti-Rape Law of 1997 expanded the definition of rape and incorporated as
Articles 266-A, 266-B, 266-C and 266-D in Title Eight under Chapter Three of the
Revised Penal Code.
[3]
[4]
Records, p. 1.
Pursuant to the Court's ruling in People v. Cabalquinto, G.R. No. 167693,

September 19, 2006, 502 SCRA 419, the real name of the rape victim will not be
disclosed. Similarly, the personal circumstances of the victim or any other
information tending lo establish or compromise the victim's identity, as well as
those of her immediate family or household members will be withheld. In this
connection, fictitious initials are used to represent them. Here, the rape victim is
referred to as AAA; her mother, XXX; and her step-grandmother, YYY.
[5]
[6]
TSN, January 20, 2006, testimony of AAA, pp. 5-6.
Id. at 5; TSN, February 15, 2006, testimony of AAA, p. 5; TSN, February 20,
2006, testimony of YYY, p. 15.
[7]
[8]
TSN, February 15, 2006, id. at 4.
[9]
TSN, February 20, 2006, id. at 4.
[10]
Id. at 5.
[11]
Id. at 9.
[12]
TSN, February 15, 2006, supra note 7.
[13]
Id. at 5-6.
[14]
TSN, February 20, 2006, p. 10 of testimony of YYY.
[15]
Id. at 11-14.
[16]
Records, p. 7.
[17]
TSN, February 20, 2006, p. 30 of testimony of XXX.
[18]
Records, p. 8.
[19]
TSN, June 22, 2006, testimony of Leo Mendoza, p. 4.
[20]
TSN, March 6, 2007, testimony of Dr. Calubay, p. 11.
[21]
Id. at 5.
[22]
Records, pp. 219-220.
[23]
CA rollo, p. 27; Appellant's Brief dated October 3, 2012.
[24]
Supra note 1 at 94.
[25]
Id. at 87.
[26]
G.R. No. 208173, People v. Buclao, June 11, 2014, 726 SCRA 365, 377.
[27]
G.R. No. 212929, People v. Galvez, July 29, 2015.
[28]
People v. Bejic, 552 Phil. 555, 567 (2007).
[29]
TSN, January 20, 2006, supra note 6 at 3-9.
[30]
People v. Llanas, Jr., 636 Phil. 611, 622 (2010).
[31]
People v. Rubio, 683 Phil. 714, 723 (2012).
[32]
Supra note 28 at 572.
[33]
People v. Baroy, 431 Phil. 638, 653 (2002).
[34]
People v. Talavera, 461 Phil. 883, 891 (2003).
[35]
Supra note 33.
[36]
People v. Requiz, 376 Phil. 750, 755 (1999).
[37]
People v. Condes, 659 Phil. 375, 386 (2011).
[38]
TSN, February 15, 2006, supra note 7 at 5-6.
[39]
People v. Ablog, 368 Phil. 526, 534 (1999).
[40]
People v. Arpon, 678 Phil. 752, 776 (2011).
[41]
People v. Manayan, 420 Phil. 357, 375-376 (2001).
[42]
Id. at 360. (Italics ours.)
[43]
G.R. No. 199096, People v. Traigo, June 2, 2014, 724 SCRA 389, 394.
[44]
G.R. No. 196228, People v. Besmonte, June 4, 2014, 725 SCRA 37, 56.
[45]
Id.
[46]
People v. Subesa, 676 Phil. 403, 416-417 (2011).
The Court issued a Resolution dated August 4, 2015 in A.M. No. 15-08-02-SC
(Guidelines for the Proper Use of the Phrase "Without Eligibility for Parole" in
Indivisible Penalties) wherein Title II of which reads:
II
In these lights, the following guidelines shall be observed in the imposition of
penalties and in the use of the phrase "without eligibility for parole":
(1) In cases where the death penalty is not warranted, there is no need to use the
phrase "without eligibility for parole" to qualify the penalty of reclusion perpetua, it
is understood that convicted persons penalized with an indivisible penalty are not
eligible for parole; and
(2) When circumstances are present warranting the imposition of the death penalty,
but this penalty is not imposed because of R.A. [No.] 9346, the qualification of
"without eligibility for parole" shall be used to qualify reclusion perpetua in order to
emphasize that the accused should have been sentenced to suffer the death penalty
had it not been for R.A. No. 9346.
[47]
G.R. No. 190348, People v. Colentava, February 9, 2015; G.R. No.
208716, People v. Lumaho, September 24, 2014, 736 SCRA 542, 555-556.
[48]
G.R. No. 202124, 5 April 2016.
[49]
G.R. No. 201105, People v. Hilarion, November 25, 2013, 710 SCRA 562, 570.

G.R.
No.
216010
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. JIMMY ULANDAY @ "SAROY", ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
April 20, 2016
THIRD DIVISION
[ G.R. No. 216010, April 20, 2016 ]
JIMMY ULANDAY @ "SAROY", ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
DECISION
PEREZ, J.:
For review is the May 23, 2014 Decision[1] of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R.
CR-HC No. 05692 which affirmed with modifications the June 28, 2012
Judgment[2] of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 69, in Lingayen, Pangasinan,
finding appellant Jimmy Ulanday guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
rape.
The Antecedents
The appellant was charged in an Information[3] dated June 13, 2011, whose
accusatory portion reads as follows:
"That sometime in the evening of March 11, 2011 in Brgy. Tampac, Aguilar,
Pangasinan[,] and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named
accused, with lewd designs, armed with a knife, with force and intimidation, did,
then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously drag [XYZ][4] to a dark portion at
the back portion of their house and thereafter removed her short pants and panty
and have sexual intercourse with her, against her will and consent, to her damage
and prejudice.
Contrary to Article 266-A, par. [1] (a) of the Revised Penal Code."
A warrant was issued by the Executive Judge and the appellant was arrested on
August 17, 2011.[5] When arraigned, the appellant pleaded not guilty to the crime
charged. During the pre-trial conference, the prosecution and the defense
stipulated on the identity of the parties; the existence of the medico-legal
certificate of XYZ dated May 16, 2011 issued by Dr. Maria Gwendolyn Luna (Dr.
Luna); and the existence of the certification of the entry in the police blotter of
Philippine National Police (PNP), Aguilar Police Station, Pangasinan regarding the
rape incident.[6]
Thereafter, trial ensued with the prosecution presenting the following witnesses:
XYZ, the victim herself; BBB, half-sister of XYZ; and Dr. Luna, the attending
physician at Region I Medical Center, Dagupan City who examined XYZ. On the
other hand, only the appellant testified for the defense.

The facts of the case, as summarized by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG)
and adopted by the appellate court, are as follows:
"On the night of 11 March 2011, [XYZ], twenty-four (24) years old, sat beside the
living room window near the main door of her family's house. She looked out the
window and watched the dance party which was going on outside their house.
Out of nowhere, [appellant], armed with a knife, entered [XYZ's] house, pulled her
out and dragged her towards the house of [her] neighbor, [AAA].
Although she does not know [appellant], [XYZ] was able to identify him because
she has seen him before playing tong-its in the gambling area near [her] house.
[Appellant] brought [XYZ] at the back of [AAA's] house. No one was inside [AAA's]
house and it was dark.
Once inside [AAA's] house, [appellant] immediately overpowered [XYZ]. He leaned
[XYZ] against the wall and removed her pants and underwear. Thereafter,
[appellant] pulled down his zipper. [Appellant] then covered [XYZ's] mouth using
his left hand and pointed a knife against her face using his right hand. After, despite
their standing position, [appellant] spread [XYZ's] legs, inserted his penis into her
vagina and proceeded to rape [her]. During the entire assault, [appellant] poked his
knife against [XYZ's] face.
After committing his dastardly act, [appellant] returned [XYZ's] pants and
underwear. [XYZ] then went back home and slept.
A few months later, in May, [XYZ] got the courage to tell her mother what
happened. After, [XYZ], accompanied by her mother, reported the crime committed
against her to the police."[7]
BBB testified that on May 10, 2011, she and XYZ were summoned by CCC, their
uncle, to his house. There, and in the presence of several persons namely: XYZ,
BBB, CCC and appellant's nephew, Marvin Ulanday (Marvin), the appellant openly
admitted that he had sexual intercourse with XYZ.[8] After his confession, the
appellant was mauled by the males then present. [9] Thereafter, the appellant went
into hiding.[10]
According to BBB, XYZ did not disclose the rape incident to anyone because of fear,
having been threatened by the appellant that he will kill her if she did. During BBB's
direct examination, the parties agreed to stipulate that XYZ was suffering from a
physical disability particularly a limp due to polio.
When called to the witness stand, Dr. Luna attested that she conducted an
anogenital examination of XYZ on May 16, 2011. She found XYZ to have had old,
healed, deep lacerations in her hymen at 4, 6 and 7 o' clock positions. [11] Dr. Luna
explained that the lacerations could have been caused by the insertion of an object
into the vagina, possibly a finger or an erect penis. [12] Dr. Luna then reiterated the
impression stated in her medico-legal report that her findings cannot totally rule out
the possibility of sexual abuse.[13]
The defense offered a different version of the incident, as summarized by the Public
Attorney's Office (PAO) in its Brief, to wit:
On March 11, 2011, [appellant] was in Brgy. Kuako, Pangasinan, watching a
wedding dance party when he first met [XYZ] who was [then] seated inside their
house also watching tine dance party through their window. [XYZ] then called
[appellant's] attention and when he approached her, they had a conversation over
the window. During their conversation, [appellant] noticed that [XYZ] was not alone
in the house as there are about five (5) other persons living with her. Their
conversation lasted for about an hour until he was called by his cousin Eddie
Ulanday to go home. He immediately slept upon arriving thereat.
[DDD], uncle[s] of [XYZ], while he was on his way to Poblacion riding his
motorcycle. He was being accused by them of raping [XYZ], and when he denied
having done the same, they mauled him.
Appellant vehemently denie[d] having made an admission of raping [XYZ] in the
house of the latter's uncle, [CCC].[14]
After trial, the RTC convicted the appellant of rape in its judgment of June 28, 2012.
The dispositive portion of its judgment reads:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Court finds the accused Jimmy Ulanday
GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Rape and is hereby sentenced to
suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay [XYZ] the amount of
P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and another P50,000.00 as moral damages.
SO ORDERED.[15]
The appellant appealed to the CA on a sole assigned error that the trial court erred
in finding that his guilt for the crime charged has been proven beyond reasonable
doubt.
The CA affirmed the judgment of the RTC with the following modifications: (a)
declared the appellant ineligible for parole; (b) ordered the appellant to pay XYZ
exemplary damages in the amount of P30,000.00; and (c) imposed six percent
(6%) interest per annum on all awarded damages reckoned from the date of finality
of this decision until fully paid.[16]
Undeterred, the appellant filed a Notice of Appeal[17] and the records of the case
were elevated to the Court. In the resolution of February 23, 2015, the Court
required the parties to submit their respective supplemental briefs, if they so
desire, within thirty (30) days from notice. Both parties opted not to file one as
they had already exhaustively and extensively discussed all the matters and issues
of this case in the briefs earlier submitted with the CA. Hence, in this appeal, the
Court will rule on the lone assignment of error made by the appellant in his brief
before the CA, to wit:
THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE GUILT OF THE
ACCUSED-APPELLANT HAS BEEN PROVEN BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.[18]
The Court's Ruling
After a circumspect review of the records, the Court affirms the conviction of the
appellant.
To be convicted of rape under Article 266-A paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code,
the requisite elements are: (1) that the offender had carnal knowledge of a woman;
and (2) that he accomplished this act through force, threat, or intimidation; when
she was deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; by means of fraudulent
machination or grave abuse of authority; or when she was under twelve (12) years
of age or was demented.
The Court finds that the prosecution sufficiently established the presence of these
elements in the instant case.
With certainty, XYZ positively identified the appellant as the person who forced
himself on her in the evening of March 11, 2011. She never wavered in her
identification and was straightforward in recounting of how the appellant used force,
threat and intimidation to satisfy his lust. This much can be gathered from her
testimony in court, to wit:
xx
xx
Q: When [appellant] entered the house, was that your first time to see him?
A: No, your Honor.
Q: So where have you met him before?
A: In the gambling, your Honor.
Q: So you mean, in your place near your house there's a gambling then?
A: Yes, your Honor.
Q: And it is usually at night time?
A: Yes, your Honor.

Q: What kind of game?
A: Tong-its, your Honor.
Q: You said you saw the [appellant] before, was he one of the participants in that tong-its
game?
A: Yes, your Honor.
Q: How many times have you seen him before the date of the incident, many limes or
whatever, many times?
A: Yes, your Honor.
xx
xx
Q: What made you say that it was the accused who enter[ed] your house and eventually rape[d]
you?
A: It was really he, your Honor.
Q: What made you say that [it] was him when it was dark at that time?
A: Because he first entered our house, your Honor.
Q: When he entered your house, was there a light in your house?
A: Yes, your Honor.
Q: Did you see his face?
A: Yes, your Honor.
xx
xx
PROS. CATUNGAL:
Your Honor, I just like to manifest that during the course of trial every time that the name of
the accused is being mentioned the witness points to a person seated at the accused bench.
COURT:
And when asked his name.
INTERPRETER:
And when asked his name he responded Jimmy Ulanday.
COURT:
Alright.
xx
xx
Q: What did [appellant do] when he entered your house on March 11 [2011] in the evening
while you were watching this dance party?
A: [Appellant] entered [our house] armed with a knife and pulled me, sir.
Q: [Where] did [appellant] pull you?
A: In [an unlighted area at the back of][19] the house of our neighbor, sir.
xx
xx
Q: What did [appellant] do when he was able to pull you out?
A: [Appellant] removed my pants, he removed my parity and then he covered my mouth and he
poked a knife, sir.
Q: When [appellant] was pulling and removing your parity and your pants, did you not shout
for help?
A: No, because he covered my mouth and 1 can hardly breath, sir.
Q: By the way Madam witness, you said [appellant] was holding a knife, what did he do with
the knife?
A: [Appellant] poked [the knife] towards my face, sir.
xx
xx
Q: Were he able to remove your panty and your pants?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Did you not make any struggle against his act?
A: I tried, sir.
Q: But he was able to over power you?
A: Yes, sir.
xx
xx
Q: And after [removing] your panty and your pants, what did he do?
xx
xx
A: [Appellant] inserted his penis, sir.
Q: How did [appellant] inserted] his penis Madam witness?
A: By spreading my legs part ways, sir.
Q: Then? What was your position at [the] time the [appellant] inserted his penis in your
vagina?
A: Still on [the] standing position leaning on something, your Honor.
Q: How about the [appellant] what was his position?
A: [Appellant] was in front of me, your Honor.
Q: And what did he do with his clothing?
A: [Appellant] was wearing short pants, your Honor.
Q: How did he insert then his penis when he was wearing a short pant?
A: With a zipper, your Honor, he pulled down the zipper, your Honor.
xx
xx
Q: So you mean he just opened the zipper and put out the penis?
A: Yes, your Honor.
Q: Were you able to see the penis?
A: No, your Honor[,] because it was very dark then.
Q: Did you feel it?
A: Yes, your Honor.
Q: How did you feel when the penis was inserted to your vagina?
A: Painful, I felt pain, sir.
Q: Was that the first time that a penis was inserted into your vagina?
A: Yes, your Honor.
Q: How long was the penis inserted to your vagina?
A: Just a few minutes, your Honor.
xx
xx
Q: Did you not tell any of your relative of what happened to you?
A: No, because of fear, I'm afraid of [appellant], sir.
Q: Why are you afraid of him Madam witness?

A: [Appellant] was armed with a knife, sir.
Q: Did he utter any statement to you?
A: Yes, your Honor.
Q: What did he say?
A: That he is going to kill me, your Honor.
Q: How many times did [appellant] say that?
A: Once only, your Honor.
Q: Was that after [appellant] raped you or before raping you?
A: After he rapefd] me, your Honor.
x x x x[20]
Both the trial and appellate courts upheld the credibility of XYZ and accorded
credence to her testimony. As recognized in a long line of cases, a rape victim
would not charge her attacker at all and thereafter exposed herself to the inevitable
stigma and indignities her accusation will entail unless what she asserts is the truth
for it is her natural instinct to protect her honor.[21] There is no showing that XYZ
was impelled by improper motives to impute to the appellant such a grave and
scandalous offense.
Further, well-settled is the rule that factual findings of the trial courts are generally
given full weight, credit and utmost respect on appeal especially when such findings
are supported by substantial evidence on record.[22] Here, XYZ's claim of sexual
abuse was corroborated by the medical finding of healed hymenal lacerations.
Considering that the trial court did not overlook any material or relevant matter
that could have altered the outcome of the case, the Court sees no compelling
reason to deviate from the factual findings and conclusions drawn by the courts
below.
In a final attempt to exonerate himself, the appellant tried to discredit the
testimonies of prosecution witnesses by pointing out certain alleged inconsistencies
and loopholes in their statements.
First, the defense raised XYZ's confusion as to the location of the door through
which the appellant dragged her out of the house. Her difficulty in giving the precise
location of said door, whether it is located in the living room or kitchen, is a trivial
matter and not enough to negate the fact that forced coitus did happen. Victim of
rape is not expected to have an accurate or errorless recollection of the traumatic
experience that was so humiliating and painful, that she might, in fact, be trying to
obliterate it from her memory.[23] For that reason, minor lapses or inconsistencies in
the rape victim's testimony cannot be a ground to destroy her credibility or more
so, serve as basis for appellant's acquittal.[24]
Second, the defense argued that XYZ's claim that she was threatened with a knife
was doubtful because of the latter's admission that during the rape, she did not
actually see the knife nor did she sustain any injury therefrom. A review of XYZ's
testimony shows that she clearly saw the appellant with the knife when he stormed
into her well-lighted house. At knife point, the appellant dragged XYZ out of her
house and brought to her neighbor's. XYZ categorically stated that she felt the very
same knife, which was then positioned near her face, the entire time the appellant
was having sexual intercourse with her.
With respect to the argument that XYZ did not suffer any injury resulting from the
use of a deadly weapon, the Court in People of the Philippines v. Esperas[25] had this
to say: "the presence of injuries is not vital to establishing the guilt of the
appellant. The alleged absence of external injuries on the victim does not detract
from the fact that rape was committed. Even, assuming arguendo that there were
no signs of other bodily injuries, the occurrence of rape is still not negated, since
their absence is not an essential element of the crime."
Third, the defense also questioned XYZ's conduct after the alleged rape incident. In
particular, the defense highlighted that XYZ merely went home, slept and failed to
immediately report her ordeal to family and the authorities, and contended that
such behavior seemed very unnatural for someone who just went through a
harrowing experience. Victims respond differently to trauma and there is no
standard form of behavioral response when persons suffer from one. [26] The Court
in People of the Philippines v. Saludo[27] made this ratiocination, viz: "[n]ot every
victim of rape can be expected to act with reason or in conformity with the usual
expectations of everyone. The workings of a human mind placed under emotional
stress are unpredictable; people react differently. Some may shout, some may
faint, while others may be shocked into insensibility. And although the conduct of
the victim immediately following the alleged sexual assault is of utmost importance
as it tends to establish the truth or falsity of the charge of rape, it is not accurate to
say that there is a typical reaction or norm of behavior among rape victims, as not
every victim can be expected to act conformaby with the usual expectation of
mankind and there is no standard behavioral response when one is confronted with
a strange or startling experience, each situation being different and dependent on
the various circumstances prevailing in each case." It also bears stressing that XYZ
received a death threat from the appellant which instilled fear in her mind and
logically explained why she did not immediately disclose her misfortune to her
family and the authorities.
Fourth, the defense insisted that Dr. Luna's findings that the lacerations in XYZ's
hymen were just five (5) days old belied the charge of rape which allegedly
happened two (2) months before her examination. It reasoned that at most, the
only thing Dr. Luna's testimony has proven was that XYZ had sexual intercourse and
that it was not necessarily with the appellant.
In this regard, the Court quotes the relevant portion of Dr. Luna's testimony, which
states:
xx
xx
Q: Doctor you examined the victim when?
A: May 16, 2011, your Honor.
Q: When was she allegedly abused?
A: March 11, 2011 [,] your Honor.
Q: So after more or less how many days?
A: Two (2) months, your Honor.[28]
xx
xx
Q: x x x [W]hat were your findings over the person of the said [XYZ]?
A: My findings w[ere] centered on the an[o]genital examination and x x x on the genital area[,]
they were old, healed, deep hym[e]nal laceration[s] at 4, 6 and 7 o'clock [positions], sir.
Q: Relative to that word you said healed, was it freshly healed or old healed?
A: It was an old laceration, sir.
Q: And it ha[s] been how many months or days?
A: Five (5) days or more, sir.[29]
xx
xx
Q: What does it signify] having an old healed lacerations?
A: That the lacerations [could] have occurred about five (5) days or more before the
examination, sir.
Q: You mentioned that you were able to examine the victim after two (2) months?
A: Yes, your Honor.
Q: Could it be possible that she had contact before your examination?
A: It is still possible, your Honor.
Q: And it could still result to healed lacerations?

A: Yes, your Honor.[30]
It would appear from the foregoing that the reasoning advanced by the defense was
misplaced. The defense focused on Dr. Luna's estimate of five days old laceration
completely disregarding the latter portion of her answer wherein she added "or
more", in reply to the question propounded to her. The OSG was quick to point out
in its brief that Dr. Luna's testimony simply means that the old lacerations were
committed five (5) days or more prior to XYZ's examination. [31] As such, the
examining physician's declaration was actually consistent and supported XYZ's
testimony that she was sexually assaulted on March 11, 2011. [32]
In any case, expert testimony like an examining physician is merely corroborative in
character and not essential to conviction.[33] In rape cases, the accused may be
convicted on the basis of the sole uncorroborated testimony of the victim as long as
said testimony is clear, positive and convincing.[34] Here, XYZ's testimony passed the
test of credibility and by itself, was sufficient to sustain the appellant's conviction.
The Court has ruled, time and again, that mere denial cannot prevail over the
positive testimony of a witness.[35] The defense of denial is treated as a self-serving
negative evidence which cannot be accorded greater evidentiary weight than the
declaration of credible witnesses who testify on affirmative matters. [36] For it to
prosper, denial must be supported by strong and convincing evidence [37] and this,
the appellant failed to do in the instant case.
Whenever the crime of rape is committed with the use of a deadly weapon, the
penalty shall be reclusion perpetua to death as provided under Article 266-B of the
Revised Penal Code. The prosecution was able to sufficiently allege in the
information and establish during trial that a knife was used in the commission of
rape. Considering that no aggravating or mitigating circumstance attended the
commission of the crime, the lesser penalty of reclusion perpetua was correctly
imposed by the lower courts on the appellant. However, the CA, in its decision,
added the qualification that the appellant shall be ineligible for parole pursuant to
Section 3 of Republic Act No. 9346.[38] In light of the attendant circumstances in the
case at bar, there is no more need to append the phrase "without eligibility for
parole" to appellant's prison term in line with the instructions given by the Court in
A.M. No. 15-08-02-SC.[39] Therefore, the dispositive portion of this decision should
simply state that appellant is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion
perpetua without any qualification.
Coming now to the pecuniary liabilities, an award of civil indemnity is mandatory
upon a finding that rape took place,[40] while moral damages are awarded to rape
victims under the assumption that they suffered moral injuries from the ordeal they
experienced in the hands of their assailants.[41] The award of exemplary damages is
justified under Article 2229 of the Civil Code to set a public example or correction
for the public good.[42] The recent case of People v. Jugueta[43] increased the
amounts of civil indemnity, moral damages and exemplary damages to P75,000.00,
P75,000.00 and P75,000.00, respectively. As such, the Court modifies the award of
civil indemnity, moral damages and exemplary damages in the aforesaid amounts.
Lastly, the Court upholds the specification that all monetary awards shall bear an
interest of six percent (6%) per annum from the date of finality of decision until full
payment thereof. Courts are given discretionary authority to levy interest as part of
the damages for it is considered to be a natural and probable consequence of the
acts of the accused complained of.[44]
WHEREFORE, the Court AFFIRMS with MODIFICATION the May 23, 2014 Court
of Appeals Decision in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 05692. Appellant JIMMY ULANDAY @
"SAROY" is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Rape, and
sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. He is ordered to pay the
victim XYZ the following: (a) P75,000.00 as civil indemnity; (b) P75,000.00 as
moral damages; (c) P75,000.00 as exemplary damages; and (d) interest of six
percent (6%)per annum on all damages awarded from the date of finality of this
judgment until fully paid.
SO ORDERED.
Velasco, Jr., (Chairperson), Brion,* Peralta, and Reyes, JJ., concur.
May 25, 2016

NOTICE OF JUDGMENT
Sirs / Mesdames:
Very truly yours,

Additional Member per Raffled dated March 21, 2016.
CA rollo pp. 77-90; penned by CA Associate Justice Rebecca De Guia-Salvador

and concurred in by Associate Justices Ramon R. Garcia and Edwin D. Sorongon.
[1]
[2]
Records pp. 81-95; penned by Judge Caridad V. Galvez.
[3]
Id. at 1.
Pursuant to the Court's ruling in People v. Cabalquinto, G.R. No. 167693,

September 19, 2006, 502 SCRA 419, the real name of the rape victim will not be
disclosed. Similarly, the personal circumstances of the victim or any other
information tending to establish or compromise the victim's identity, as well as
those of her immediate family or household members will be withheld. In this
connection, fictitious initials are used to represent them. Here, the rape victim is
referred to as XYZ; her half-sister, BBB; her neighbour, AAA; and her uncles, CCC
and DDD.
[4]
[5]
Records, p. 29.
[6]
Id. at 47.
[7]
[8]
TSN, December 6, 2011, testimony of BBB, pp. 4-6.
[9]
Id. at 8.
[10]
Id.
[11]
Records p. 19; May 16, 2011 Medico-Legal Report issued by Dr. Luna.
[12]
TSN, October 25, 2011, testimony of Dr. Luna, p. 5.
[13]
Id. at 6.
[14]
CA rollo, pp. 24-25; Appellant's Brief dated April 16, 2013.
[15]
Records, p. 95.
[16]
CA rollo, p. 89.
[17]
Id. at 91.
[18]
CA rollo, pp. 22 & 25.
[19]
TSN, November 3, 2011, testimony of XYZ, pp. 15 & 19.
[20]
Id. at 5-6, 20-30, 27, 7, 9-12, 18-19.
[21]
People v. Cabel, 347 Phil. 82, 92 (1997).
[22]
G.R. No. 200920, People v. Esteban, June 9, 2014, 725 SCRA 517, 524.
[23]
People v. Masapol, 463 Phil. 25, 33 (2003).
[24]
People v. Perez, 673 Phil. 373, 382 (2011).
[25]
People v. Esperas, 461 Phil. 700, 712 (2003).
[26]
People v. Buates, 455 Phil. 688, 698 (2003).
[27]
People v. Saludo, 662 Phil. 738, 758-759 (2011).
[28]
TSN, October 25, 2011, testimony of Dr. Luna, pp. 7-8.
[29]
Id. at 4-5.
[30]
Supra note 27 at 8.
[31]
CA rollo, p. 73; Appellee's Brief filed by the OSG dated August 22, 2013.
[32]
Id.
[33]
People v. Balonzo, 560 Phil. 244, 259-260 (2007).
[34]
Id. at 260.
[35]
People v. Hashim and Pansacala, 687 Phil. 516, 526 (2012).
[36]
People v. Villacorta, 672 Phil. 712, 721 (2011).
[37]
G.R. No. 196228, People v. Besmonte, June 4, 2014, 725 SCRA 37, 56.
[38]
Section 3 of Republic Act No. 9346 states that "[p]erson[s] convicted of offenses
punished with reclusion perpetua, or whose sentences will be reduced toreclusion

perpetua, by reason of this Act, shall not be eligible for parole under Act No. 4180,
otherwise known as the Indeterminate Sentence Law, as amended."
Section II of A.M. No. 15-08-02-SC (Guidelines for the Proper Use of the Phrase
"Without Eligibility for Parole" in Indivisible Penalties) states:
xxxx
[39]
II.
In these lights, the following guidelines shall be observed in the imposition of
penalties and in the use of the phrase "without eligibility for parole":
(1) In cases where the death penalty is not warranted, there is no need to use the
phrase "without eligibility for parole" to qualify the penalty ofreclusion perpetua; it
is understood that convicted persons penalized with an indivisible penalty are not
eligible for parole; and
(2) When circumstances are present warranting the imposition of the death penalty,
but this penalty is not imposed because of R.A. 9346, the qualification of "without
eligibility for parole" shall be used to qualify reclusion perpetua in order to
emphasize that the accused should have been sentenced to suffer the death penalty
had it not been for R.A. No. 9346.
[40]
G.R. No. 203068, People v. Frias, September 18, 2013, 706 SCRA 156, 168.
[41]
People v. Lascano and Delabajan, 685 Phil. 236, 245 (2012).
[42]
Supra note 40.
[43]
G.R. No. 202124, 5 April 2016.
[44]
People v. Taguibuya, 674 Phil. 476, 483 (2011).

G.R.
No.
211098
THE WELLEX GROUP, INC., PETITIONER, VS. SHERIFF EDGARDO A. URIETA OF THE SANDIGANBAYAN SECURITY AND
SHERIFF SERVICES, THE SANDIGANBAYAN SECURITY AND SHERIFF SERVICES, AND BDO UNIBANK, INC. (FORMERLY
EQUITABLE
PCI
BANK,
INC.),
RESPONDENTS.
April 20, 2016
THIRD DIVISION
[ G.R. No. 211098, April 20, 2016 ]
THE WELLEX GROUP, INC., PETITIONER, VS. SHERIFF
EDGARDO A. URIETA OF THE SANDIGANBAYAN SECURITY
AND SHERIFF SERVICES, THE SANDIGANBAYAN SECURITY
AND SHERIFF SERVICES, AND BDO UNIBANK, INC.
(FORMERLY EQUITABLE PCI BANK, INC.), RESPONDENTS.
DECISION
PEREZ, J.:
Before this Court is a Petition,[1] on pure questions of law, assailing the Order dated
9 January 2012 of the Regional Trial Court of Makati City, Branch 132 (trial court) in
Civil Case No. 09-399,[2] with a prayer for the issuance of a temporary restraining
order and preliminary injunction against respondents, enjoining them and persons
acting under their authority from selling 450,000,000 shares of Waterfront
Philippines Inc. (WPI shares) that are owned and registered in the name of
petitioner The Wellex Group, Inc. (Wellex).[3]
In resolving the prayer of Wellex for the issuance of injunctive relief, this Court is
constrained to examine the merits of the Petition and at once notes' that this case
is essentially intertwined with G.R. 187951,[4] a landmark case, wherein this Court
declared, among others, that the WPI shares are included among those assets of
Investment Management Agreement with Account No. 101-78056-1, under the
name of Jose Velarde, (IMA Account) formerly managed by respondent BDO
Unibank, Inc., previously Equitable PCI Bank, Inc. (BDO). The said account was
duly forfeited in favor of the State by virtue of the Resolution dated 24 September
2008 of the Sandiganbayan in Criminal Case No. 26558, the case for plunder
against former President Joseph Ejercito Estrada.

The material facts of this case, as culled from the records, [5] are as follows:
On 4 February 2000, Wellex obtained a loan in the principal amount of
P500,000,000.00 from the IMA Account with BDO. As security for the loan, Wellex
mortgaged the WPI shares.
By the time the loan obligation matured on 29 January 2001, Wellex was not able
to settle the same; however, BDO, as investment manager of the IMA Account did
not institute any foreclosure proceeding against the WPI shares.
Thereafter, BDO, through a Letter dated 14 March 2001, informed Wellex that it
shall cease to manage the IMA Account effective 2 May 2001. In the same letter,
BDO informed Wellex tha't on 29 January 2000, the Bureau of Internal Revenue
(BIR) issued a Notice of Constructive Distraint against the IMA Account, which
effectively froze all goods, chattels or personal property owned by Jose Velarde,
including the WPI shares, which BDO could consequently neither remove nor
dispose of without the express authority of the BIR.
Subsequently, Wellex alleged that considering that BDO had relinquished its
authority to act as the investment manager of the IMA Account, and that Wellex
had supposedly settled its loan obligation in full directly with Jose Velarde, BDO, as
the principal of the IMA Account, should return the WPI shares to Wellex. BDO,
however, did not.
In the meantime, on 12 September 2007, the Sandiganbayan in Criminal Case No.
26558 found former President Estrada guilty of the crime of plunder. The conviction
ultimately carried with it the penalty of forfeiture,[6] wherein all ill-gotten wealth
amassed by former President Estrada, including the IMA Account and the assets
therein, were forfeited in favor of the State.
Former President Estrada was, thereafter, pardoned by former President Gloria
Macapagal-Arroyo on 25 October 2007; nonetheless, the said forfeiture remained in
force.
Consequently, the Sandiganbayan, in the same case, issued a Resolution dated 24
September 2008 directing the Sheriff of the Sandiganbayan to cause the forfeiture
of, among others, the IMA Account, including the WPI shares in favor of the State.
Wellex sought to intervene in Criminal Case No. 26558 and moved for the
reconsideration of the above-mentioned Resolution dated 24 September 2008.
Wellex argued that the WPI shares should be excluded from the forfeiture order.
However, the Sandiganbayan, in a Resolution dated 02 April 2009, denied the said
reconsideration sought by Wellex.
By virtue of the foregoing resolutions, respondent Sheriff Edgardo A. Urieta (Urieta)
of the Sandiganbayan issued to BDO a Notice to Deliver dated 20 April 2009. BDO
delivered to Urieta, among others, the WPI shares, which shares Urieta
subsequently scheduled[7] for sale at a public auction on 15 May 2009.
As mentioned above, Wellex filed G.R. No 187951 to question the inclusion of the
WPI shares among the forfeited assets; however, this Court affirmed the inclusion
of the WPI shares as part of the assets covered by the forfeiture order.
Subsequently, Wellex filed Civil Case No. 09-399 with the trial court for the recovery
of the possession of the WPI shares. In essence, Wellex claims that it is the owner
of the WPI Shares, that it fully paid its loan obligation and that it is entitled to the
return thereof. Wellex prayed that the trial court issue a temporary restraining
order and a writ of preliminary injunction against the Sandiganbayan to enjoin them
from selling the WPI shares at a public auction. Wellex alleged that it instituted the
case as a third (3rd) party claimant because the Sandiganbayan failed to observe
the requirements under Section 16, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, [8] and that Wellex
was left with no recourse but to file an action with a competent court to recover
ownership of the WPI shares by virtue of the extinguishment of the obligation
through payment.
With the filing of the foregoing case, Urieta and the Sandiganbayan Security and
Sheriff Services agreed to maintain status quo and to defer the public auction of the
WPI shares until the resolution of the case.
Thereafter, Urieta and the Sandiganbayan Security and Sheriff Services, as well as
BDO, filed their respective motions to dismiss in Civil Case No. 09-399, which
motions were granted by the trial court in its Order dated 9 January 2012. The
aforestated order of the trial court directed the dismissal of Civil Case No. 09-399
on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction based on the principle of hierarchy of courts,
and failure to state a cause of action.
Wellex moved for the reconsideration of the above-mentioned order dated 9
January 2012, which was, however, denied by the trial court in its Resolution dated
15 January 2014.
Hence, Wellex comes to this Court via the instant Petition, on pure questions of law.
Wellex contends that the trial court erred in its ruling dismissing Civil Case No. 09399 because it can take cognizance of the same by determining the existence of
legal and formal requirements for executing on a security, particularly on the WPI
shares. Thus, Wellex seeks that this Court set aside the dismissal order and direct
the resumption of proceedings.
We clarify.
Before delving into the merits of the Petition, this Court recognizes the crucial need
to emphasize that as per the Decision in G.R. 187951, this Court had already
declared with absolute finality that the WPl shares were and should rightfully be
included among the forfeited assets in favor of the State. Therefore, this matter is
beyond cavil. This Court aptly and succinctly ruled "[i]t is beyond doubt that IMA
Trust Account No. 101-78056-1 and its assets were traceable to the account
adjudged as ill-gotten. As such, the trust account and its assets were indeed within
the scope of the forfeiture Order issued by the Sandiganbayan in the plunder
case"[9] against former President Estrada.
However, this Court is cognizant of the fact that the issues in this case are, while
novel, unambiguous: whether the Sandiganbayan may proceed to sell outright, at
public auction, the forfeited WPI shares; and whether the trial court may take
cognizance of Civil Case No. 09-399.
To resolve these issues, there is a need to first establish the nature of the WPI
shares.
In its final and executory Decision in G.R. No. 187951, this Court had already ruled
that:
There is no dispute that the subject shares of stock were mortgaged by petitioner
Wellex as security for its loan. These shares being the subject of a contract that was
accessory to the Wellex loan and being an asset of the forfeited IMA Trust Account,
the said shares necessarily follow the fate of the trust account and are forfeited as
well. However, the forfeiture . of the said trust account, tofiether with all its assets
and receivables, does not affect the validity of the loan transaction between BDO
the creditor and Wellex the debtor. The loan continues to be valid despite the
forfeiture by the government of the IMA Trust Account and is considered as an
asset.
Consequently, the forfeiture had the effect of subrogating the state to the rights of
the trust account as creditor.[10] (Underscoring supplied)
Thus, this Court reiterates that the WPI shares assume the character of a security
for a valid and existing loan obligation, which is included in the. IMA Account.
Stated in simpler terms, one (1) of the assets in the IMA Account is a receivable
secured by a chattel mortgage, more particularly the valid and existing loan
obligation between BDO and petitioner, secured by the WPI shares.
Consequently, considering that the loan obligation of petitioner is valid and existing,
it necessarily follows that BDO, the creditor, or its successor-in-interest, cannot be
allowed to unilaterally sell the chattel securing the loan and apply the proceeds
thereof as payment, full or partial, to the said loan. This would constitute a clear
case of pactum commissorium, which is expressly prohibited by Article 2088[11] of
the Civil Code.[12]
In line with our holding in The Wellex Group, Inc. v. Sandigfinbayan,[13] that "the
forfeiture had the effect x x x as creditor," the state has stepped into the shoes of
the BDO. As this Court has consistently ruled, "[sjubrogation is the substitution of
one person by another with reference to a lawful claim or right, so that he who is
substituted succeeds to the rights of the other in relation to a debt or claim,
including its remedies or securities, x x x It contemplates full substitution such that
it places the party subrogated in the shoes of the creditor, and he may use all
means that the creditor could employ to enforce payment."[14] Given that the
subrogee merely steps into the shoes of the creditor, he acquires no right greater
than those of the latter.
Considering that the WPI shares serves as security to an acknowledged valid and
existing loan obligation, the subrogee, in this case the State, is obliged to avail of
the very same remedies available to the original creditor to collect the loan
obligation, which is to first demand from the original debtor to pay the same, and if
not paid despite demand, institute either foreclosure proceedings, or the
appropriate action for collection before the proper forum. In either case, the debtor
will be afforded the opportunity to pay the obligation, or to assert any claim or
defense, which the debtor may have against the original creditor. This is the
essence of constitutional right to due process. In this case, the action of public
respondent in offering for sale, at public auction, the WPI shares would unavoidably
trample upon a constitutionally enshrined right.
This Court is well aware that the Sandiganbayan had earlier asserted in Criminal
Case No. 26558 that as regards the BDO loan, Wellex is considered a delinquent
debtor. However, the pronouncement cannot be an excuse to omit the steps needed
to be taken regarding the mortgaged WPI shares. It is a fact that Wellex was not
impleaded as a party to the said case, ergo, the effect of the pronouncement
cannot be extended to it. It is axiomatic that no man shall be affected by any
proceeding to which he is a stranger, and strangers to a case are not bound by any
judgment rendered by the court.[15] Thus, only those who have had their day in
court are considered the real parties in interest in an action, and it is they who are
bound by the judgment therein and by writs of execution issued pursuant thereto.
[16]
Even more important, this Court notes that the subject matter of controversy
brought forth by Wellex is purely civil in nature. This involves the third (3 rd) party
claim of Wellex against the WPI shares vis-a-vis the loan obligation per se, which
should be properly lodged before and heard by the regular trial courts. To the mind
of this Court, it is clear that the same does not pertain to the jurisdiction of the
Sandiganbayan. Jurisdiction, which is the authority to hear and the right to act in a
case, is conferred by the Constitution and by law. Although the Sandiganbayan, a
constitutionally-mandated court, is a regular court, it has, nevertheless, only a
special or limited jurisdiction.[17]
While this Court has time and again affirmed[18] that the Sandiganbayan has
jurisdiction over the civil aspect of criminal cases, as conferred to it by law, the case
before the trial court does not involve the civil aspect of Criminal Case No. 26558.
The same has nothing to do with the ownership of the IMA Account and/or any of
its financial assets, which, as stated above, has been adjudged forfeited in favor of
the State. In contrast, the said case is an ordinary civil case entailing the propriety
of the actions of a creditor in proceeding against the security for its loan, which
necessitates the application of the provisions of the Civil Code, therefore falling
under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Courts. [19]
Given that the cause of action of Wellex in Civil Case No. 09-399 partakes of a valid
third (3rd) party claim sanctioned by the Rules of Court, affording Wellex the
opportunity to assert its claim or defense against its creditor, presently the State,
the latter should likewise avail of this avenue to affirm its own claims, as creditor,
against the loan and/or mortgage securing the said loan, paving the way to the
realization of any of the fruits of plunder. Thus, this Court deems it proper to
remand this case to the trial court for further proceedings, where all the civil issues
may properly be ventilated.
At this point, this Court commends the trial court for acting cautiously and
exercising prudence in applying the principle of hierarchy of courts when it issued
its Order dated 9 January 2012 and Resolution dated 15 January 2014. As a
consequence of the rulings rendered in this case, that is, that the State, acting
through the Sandiganbayan, may not sell the WPI shares outright without first
complying with the requirements set by law, the prayer of petitioner for injunctive
relief against the Sandiganbayan is now rendered moot and academic. And as
previously stated, given the fact that the State has validly substituted BDO as the
creditor of Wellex, the cause of action of Wellex against BDO is, likewise, rendered
moot and academic.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, JUDGMENT is hereby
rendered GRANTING the instant Petition and SETTING ASIDE the Order dated 9
January 2012 and Resolution dated 15 January 2014 of the Regional Trial Court of
Makati City, Branch 132 in Civil Case No. 09-399. This case is hereby remanded to
the trial court for further proceedings.
SO ORDERED.
Velasco, Jr., (Chairperson), Reyes, and Jardeleza, JJ., concur.
Leonen,* J., see dissenting opinion.
May 31, 2016
N O T I C E OF J U D G M E N T
Sirs/Mesdames:
Please take notice that on ___April 20, 2016___ a Decision, copy attached hereto,
was rendered by the Supreme Court in the above-entitled case, the original of
which was received by this Office on May 31, 2016 at 10:20 a.m.
Very truly yours,

(SGD)
WILFREDO V. LAPITAN
DISSENTING OPINION
LEONEN, J.:
I dissent. Third-party claims involving properties forfeited consequent to a
conviction for plunder must be filed before the Sandiganbayan, regardless of the
civil nature of such claims.
Before this court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari[1] assailing the Order[2] dated
January 9, 2012 of Branch 139 and the Resolution [3] dated January 15, 2014 of
Branch 132, both of the Regional Trial Court of Makati City. On the ground of lack of
cause of action, the trial court dismissed petitioner the Wellex Group, Inc.'s
Complaint for recovery of possession of 450,000,000 shares of stock in Waterfront
Philippines, Inc. (Waterfront shares).[4] The shares of stock were forfeited in favor of
the state as a consequence of Former President Joseph Estrada's (Former President
Estrada) conviction for plunder.[5]
Equitable-PCI Bank and a certain Jose Velarde (Velarde) entered into an Investment
Management Agreement.[6] The bank agreed to manage Velarde's assets, investing
them and taking possession of the profits and losses on Velarde's behalf.[7] The
agreement likewise allowed the bank to grant loans using the funds under
investment management, subject to applicable regulations.[8]
On February 4, 2000, Investment Management Agreement (IMA) Account No. 10178056-1 was opened under Velarde's name.[9] Apart from the IMA account, Velarde
maintained a savings account in Equitable-PCI Bank with account number 016062501-5.[10]
On the same day that Velarde opened his IMA account, the Wellex Group, Inc.
loaned P500,000,000.00 from Equitable-PCI Bank, payable in six (6) months. [11] As
security for the loan, the Wellex Group, Inc. mortgaged 450,000,000 of its
Waterfront shares.[12]
On August 2, 2000, a loan extension was granted to the Wellex Group, Inc. and its
President, William Gatchalian, mortgaged 300,000,000 of his own Waterfront
shares as additional security for the loan.[13]
In the meantime, on April 4, 2001, Former President Estrada was charged with
plunder before the Sandiganbayan.[14] The Information was amended on April 18,
2001[15] to add, among others, "Jose Velarde" as one of Former President Estrada's
alleged aliases.[16] According to the Amended Information, Former President Estrada
allegedly compelled the Government Service Insurance System and the Social
Security System to purchase shares of stock from Belle Corporation, resulting in his
earning a total of P189,700,000.00 in commissions. [17] This amount was allegedly
deposited in his "Jose Velarde" accounts in Equitable PCI-Bank. [18]
The accusatory portion of the Amended Information reads:
AMENDED INFORMATION
The undersigned Ombudsman Prosecutor and OIC-Director, EPIB Office of the

Ombudsman, hereby accuses former PRESIDENT OF THE PHILIPPINES, Joseph
Ejercito Estrada a.k.a. 'ASIONG SALONGA' AND a.k.a 'JOSE VELARDE', together
with Jose 'Jinggoy' Estrada, Charlie 'Atong' Ang, Edward Serapio, Yolanda T.
Ricaforte, Alma Alfaro, JOHN DOE a.k.a. Eleuterio Tan OR Eleuterio Ramos Tan or
Mr. Uy, Jane Doe a.k.a Delia Rajas, and John DOES & Jane Does, of the crime of
Plunder, defined and penalized under R.A. No. 7080, as amended by Sec. 12 of R.A.
No. 7659, committed as follows:
That during the period from June, 1998 to January, 2001, in the Philippines, and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, accused Joseph Ejercito
Estrada, THEN A PUBLIC OFFICER, BEING THEN THE PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC
OF THE PHILIPPINES, by himself AND/OR inCONNIVANCE/CONSPIRACY with his coaccused, WHO ARE MEMBERS OF HIS FAMILY, RELATIVES BY AFFINITY OR
CONSANGUINITY, mTSmRSSlASSOCIA.TES. SUBORDINATES AND/OR OTHER
PERSONS, BY TAKING UNDUE ADVANTAGE OF HIS OFFICIAL POSITION,
AUTHORITY, RELATIONSHIP, CONNECTION, OR INFLUENCE, did then and there
wilfully, unlawfully and criminally amass, accumulate and acquire BY HIMSELF,
DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, ill-gotten wealth in the aggregate amount OR TOTAL
VALUE of FOUR BILLION NINETY SEVEN MILLION EIGHT HUNDRED FOUR
THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED SEVENTY THREE PESOS AND SEVENTEEN
CENTAVOS [P4,097,804,173.17], more or less, THEREBY UNJUSTLY ENRICHING
HIMSELF OR THEMSELVES AT THE EXPENSE AND TO THE DAMAGE OF THE FILIPINO
PEOPLE AND THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, through ANY OR
A combination OR A series of overt OR criminal acts, OR SIMILAR SCHEMES OR
MEANS, described as follows:
....
(c) by directing, ordering and compelling, FOR HIS PERSONAL GAIN AND BENEFIT,
the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) TO PURCHASE 351,878,000
SHARES OF STOCK. MORE OR LESS, and the Social Security System (SSS),
329,855.000 SHARES OF STOCK MORE OR LESS, OF THE BELLE
CORPORATION . . .; AND BY COLLECTING OR RECEIVING, DIRECTLY OR
INDIRECTLY. BY HIMSELF AND/OR IN CONNIVANCE WITH JOHN DOES AND JANE
DOES. COMMISSIONS OR PERCENTAGES BY REASON OF SAID PURCHASES OF
SHARES OF STOCK IN THE AMOUNT OF ONE HUNDRED EIGHTY NINE MILLION
SEVEN HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS [P89,700,000.00], MORE OR LESS, FROM THE
BELLE CORPORATION WHICH BECAME PART OF THE DEPOSIT IN THE EOUITABLEPCI BANK UNDER THE ACCOUNT NAME "JOSE VELARDE";
....
CONTRARY TO LAW.[19] (Underscoring in the original, emphasis supplied)
During trial, the prosecution proved Former President Estrada's ownership of the
Velarde accounts in Equitable-PCI Bank.[20] As for Former President Estrada, he

admitted to signing bank documents as Jose Velarde to fund the Wellex Group,
Inc.'s P500,000,000.00 loan.[21] Specifically, he admitted to signing as Jose Velarde
copies of the Investment Management Agreement as well as a debit-credit
instruction to allow the transfer of P500,000,000.00 from the savings account to
the IMA account.[22]
While the plunder case was still pending resolution, Equitable-PCI Bank merged
with Banco de Oro in 2007, with the surviving bank being Banco de Oro. [23]
Through the Decision dated September 12, 2007, the Sandiganbayan convicted
Former President Estrada of plunder.[24] The Sandiganbayan ordered the
P189,000,000.00 deposited in the Velarde accounts, inclusive of interests and
income earned, forfeited in favor of government. [25] The dispositive portion of the
September 12, 2007 Decision partly provides:
Moreover, in accordance with Section 2 of Republic Act No. 7080, as amended by
Republic Act No. 7659, the Court hereby declares the forfeiture in favor of the
Government of the following:
....
(2) The amount of One Hundred Eighty Nine Million Pesos (P189,000,000.00),
inclusive of interests and income earned, deposited in the Jose Velarde account.
[26]
(Citation omitted)
However, Former President Estrada was pardoned by Former President Gloria
Macapagal Arroyo on October 25, 2007.[27] The pardon expressly stipulated that:
The forfeitures imposed by the Sandiganbayan remain in force and in full, including
all writs and processes issued by the Sandiganbayan in pursuance hereof, except
for the bank account(s) he owned before his tenure as President. [28] (Citation
omitted)
Former President Estrada accepted the pardon on October 26, 2007. [29]
With this development, the Sandiganbayan ordered the issuance of a writ of
execution to implement parts of the September 12, 2007 Decision not covered by
the pardon. The Writ of Execution was issued against Former President Estrada on
November 5, 2007.[30]
Former President Estrada moved to quash the Writ of Execution, arguing that the
Writ expanded the scope of the properties ordered forfeited. [31] The Office of the
Special Prosecutor opposed the Motion to Quash and asserted that the Writ of
Execution did not vary the terms of the September 12, 2007 Decision. [32]
In the Resolution dated January 28 2008, the Sandiganbayan partially granted the
Motion to Quash. It qualified the scope of the Writ of Execution to include only
those that form part of Former President Estrada's ill-gotten wealth. [33] Thus, the
Sandiganbayan issued an Amended Writ of Execution[34] on February 19, 2008,
particularly alluding to the Waterfront shares as properties forfeited in favor of
government.[35] The Amended Writ of Execution partly provides:
NOW THEREFORE, you are hereby commanded to cause the forfeiture in favor of
the government of the abovementioned amounts and property listed in the said
dispositive portion of the decision, including payment in full of your lawful fees for
the service of the writ.
In the event that the amounts or property listed for forfeiture in the dispositive
portion be insufficient or could no longer be found, you are authorized to issue
notices of levy and/or garnishment to any person who is in possession of any and
all form of assets that is traceable or form part of the amounts or property which
have been ordered forfeited by this Court, including but not limited to the accounts
receivables and assets found at Banco de Oro (the successor in interest of Equitable
PCI Bank) in the personal IMA Trust Account No. 101-78056-1 in the name of Jose
Velarde (which has been adjudged by the Court to be owned by former President
Joseph Ejercito Estrada and the depositary of the ill-gotten wealth) consisting of
Promissory Notes evidencing the loan of P500,000,000.00 with due date as of
August 2, 2000 and the chattel mortgage securing the loan; Waterfront shares
aggregating 750,000,000 shares (estimated to be worth P652,500,000.00 at the
closing price of P 0.87 per share as of January 21, 2008[.][36] (Underscoring in the
original, emphasis supplied)
Sheriff Edgardo A. Urieta (Sheriff Urieta) of the Sandiganbayan was commanded to
implement the Writ of Execution. In his Sheriffs Progress Report submitted on
February 22, 2008, Sheriff Urieta stated that Velarde's IMA account was under the
Bureau of Internal Revenue's constructive distraint. Therefore, the bank could not
deliver to the Sandiganbayan the assets under the IMA account. [37]
Banco De Oro confirmed Sheriff Urieta's Report. [38] In the Manifestation[39] dated
April 18, 2008, Banco de Oro stated that the assets under the IMA account
remained intact but were under constructive distraint. [40]
Banco de Oro likewise informed the Sandiganbayan that the Wellex Group, Inc. had
earlier requested the retrieval of its Waterfront shares. [41] In its Letter[42] dated
January 21, 2008, the Wellex Group, Inc. said that it directly paid the owner of the
IMA account, thus extinguishing its loan obligation to the bank. [43] The Letter dated
January 21, 2008 partly states:
It appears that interest payments on the loan were made for a certain period but
these payments stopped at some point in time. Inquiries resulted in our view that
coincident to the stoppage of interest payments, principal payment of the obligation
was made by or on behalf of the borrower, not to your bank as investment
manager, but instead directly to the owner of the account. THE WELLEX GROUP,
INC. is presently interested in retrieving the shares given as security for the loan
obligation which apparently has been extinguished.[44]
To settle the conflicting claims to the Waterfront shares, the Sandiganbayan
scheduled a hearing on May 16, 2008.[45] The Bureau of Internal Revenue, Banco de
Oro, and the Wellex Group, Inc. were heard on their respective positions and were
thereafter ordered to file their respective memoranda.[46] The Bureau of Internal
Revenue filed a Memorandum and Banco de Oro a Submission. However, the Wllex
Group, Inc. filed none.[47]
The Sandiganbayan emphasized the Wellex Group, Inc.'s failure to file a
memorandum on its claim to the Waterfront shares. [48] The court likewise cited
Banco de Oro's Certification that the bank had not yet received any payment from
the Wellex Group, Inc. for its P500,000,000.00 loan. [49]
With respect to the Bureau of Internal Revenue, the Sandiganbayan acknowledged
the validity of the Bureau's claim over the assets under the IMA account.
[50]
However, it noted that the Bureau had not yet issued a formal assessment to
Former President Estrada; hence, the Bureau's claim was not yet final. [51]
The September 12, 2007 Decision, the Sandiganbayan continued, was already final
and executory. Thus, the Sandiganbayan ruled that the assets under the IMA
account were ripe for forfeiture.[52]
In the Resolution[53] dated September 24, 2008, the Sandiganbayan directed Sheriff
Urieta to issue another Notice to Deliver to Banco de Oro for the bank to remit to
the court the assets under the IMA account.[54] The Resolution dated September 24,
2008 states, in part:
As regards the claim of the Wellex Group, Inc., considering the Certification issued
by the BDO's Trust and Investment Group managing the subject IMA Account that
"they have not received any principal payment on the loan/investment amounting
to P500,000,000.00 granted/made by said account to the Wellex Group, Inc.,"
which Certification was not rebutted by Wellex, its alleged claim to the subject IMA
Account has no legal basis. Besides, the claim of the government always enjoys the
highest priority over the claim of private individuals or entities as regards

assets/amounts which have been ordered forfeited in favor of the government
and/or distrained for tax liability. This circumstance is apparently realized by Wellex
Group, which did not submit a memorandum to support its stand even when it was
given by the Court the opportunity to do so.
WHEREFORE, in light of the foregoing, Mr. Edgardo Urieta, SB Chief Judicial Officer,
Security and Sheriff Services, this Court, is hereby directed to issue another
NOTICE TO DELIVER to Banco de Oro Unibank, Inc. (formerly BDO[-]EPCIB, Inc.)
for the latter to deliver/remit to this Court the amount of ONE HUNDRED EIGHTY
NINE MILLION SEVEN HUNDRED THOUSAND (PI89,700,000.00) PESOS, inclusive of
interest and income earned, covered by IMA Trust Account No. 101-78056-1 in the
name of Jose Velarde, within fifteen (15) days from receipt thereof.
SO ORDERED.[55]
The Wellex Group, Inc. filed a Petition/Motion for Reconsideration [56] praying that
the Waterfront shares be excluded from the forfeiture order.[57] The Motion was
denied in the Resolution[58] dated April 2, 2009.
On April 20, 2009, Sheriff Urieta issued the Notice to Deliver,[59] with which Banco
de Oro complied. Banco de Oro delivered to Sheriff Urieta the assets under the IMA
account, including the Waterfront shares.[60]
The Wellex Group, Inc. filed an Urgent Ex-Parte Motion for Clarification of the
Resolution dated 02 April 2009[61] arguing that the Waterfront shares do not form
part of the forfeited IMA account.[62] In the Resolution[63] dated April 23, 2009, the
Sandiganbayan merely noted the Urgent Ex-Parte Motion without action.
Alleging grave abuse of discretion on the part of Sandiganbayan,[64] the Wellex
Group, Inc. filed before this Court a Petition for Certiorari on June 22, 2009. [65] The
Wellex Group, Inc. maintained that the Sandiganbayan expanded the scope of its
September 12, 2007 Decision when it included the Waterfront shares in the
forfeiture order.[66]
The Petition, docketed as G.R. No. 187951, was dismissed by this Court in the
Decision dated June 25, 2012.[67] On the premises that (a) the beneficial owner of
the forfeited Velarde accounts was Former President Estrada;[68] (b) that the
P500,000,000.00 loaned to the Wellex Group, Inc. came from the Velarde IMA
account;[69]and that (c) the Wellex Group, Inc. mortgaged 450,000,000.00 of its
Waterfront shares as security for the loan,[70] this Court held in The Wellex Group,
Inc. v. Sandiganbayan[71] that the Waterfront shares were among Former President
Estrada's assets, which were forfeited in favor of government.[72]
Since the loan was sourced from Former President Estrada's IMA account, this Court
held that the P500,000,000.00 receivable from the Wellex Group, Inc. as well as the
450,000,000 Waterfront shares became assets of the IMA account. [73] Considering
that the IMA account wa,s forfeited in favor of government, the assets of the IMA
account "follow the fate of the trust account and are forfeited as well." [74]
However, this Court stated that the loan contract remained valid, thus subrogating
the government to the rights of the IMA account over its assets, including the
Waterfront shares.[75] This Court further noted that the Wellex Group, Inc. waived
its right to assail this finding of fact before the Sandiganbayan when it failed to file
a memorandum as required during the May 16, 2008 hearing. [76]
According to this Court, the Wellex Group, Inc. failed to prove its claim that it had
directly paid its loan.[77] This Court likewise observed that the Wellex Group, Inc.
never revealed the identity of its alleged principal or creditor to whom it paid the
P500,000,000.00.[78] Thus, its claim of payment remained "highly doubtful." [79]
The Decision in The Wellex Group, Inc. v. Sandiganbayan became final and
executory.
Meanwhile, on May 6, 2009one month before the Wellex Group, Inc. filed its
Petition for Certiorari before this Court on June 22, 2009the Wellex Group, Inc.
filed before the Regional Trial Court of Makati a Complaint [80] for Recovery of
Possession, Delivery of Stock Certificates, and Injunction with Application for
Temporary Restraining Order and or Writ of Preliminary Injunction. Hence, the
Wellex Group, Inc. filed before this Court a separate civil action in addition to the
Complaint filed before the Regional Trial Court of Makati.
Impleaded as defendants in the Complaint for recovery of possession were Sheriff
Urieta, the Sandiganbayan Security and Sheriff Services, and Banco de Oro. [81] The
Wellex Group, Inc. made the following allegations in its Complaint:
12. [The Wellex Group, Inc.] learned that the principal of the IMA Account is Mr.
Jaime Dichaves. To avoid being defaulted in its loan obligations, [The Wellex Group,
Inc.] dealt directly with the principal and eventually settled its loan obligations.
13. Having settled its loan obligations, [The Wellex Group, Inc.] made demands
upon defendant [Banco de Oro] to return the subject stock certificates, but the
latter unjustifiably failed to comply with plaintiff s just and valid demands. The last
of such demands was evidenced by the demand letter made by [The Wellex Group,
Inc.'s] counsel to [Banco de Oro] dated 05 November 2008. . . .
14. Instead, on 22 April 2009, without the authority and consent of [The Wellex
Group, Inc.], defendant [Banco de Oro] delivered to and defendant Sheriff Urieta
took possession and control of the subject stock certificates and shares of stocks.
Worse, likewise without the authority and consent of [The Wellex Group, Inc.],
defendant Sheriff Urieta is now poised to sell the subject shares of stocks at public
auction on 15 May 2009 at 10 o'clock in the morning... .
15. On the face of the Sheriffs Report and the Notice of Sale, the seizure and
intended sale of the subject shares of stocks are anchored on the Amended Writ of
Execution dated 19 February 2008 (hereinafter the "Amended Writ") and the
Resolution dated 02 April 2009 (hereinafter the "subject Resolution") issued in
Criminal Case No. 26558. But the same is misleading.
15.1 The Amended Writ merely gave authority to defendant Sheriff Urieta to issue a
notice of levy on the subject shares of stocks, not to take possession and control
much less to sell the same at public auction. . . .
15.2 Assuming ex gratia argument that the Amended Writ authorized defendant
Sheriff Urieta to take possession and control of the subject stock certificates and
shares of stock, the same is patently null and void and, hence, of no effect
because:
15.2.1 The Sandiganbayan Decision dated 12 September 2007, which the Amended
Writ was supposed to implement, never authorized anyone to take possession and
control of the subject shares of stock much less to sell the same. Hence, the
Amended Writ varied the terms of the 12 September 2007 Sandiganbayan
Decision....
15.2.2 Notably, it was issued in Criminal Case No. 26558 despite the absence of
plaintiff who is an indispensable party with respect to the subject shares of
stocks. Hence, it was issued in violation of plaintiff s right to due process.
15.3 The subject Resolution merely authorized the issuance of another Notice to
Deliver to defendant BDO for the delivery to the Sandiganbayan of the amount of
PhP 189,700,000.00, inclusive of interest and income earned, covered by the IMA
Account. It did not authorize Sheriff Urieta to take control and possession of
the subject shares of stocks, much less to sell the same at public
auction. . . .
15.4 The subject shares of stocks have never been foreclosed and, as such, the
ownership thereof still pertains to plaintiff. In other words, the subject shares of
stocks do not form part of the IMA Account and may not be validly levied upon.
15.5 In fact, the Chattel Mortgage on the subject shares of stocks has already been
nullified as a result of the settlement of [The Wellex Group, Inc.'s] loan obligations.
Hence, there is absolutely no basis to claim that the subject shares of stocks are
part of the IMA Account that may properly be subject of execution.
16. Moreover, defendant Sheriff Urieta has also failed to comply with the legal
requirements for the sale of the subject shares of stocks at public auction. As such,
any sale of the same is a nullity.
17. Defendant [Banco de Oro] acted in bad faith and in breach of its obligations in
delivering the subject stock certificates to defendant Sheriff Urieta, since the
subject shares of stocks are registered in the name of [The Wellex Group, Inc.],
coupled with the fact that [The Wellex Group, Inc.] was never declared in default
and the subject stock certificates have never been foreclosed. In the event that the
subject shares of stock may no longer be recovered by [The Wellex Group, Inc.],
defendant [Banco de Oro] should be held liable to [The Wellex Group, Inc.] for the
value of the subject shares of stocks.[82] (Emphasis in the original)
The application for temporary restraining order was heard on May 12, 2009.
[83]
During the hearing, Sheriff Urieta agreed to postpone the public sale scheduled
on May 15, 2009 until the trial court resolved whether or not to grant the
provisional remedies prayed for by the Wellex Group, Inc.[84]
On May 18, 2009, Banco de Oro filed a Motion to Dismiss/Opposition to the
Application for a Writ of Preliminary Injunction[85] based on four (4) grounds. First,
the principle of hierarchy of courts allegedly barred the Regional Trial Court of
Makati City from restraining the Sandiganbayan, a superior court, from
implementing its September 12, 2007 Plunder Decision. [86] Second, the Wellex
Group, Inc. allegedly committed forum shopping by filing a case that raised the
issue of ownership of the Waterfront shares, an issue that had been earlier raised
before the Sandiganbayan.[87] Third, litis pendentia barred the Complaint for
recovery of possession because the Sandiganbayan still had to implement the Writ
of Execution in the plunder case.[88] Lastly, the Complaint allegedly failed to state a
cause of action against Banco de Oro because the bank had already delivered to the
Sandiganbayan the possession of the Waterfront shares. [89]
For their part, Sheriff Urieta and the Sandiganbayan Security and Sheriff Services
filed their Motion to Dismiss[90] on June 15, 2009, arguing lack of jurisdiction on the
part of the trial court.
In opposition[91] to the Motions to Dismiss, the Wellex Group, Inc. argued that the
Complaint filed was for injunction and recovery of possession, actions that are well
within the Regional Trial Court's jurisdiction.[92] It added that the Sandiganbayan
could not have passed upon with finality the issue of who retains title to the
Waterfront shares because the Sandiganbayan is a court of limited jurisdiction, and
the Wellex Group, Inc. was not a party to Former President Estrada's plunder case.
[93]
Resolving the Motion to Dismiss, the trial court agreed with Banco de Oro and
Sheriff Urieta that it had no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the Wellex
Group, Inc.'s Complaint.[94] It yielded to the authority of the Sandiganbayan, stating
that the anti-graft court had already passed upon the subject matter of the Wellex
Group, Inc.'s Complaint as well as the ultimate relief sought. [95] The trial court
refused to enjoin the public sale of the Waterfront shares for it would "result in the
review of the findings of the Sandiganbayan in the [plunder] case," [96] "amounting]
to an indirect circumvention of the prohibition against interference by a nonsuperior court."[97]
The trial court likewise ruled that the Wellex Group, Inc. had no cause of action
against Banco de Oro.[98] It held that Banco de Oro correctly delivered the
Waterfront shares to the Sandiganbayan under "the lawful order and process of the
Sandiganbayan in the [plunder] case."[99]
Declaring the application for issuance of temporary restraining order and writ of
preliminary injunction moot and academic, Branch 139 of the Regional Trial Court,
Makati City dismissed the Complaint in the Order dated January 9, 2012. [100] The
dispositive portion of the January 9, 2012 Order reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the separate Motions to Dismiss filed by
defendant [Banco de Oro] and by the public defendants are hereby GRANTEDfor
being meritorious. The plaintiffs complaint is hereby DISMISSED for lack of cause
of action.
Consequently, the plaintiffs Application for Issuance of TRO and/or Writ of
Preliminary Injunction is hereby DENIED for lack of jurisdiction and for
being MOOT and ACADEMIC.
SO ORDERED.[101] (Emphasis in the original)
On February 10, 2012, the Wellex Group, Inc. moved for reconsideration. [102] It
emphasized that it was not a party to the plunder case; thus, the Sandiganbayan
could not have validly adjudicated with finality the issue of ownership of the
Waterfront shares.[103] As a third-party claimant, the Wellex Group, Inc. argued that
it had a cause of action for recovery of possession[104]an action under the Regional
Trial Court's jurisdiction.[105]
On April 5, 2013, the Wellex Group, Inc. moved for the voluntary inhibition of
Presiding Judge Benjamin T. Pozon (Judge Pozon). 106 According to the Wellex
Group, Inc., it lost confidence in Judge Pozon's ability to impartially decide the case
considering the long period that the Motion for Reconsideration remained
unresolved.[107]Banco de Oro opposed the Motion for Voluntary Inhibition. [108]
Nevertheless, in the Order[109] dated June 5, 2013, Judge Pozon granted the Motion
and inhibited from hearing the case "to maintain the public confidence in the Courts
and in [o]rder to preserve its integrity."[110]
From Branch 139 of the Regional Trial Court of Makati City, the case was re-raffled
to Branch 132 presided by Judge Rommel O. Baybay.[111] In the Order[112] dated
August 16, 2013, the trial court deemed the Motion for Reconsideration submitted
for resolution.
Still, the trial court refused to proceed with the Complaint for recovery of
possession in deference to the authority of the Sandiganbayan. [113] The trial court
denied the Motion for Reconsideration in the Resolution [114] dated January 15, 2014.
On February 20, 2014, the Wellex Group, Inc. directly filed before this Court a
Motion for Extension of Time[115] to File Petition for Review on Certiorari, impleading
Sheriff Urieta, the Sandiganbayan Security and Sheriff Services, and Banco de Oro
as respondents.[116] With leave of court,[117] Banco de Oro filed a Motion to Dismiss
and Opposition Ad Cautelam[118] arguing that this Court may not take cognizance of
the Petition because it necessarily raises questions of fact. [119]
This Court granted the Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Review on
Certiorari[120] and noted the Motion to Dismiss and Opposition Ad Cautelam. [121] The
Wellex Group, Inc. eventually filed its Petition for Review on Certiorari, on which
Banco de Oro commented.[122] Sheriff Urieta and the Sandiganbayan Security and
Sheriff Services, through the Office of the Solicitor General, subsequently
manifested to this Court that they were adopting Banco de Oro's Comment as their
Comment.[123]
In its Petition for Review on Certiorari, the Wellex Group, Inc. maintains that the
Regional Trial Court of Makati City had jurisdiction over its Complaint for recovery of
possession.[124] Considering that it is not a party to the plunder case, the Wellex
Group, Inc. insists that it is a third-party claimant whose title to the Waterfront
shares could not have been adjudicated with finality by the Sandiganbayan. [125] It
further argues that it properly availed itself of a reivindicatory action before the
regular courts to recover the possession of the Waterfront shares. [126]
In its Comment,[127] Banco de Oro prays for the summary dismissal of the Petition
for Review on Certiorari.[128] According to Banco de Oro, the Petition for Review on
Certiorari requires re-litigating the issue of whether the Wellex Group, Inc. had
already paid its loan obligation, a matter already resolved in the negative by the
Sandiganbayan in its September 12, 2007 Decision. This issue, Banco de Oro
argues, is a factual issue that this Court cannot pass upon when resolving a petition
for review on certiorari.[129]
On the issue of jurisdiction, Banco de Oro contends that the trial court correctly
dismissed the Complaint for recovery of possession in deference to the authority of
the Sandiganbayan. Banco de Oro maintains that resolving the Complaint for
recovery of possession would require a review of the findings of the Sandiganbayan
in its September 12, 2007 Decision, specifically, that Former President Estrada
owned the forfeited IMA account, and that the Waterfront shares were among the
IMA account's assets. Banco de Oro argues that had the trial court taken
cognizance of the Complaint, it would have interfered with the execution of the
Sandiganbayan's Decision in the plunder case.[130]
Banco de Oro adds that the Wellex Group, Inc. committed forum shopping by filing
its Complaint for recovery of possession before the Regional Trial Court of Makati
City. It argues that Wellex Group, Inc. earlier filed a third-party claim before the
Sandiganbayan when it filed the Petition/Motion for Reconsideration praying for the
exclusion of the Waterfront shares from the forfeiture order. This third-party claim
incorporated in the Petition/Motion for Reconsideration was denied by the
Sandiganbayan in the Resolution dated April 2, 2009. The Wellex Group, Inc. cannot
be allowed to re-file a third-party claim, this time before the regular courts. [131]
The issue for this court's resolution is whether the Regional Trial Court of Makati
City had jurisdiction to hear, try, and decide petitioner Wellex Group, Inc.'s
Complaint for recovery of possession and injunction.
I
According to the ponencia, it is "beyond cavil"[132] that the 450,000,000 Waterfront
shares belonged to the IMA account and, therefore, were among the assets
forfeited in favor of government pursuant to this Court's Decision in The Wellex
Group, Inc. v. Sandiganbayan.[133] In addition, the ponencia reiterated that the IMA
account acquired the Waterfront shares as security for petitioner's P500,000,000.00
loana loan that, as this Court likewise found in The Wellex Group, Inc. v.
Sandiganbayan, was funded by money sourced from the IMA account.[134]
Based on these premises, the ponencia stated that government through the
Sandiganbayan cannot "unilaterally"[135] sell the Waterfront shares at public auction
without first demanding from petitioner payment for its P500,000,000.00 loan.
[136]
The ponencia said that only upon petitioner's failure to pay despite demand
could government either foreclose the chattel mortgage over the Waterfront shares
or institute "the appropriate action for collection"[137] against petitioner; otherwise,

the government would violate Article 2088[138] of the Civil Code, which
prohibits pactum commissorium.[139]
On the merits, the ponencia held that the Regional Trial Court of Makati had
jurisdiction over petitioner's Complaint because it was "purely civil in
nature."[140] The Sandiganbayan, the ponencia said, may not take cognizance of
petitioner's third-party claim since the anti-graft court "only [has] a special or
limited jurisdiction."[141]As further explained by the ponencia:
While this Court has time and again affirmed that the Sandiganbayan has
jurisdiction over the civil aspect of criminal cases, as conferred to it by law, the case
before the trial court does not involve the civil aspect of [the plunder case]. The
same has nothing to do with the ownership of the IMA Account and/or any of its
financial assets, which, as stated above, has been adjudged forfeited in favor of the
State. In contrast, the said case is an ordinary civil case entailing the propriety of
the actions of a creditor in proceeding against the security for its loan, which
necessitates the application of the provisions of the Civil Code, therefore falling
under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Courts. [142] (Citations omitted)
After "commend [ing] the trial court for acting cautiously and exercising prudence
in applying the principle of hierarchy of courts[,]" [143] the ponencia nevertheless
granted the Petition and remanded the case to the trial court for further
proceedings.[144] The dispositive portion of the ponencia reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, JUDGMENT is hereby rendered GRANTING
the instant Petition and SETTING ASIDE the Order dated 9 January 2012 and
Resolution dated 15 January 2014 of the Regional Trial Court of Makati City, Branch
132 in Civil Case No. 09-399. This case is hereby remanded to the trial court for
further proceedings.
II
I do not agree with the ponencia. The trial court correctly dismissed petitioner's
Complaint for recovery of possession. The trial court had no jurisdiction to take
cognizance of the Complaint.
Third-party claims are inevitable in proceedings involving forfeiture. To conceal the
true nature of a property as unlawfully acquired, a public officer may have
transferred to third persons the title to the property. The transfereeswhether they
are dummies, nominees, agents, subordinates, business associates, or innocent
purchasers for valuemay challenge the inclusion of their properties under their
title and argue that the properties legitimately belong to them. [146]
Petitioner argues that its Complaint for recovery of possession of the Waterfront
shares is in the nature of a third-party claim. [147] Also known as terceria, a thirdparty claim is the remedy available to persons other than the judgment obligor who
claim title to or the right to possess the property levied.
Under Rule 39, Section 16 of the Rules of Court, a third-party claim must be
filed before the court issuing the writ of execution. The reason is that a court,
once it acquires jurisdiction, retains this jurisdiction until it enforces and executes
its decision. Consistent with the doctrine of adherence of jurisdiction, Rule 39,
Section 16 provides:
SEC. 16. Proceedings where property claimed by third person. If the property
levied on is claimed by any person other than the judgment obligor or his agent,
and such person makes an affidavit of his title thereto or right to the possession
thereof, stating the grounds of such right or title, and serves the same upon the
officer making the levy and a copy thereof upon the judgment obligee, the officer
shall not be bound to keep the property, unless such judgment obligee, on demand
of the officer, files a bond approved by the court to indemnify the third-party
claimant in a sum not less than the value of the property levied on. In case of
disagreement as to such value, the same shall be determined by the court
issuing the writ of execution. No claim for damages for the taking or keeping of
the property may be enforced against the bond unless the action therefor is filed
within one hundred twenty (120) days from the date of the filing of the bond.
The officer shall not be liable for damages for the taking or keeping of the property,
to any third-party claimant if such bond is filed. Nothing herein contained shall
prevent such claimant or any third person from vindicating his claim to the property
in a separate action, or prevent the judgment obligee from claiming damages in the
same or a separate action against a third-party claimant who filed a frivolous or
plainly spurious claim.
When the writ of execution is issued in favor of the Republic of the Philippines, or
any officer duly representing it, the filing of such bond shall not be required, and in
case the sheriff or levying officer is sued for damages as a result of the levy, he
shall be represented by the Solicitor General and if held liable therefor, the actual
damages adjudged by the court shall be paid by the National Treasurer out of such
funds as may be appropriated for the purpose. (Emphasis supplied)
Proceeding from these premises, any third-party claim involving property
forfeited pursuant to a plunder decision must be filed before the
Sandiganbayan, this despite the fact that third-party claim involves issues of
ownership or possessionmatters that are considered civil in nature.
Aware that third-party claims involving forfeited properties may involve questions of
ownership or possession, the legislature nevertheless vested in the Sandiganbayan
jurisdiction over prosecutions for plunder,[148] the penalty for which includes the
forfeiture of all the assets of the accused which are found to be ill-gotten. [149] "This
is line with the purpose behind the creation of the Sandiganbayan as an anti-graft
courtto address the urgent problem of dishonesty in public service." [150] This is
precisely why the Sandiganbayan is a court of special jurisdiction: it is primarily a
criminal court, but with jurisdiction over certain civil proceedings.
Hence, the argument that a third-party claim is civil in nature and may not be taken
cognizance of by the Sandiganbayan is incorrect. [151] Those who claim ownership or
possession of properties forfeited by virtue of a plunder decision must intervene in
the proceedings before the Sandiganbayan. Not only is this consistent with the
doctrine of adherence of jurisdiction; it also prevents splitting of jurisdiction and
multiplicity of suits.[152]
It has been settled in The Wellex Group, Inc. v. Sandiganbayan that the Waterfront
shares form part of the assets forfeited in favor of the state as a consequence of
Former President Estrada's conviction for plunder. In the Amended Writ of Execution
dated February 19, 2008, the Sandiganbayan in the plunder case categorically
ordered the implementing sheriff to:
issue notices of levy and/or garnishment to any person who is in possession of any
and all form of assets that is traceable or form part of the amounts or property
which have been ordered forfeited by this court, including but not limited to the
accounts receivables and assets found at Banco de Oro . . . consisting of ...
Waterfront shares aggregating 750,000,000 shares[.] [153]
The court that issued the assailed Writ of Execution was the Sandiganbayan. The
Sandiganbayan, not the Regional Trial Court, is the court with jurisdiction to take
cognizance of petitioner's third party claim.
Consequently, the Regional Trial Court has no jurisdiction over petitioner's
Complaint for recovery of possession of the Waterfront shares.
III
The trial court has no jurisdiction to issue a temporary restraining order or a writ of
preliminary injunction against an order of the Sandiganbayan. Corollary to the
doctrine of non-interference, which prohibits co-equal courts from interfering with
each other's orders or judgments,[154] inferior courts cannot interfere with the orders
and judgments of superior courts.
The Regional Trial Court is a lower court as opposed to the Sandiganbayan. Under
Section 4 [155] of Republic Act No. 7975, the Sandiganbayan exercises "exclusive
appellate jurisdiction over final judgments, resolutions or orders of regional trial
courts[.]" Section 7[156] of Presidential Decree No. 1606 provides that the
"[decisions and final orders of the Sandiganbayan shall be appealable to the
Supreme Court[.]"
Since the Sandiganbayan is a superior court, the Regional Trial Court has no
jurisdiction to issue a temporary restraining order or a writ of injunction against the
Sandiganbayan's orders and decisions. Applied to this case, the Regional Trial Court
of Makati City had no jurisdiction to issue a temporary restraining order or a writ of
preliminary injunction to prevent the sale of properties forfeited by virtue of Former
President Estrada's conviction for plunder.
IV
Apart from lack of jurisdiction, the trial court correctly dismissed petitioner's
Complaint on the ground of forum shopping.
As pointed out by Banco de Oro, petitioner had earlier intervened in the
proceedings before the Sandiganbayan.[157] Petitioner first assailed the inclusion of
the Waterfront shares in the forfeiture order in the Petition/Motion for
Reconsideration dated October 11, 2008,[158] which the Sandiganbayan denied in the
Resolution dated April 2, 2009.
The second time petitioner intervened was when it filed before the Sandiganbayan
the Urgent Ex-Parte Motion for Clarification of the Resolution dated 02 April 2009.
Petitioner maintained that the Waterfront shares were not assets of the Velarde IMA
account, thus:
4. [The Wellex Group, Inc.] would like to seek clarification on the following
points:
c. Furthermore, it is significant to note that the 450 Million Waterfront
Philippines (WPI) Shares of Stock (Initial Collateral) and the 300
Million Wellex (WIN) Shares of Stocks (Additional Collateral) are NOT
assets of the IMA Trust Account since such shares merely served as
collateral/accessory to the Promissory Note & Chattel Mortgage for
Php500 Million. In computing the Investment portfolio of the IMA
Account, the value of the collaterals SHOULD NOT have been included
as they are mere securities to the loan obligation. To compute the

value of the PhP500 Million PN together with the value of the
collaterals would be tantamount to doubling the amount of the loan
obligation. That being the case, how should the WPI and WIN shares
be treated?
d. Assuming without conceding that the aforesaid shares are subject of
forfeiture pursuant to the 02 April 2009 Resolution, just the same the
State may not directly go against the things mortgaged such as in the
present case. It is well settled that if the debtor fails to comply with an
obligation, the creditor is merely entitled to move for the sale of the
thing mortgaged with the formalities required by law in order to collect
the amount of his claim from the proceeds and the prohibition against
pactum commissorium forbids creditors to automatically appropriate
the pledged or mortgaged properties. In which case, how would the
State proceed with the shares of WPI and WIN?[159] (Emphasis in the
original)
Petitioner made the same contention in its Complaint for recovery of possession
before the Regional Trial Court of Makati:
15.4. The [Waterfront shares of stock] have never been foreclosed and, as such,
the ownership thereof still pertains to plaintiff. In other words, the subject shares
do not form part of the IMA Account and may not be validly levied upon.
[160]
(Emphasis supplied)
From the foregoing, petitioner raised before the Regional Trial Court of Makati City
and the Sandiganbayan the same issue of whether the Waterfront shares formed
part of the IMA account forfeited in favor of the state.
This is clearly forum shopping. Petitioner "repetitively availfed] [itself] of several
judicial remedies in different courts, simultaneously or successively, all substantially
founded on the same transactions and the same essential facts and circumstances,
and all raising substantially the same issues either pending in or already resolved
adversely by some other court."[161]
Moreover, petitioner committed willful and deliberate forum shopping. Petitioner
falsely declared in the Certification against Forum Shopping attached to its
Complaint for recovery of possession that "[it] has not... commenced any other
action or proceeding involving the same issues in the Supreme Court, the Court of
Appeals, or any other tribunal or agency."[162] It did not state in the Certification
against Forum Shopping that it had earlier filed a claim before the Sandiganbayan
involving the same issue of ownership of the Waterfront shares.

Under Rule 7, Section 5 of the Rules of Court, forum shopping is a ground for
dismissal of a complaint.[163] The trial court correctly dismissed petitioner's
Complaint for recovery of possession.
V
Lastly, selling the Waterfront shares at public auction would not amount to a
circumvention of the prohibition on pactum commissorium.
A pactum commissorium is a stipulation in a deed of mortgage, allowing the
creditor to automatically appropriate or dispose of the property mortgaged in case
the debtor fails to comply with his or her obligation under the principal contract. It
is prohibited under Article 2088[164] of the Civil Code and is null and void.
Here, there was no automatic appropriation of the property mortgaged. When the
IMA account and all of its assets were declared forfeited, this Court in The Wellex
Group, Inc. v. Sandiganbayan recognized the validity of the loan agreement
between petitioner and Banco de Oro, in effect recognizing petitioner's title to the
Waterfront shares it mortgaged to Banco de Oro.
However, petitioner's P500,000,000.00 loan remained unpaid. Even before the
forfeiture of the assets of the IMA account, petitioner had defaulted in its loan
obligation to Banco de Oro. Banco de Oro served several demand letters [165] on
petitioner, regardless of the stipulation in the Promissory Note and Chattel Mortgage
that the amount payable shall "become immediately due and payable without
demand or notice"[166] in case petitioner fails to pay the loaned amount. Petitioner
ignored all these demand letters.
That petitioner already paid the loan to Jaime Dichaves, the alleged principal of the
IMA account, is not supported by the record. It is also immaterial. In order to
extinguish an obligation, "[p]ayment [must] be made to the person in whose favor
the obligation has been constituted, or his successor in interest, or any person
authorized to receive [payment]."[167] Jaime Dichaves is none of these, for as this
Court ruled in The Wellex Group, Inc. v. Sandiganbayan, Former President Estrada
is the principal of the Velarde IMA account.
Even if payment may be made to a third person, the payment must redound to the
benefit of the creditor in order to extinguish the obligation. [168] It has not been
shown that Banco de Oro was benefited in any way when petitioner allegedly paid
the loan to Jaime Dichaves.
Having subrogated Banco de Oro in its rights as petitioner's creditor, the state
acquired the right to foreclose the property and sell the Waterfront shares at public
auction. The state did not acquire the title to the Waterfront shares and is only
selling the Waterfront shares at public auction as a necessary consequence of the
forfeiture of the IMA account and its assets.
The proper remedy of petitioner is to pay its loan to the state. Only then would it be
entitled to the possession of the Waterfront shares.
ACCORDINGLY, the Petition for Review on Certiorari must be DENIED.
Additional Member per Raffle dated 15 February 2016.
[1]
Rollo, pp. 42-75.
Id. at 82-91; An action for the Recovery of the Possession and Delivery of the
Stock Certificates and Injunction.
[2]
These shares are covered by Stock Certificate Nos. 0000026465, 0000026466,

0000026467, 0000026468, 0000026469, 0000026470, 0000026471, 0000026472,
and 0000026473 as evidenced by the Promissory Note and the Chattel Mortgage.
[3]
[4]
689 Phil. 44 (2012).
[5]
Id.
Resolution dated 24 September 2008 of the Sandiganbayan in Criminal Case "No.

26558.
[6]
[7]
Notice of Sale on Execution of Personal Property dated 5 May 2009.
Sec. 16. Proceedings where properly claimed by third person. If the property
levied on is claimed by any person other than the judgment obligor or his agent,
and such person makes an affidavit of his title thereto or right to the possession
thereof, stating the grounds of such right or title, and serves the same upon the
officer making the levy and a copy thereof upon the judgment obligee, the officer
shall not be bound to keep the property, unless such judgment obligee, on demand
of the officer, files a bond approved by the court to indemnify the third-party
claimant in a sum not less than the value of the property levied on. In case of
disagreement as to such value, the same shall be determined by the court issuing
the writ of execution. No claim for damages for the taking or keeping of the
property may be enforced against the bond unless the action therefor is filed .
[8]
within one hundred twenty (120) days from the date of the filing of the bond.
The officer shall not be liable for damages for the taking or keeping of the property,
to any third-party claimant if such bond is filed. Nothing herein contained shall
prevent such claimant or any third person from vindicating his claim to the property
in a separate action, or prevent the judgment obligee from claiming damages in the
same or a separate action against a third-party claimant who filed a frivolous or
plainly spurious claim.
When the writ of execution is issued in favor of the Republic of the Philippines, or
any officer duly representing it, the filing of such bond shall not be required, and in
case the sheriff or levying officer is sued for damages as a result of the levy, he
shall be represented by the Solicitor General and if held liable therefor, the actual
damages adjudged by the court shall be paid by the "National Treasurer out of such
funds as may be appropriated for the purpose.
[9]
The Wellex Group, Inc. v. Sandiganbayan, supra note 4 at 65.
[10]
Id. at 61.
Article 2088. The creditor cannot appropriate the things given by way of pledge
or mortgage or dispose of them. Any stipulation to the contrary is null and void.
[11]
Nakpil v. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. 74449, 20 August 1993, 225
SCRA 456, 467. Supra note 4 at 61.
[12]
Malayan Insurance Co., Inc. v. Alberto, et al., 680 Phil. 813, 829 (2012)
citing Keppel Cebu Shipyard, Inc. v. Pioneer Insurance and Surety Corporation, 616
Phil. 873, 911 (2009).
[14]
Green Acres Holdings, Inc., v. Cabral, G.R. No. 175542. 5 June 2013, 697 SCRA
266 283.
[15]
[16]
Id.
Garcia, Jr. v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 114135, 7 October 1994, 237 SCRA 552,
564.
[17]
Proton Pilipinas Corp. v. Republic of the Phils., 545 Phil. 521 (2006). Section 19,
Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as amended.
[18]
[1]
Rollo, pp. 42-70.
[2]
Id. at 82-91. The Order was issued by Presiding Judge Benjamin T. Pozon.
[3]
Id. at 76-81. The Resolution was penned by Judge Rommel O. Baybay.
[4]
Id. at 91, Regional Trial Court Order dated January 9, 2012.
The Wellex Group, Inc. v. Sandiganbayan, 689 Phil. 44, 60-61 (2012) [Per J.
Sereno (now C.J.), Second Division].
[5]
[6]
Rollo, pp. 779-784.
[7]
Id. at 779.
[8]
Id.
[9]
Id.
The Wellex Group, Inc. v. Sandiganbayan, 689 Phil. 44, 58 (2012) [Per J.
Sereno (now CJ.), Second Division], citing the Sandiganbayan Decision dated
September 12, 2007 in People v. Estrada, Criminal Case No. 26558 (Id. at 48).
[10]
Rollo, p. 158, Promissory "Note and Chattel Mortgage. Id. at 166,

List/Description of Mortgaged Properties.
[11]
[13]
Id. at 786-790.
[14]
Estrada v. Sandiganbayan, All Phil. 820, 839 (2002) [Per J. Puno, En Banc]
[15]
Id.
[16]
Id. at 842.
[17]
Id. at 844.
[18]
Id.
[19]
Id. at 842-845.
The Wellex Group, Inc. v. Sandiganbayan, 689 Phil. 44, 58 (2012) [Per J. Screno
(now C.J.), Second Division].
[20]
[21]
Id. at 58-59.
[22]
Id.
GMA News Online, SEC approves Banco de Oro, Equitable merger

http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/44145/money/companies/sec-approvesbanco-de-oro-equitable-merger (visited March 21, 2016)
[23]
[24]
[25]
Id. at 48-49.
[26]
Id.
[27]
Id. at 49.
[28]
Id.
[29]
Id.
[30]
Id.
[31]
Id. at 50.
[32]
Id.
[33]
Id. at 51.
[34]
Rollo, pp. 759-761.
[35]
Id. at 760.
[36]
Id.
[37]
[38]
Rollo, pp. 697-698, Banco de Oro Unibank, Inc.'s Manifestation.
[39]
Id. at 697-700.
[40]
Id. at 698.
[41]
Id. at 699.
[42]
Id. at 707-708.
[43]
Id. at 708.
[44]
Id.
Id. at 495, Sandiganbayan Resolution dated April 25, 2008 in People v. Estrada,
docketed as Criminal Case No. 26558. The Resolution was signed by Presiding
Justice and Chair Diosdado M. Peralta (now Associate Justice of this Court) and
Associate Justices Francisco H. Villacruz, Jr. and Rodolfo A. Ponferrada of the Special
Division.
[45]
Id. at 498, Sandiganbayan Order dated May 16, 2008 in People v. Estrada,
docketed as Criminal Case No. 26588. The Order was issued by Presiding Justice
and Chair Diosdado M. Peralta (now Associate Justice of this Court) and Associate
Justices Francisco H. Villacruz, Jr. and Rodolfo A. Ponferrada of the Special Division.
[46]
Id. at 712, Sandiganbayan Resolution dated September 24, 2008 in People v.

Estrada, docketed as Criminal Case No. 26588.
[47]
[48]
Id.
[49]
Id.
[50]
Id. at 713.
[51]
Id. at 713-714.
[52]
Id.
Id. at 710-715. The Resolution was signed by Presiding Justice and Chair
Diosdado M. Peralta (now Associate Justice of this Court) and Associate Justices
Francisco H. Villacruz, Jr. and Rodolfo A. Ponferrada of the Special Division.
[53]
[54]
Id. at 714-715.
[55]
Id.
[56]
Id. at 717-757.
[57]
Id. at 755.
Id. at 671-680. The Resolution was signed by Associate Justice Francisco H.

Villacruz, Jr. (Chair) and Associate Justices Rodolfo A. Ponferrada and Ma. Cristina
G. Cortez-Estrada of the Special Division.
[58]
[59]
Id. at 763-764.
[60]
Id. at 415-416, Banco de Oro Unibank, Inc.'s Comment with Opposition.
[61]
Id. at 682-688.
[62]
Id. at 684-686.
Id. at 692. The Resolution was signed by Associate Justice Francisco H. Villacruz,
Jr. (Chair) and Associate Justices Rodolfo A. Ponferrada and Ma. Cristina G. CortezEstrada of the Special Division.
[63]
[64]
Id. at 190-191, Petition for Certiorari in G.R. No. 187951.
[65]
Id. at 173.
Sereno, Second Division].
[66]
[67]
Id.
[68]
Id. at 57 and 64.
[69]
Id. at 58.
[70]
Id. at 60.
[71]
689 Phil. 44 (2012) [Per J. Sereno (now C.J., Second Division].
[72]
Id. at 60-65.
[73]
Id. at 60.
[74]
Id. at 61.
[75]
Id.
[76]
Id. at 62.
[77]
Id. at 61-62.
[78]
Id. at 61.
[79]
Id.
[80]
Rollo, pp. 247-263.
[81]
Id. at 247.
[82]
Id. at 250-254.
Id. at 328-330, Regional Trial Court Order dated May 12, 2009. The Order was
issued by Judge Marissa Macaraig-Guillen of Branch 60 of the Regional Trial Court of
Makati City.
[83]
[84]
Id. at 328.
[85]
Id. at 264-304.
[86]
Id. at 266-277.
[87]
Id. at 277-286.
[88]
Id. at 286-289.
[89]
Id. at 289-301.
[90]
Id. at 305-325.
[91]
Id. at 585-599.
[92]
Id. at 587-590.
[93]
Id. at 590-594.
[94]
Id. at 90, Regional Trial Court Order dated January 9, 2012
[95]
Id.
[96]
Id.
[97]
Id.
[98]
Id. at 91.
[99]
Id.
[100]
Id.
[101]
Id.
[102]
Id. at 92-114.
[103]
Id. at 95-103.
[104]
Id. at 104-111.
Batas Blg. 129 (1981), sec. 19(2), as amended by Rep. Act No. 7691 (1994),
sec. 1, provides:
[105]
SEC. 19. Jurisdiction in civil cases.Regional Trial Courts shall exercise exclusive
original jurisdiction:
2. In all civil actions which involve the title to, or possession of, real property, or
any interest therein, where the assessed value of the property involved exceeds
Twenty thousand pesos (P20,000.00) or for civil actions in Metro Manila, where
such value exceeds Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) except actions for forcible
entry into and unlawful detainer of lands or buildings, original jurisdiction over
which is conferred upon Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and
Municipal Circuit Trial Courts[.]
[106]
Rollo, pp. 917-925, Motion for Voluntary Inhibition.
[107]
Id. at 918.
Id. at 927-935, Opposition [Re: Motion for Voluntary Inhibition dated 05 April
2013]
[108]
[109]
Id. at 938-939.
[110]
Id. at 939.
[111]
Id. at 941, Regional Trial Court Order dated August 16,2013.
[112]
Id.
[113]
Id. at 14, Regional Trial Court Resolution dated January 15, 2014
[114]
Id. at 9-15.
[115]
Id. at 3-6.
[116]
Id. at 3.
Id. at 28-31, Motion for Leave to File and Admit Motion to Dismiss and
Opposition Ad Cautelam
[117]
[118]
Id. at 32-37.
[119]
Id. at 33-35.
[120]
Id. at 26, Supreme Court Resolution dated March 12, 2014.
[121]
Id. at 39, Supreme Court Resolution dated June 2, 2014.
[122]
Id. at 401-491, Banco de Oro Unibank, Inc.'s Comment with Opposition.
Sheriff Edgardo A. Urieta, et al.'s Manifestation and Motion dated November 17,
2014, p.
[123]
[124]
Rollo, pp. 55-58, Petition for Review on Certiorari.
[125]
Id. at 58-65.
[126]
Id.
[127]
Id. at 401-491.
[128]
Id. at 488.
[129]
Id. at 438-449.
[130]
Id. at 451-463.
[131]
Id. at 464-483.
[132]
Ponencia, p. 5.
[133]
Id.
[134]
Id. at 6.
[135]
Id.
[136]
Id. at 6-7.
[137]
Id. at 7.
[138]
CIVIL CODE, art. 2088 provides:
Article 2088. The creditor cannot appropriate the things given by way of pledge or
mortgage, or dispose of them. Any stipulation to the contrary is null and void.
[139]
Ponencia, pp. 6-7.
[140]
Id. at 7.
[141]
Id. at 8.
[142]
Id.
[143]
Id.
[144]
Id. at 8-9.
[145]
Id.
[146]
See Rep. Act No. 7080 (1991), sec. l(d), which provides:
Section 1. Definition of terms. - As used in this Act, the term ....

d) "Ill-gotten wealth" means any asset, property, business enterprise or material
possession of any person within the purview of Section Two (2) hereof, acquired by
him directly or indirectly through dummies, nominees, agents, subordinates and/or
business associates by any combination or series of the following means or similar
schemes:
1) Through misappropriation, conversion, misuse, or malversation of public funds or
raids on the public treasury;
2) By receiving, directly or indirectly, any commission, gift, share, percentage,

kickbacks or any other form of pecuniary benefit from any person and/or entity in
connection with any government contract or project or by reason of the office or
position of the public officer concerned;
3) By the illegal or fraudulent conveyance or disposition of assets belonging to the
National Government or any of its subdivisions, agencies or instrumentalities or
government-owned or - controlled corporations and their subsidiaries;
4) By obtaining, receiving or accepting directly or indirectly any shares of stock,
equity or any other form of interest or participation including the promise of future
employment in any business enterprise or undertaking;
5) By establishing agricultural, industrial or commercial monopolies or other
combinations and/or implementation of decrees and orders intended to benefit
particular persons or special interests; or
6) By taking undue advantage of official position, authority, relationship, connection
or influence to unjustly enrich himself or themselves at the expense and to the
damage and prejudice of the Filipino people and the Republic of the Philippines.
[147]
Rollo, pp. 58-65, Petition for Review on Certiorari.
[148]
Rep. Act No. 7080 (1991), sec. 3 provides:
Section 3. Competent Court. - Until otherwise provided by law, all prosecutions

under this Act shall be within the original jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan.
Rep. Act No. 7080 (1991), sec. 2, as amended by Rep. Act No. 7659 (1993),
sec. 12, provides:
[149]
Sec. 2. Definition of the Crime of Plunder; Penalties. - Any public officer who, by
himself or in connivance with members of his family, relatives by affinity or
consanguinity, business associates, subordinates or other persons, amasses,
accumulates or acquires ill-gotten wealth through a combination or series of overt
criminal acts as described in Section 1 (d) hereof in the aggregate amount or total
value of at least Fifty million pesos (P50,000,000.00) shall be guilty of the crime of
plunder and shall be punished by reclusion perpetua to death. Any person who
participated with the said public officer in the commission of an offense contributing
to the crime of plunder shall likewise be punished for such offense. In the
imposition of penalties, the degree of participation and the attendance of mitigating
and extenuating circumstances, as provided by the Revised Penal Code, shall be
considered by the court. The court shall declare any and all ill-gotten wealth and
their interests and other incomes and assets including the properties and shares of
stocks derived from the deposit or investment thereof forfeited in favor of the
State.
Maj. Gen. Garcia v. Sandiganbayan, 499 Phil. 589, 614 (2005) [Per J. Tinga, En
Banc].
[150]
See Maj. Gen. Garcia v. Sandiganbayan, 499 Phil. 589, 614 (2005) [Per J.
Tinga, En Banc].
[151]
See Presidential Commission on Good Government v. Judge Pena, 243 Phil. 93,
109 (1988) [Per C.J. Teehankee, En Banc].
[152]
[153]
Rollo, p. 760, Amended Writ of Execution.
See Foster-Gallego v. Spouses Galang, 479 Phil. 148, 165-166 (2004) [Per J.
Carpio, First Division].
[154]
Rep. Act No. 7975 (1995), sec. 4, as amended by Rep. Act No. 8249 (1997),
sec. 4, provides:
SEC. 4. Jurisdiction....
....
The Sandiganbayan shall exercise exclusive appellate jurisdiction over final
judgments, resolutions or orders of regional trial courts whether in the exercise of
their own original jurisdiction or of their appellate jurisdiction as herein provided.
[155]
Pres. Decree No. 1606 (1978), sec. 7, as amended by Rep. Act No. 7975
(1995), sec. 3, and Rep. Act No. 8249 (1997), sec. 5, provides:
[156]
SEC. 7. Form, Finality and Enforcement of Decisions. . . .

....
Decisions and final orders of the Sandiganbayan shall be appealable to the Supreme
Court by petition for review on certiorari raising pure questions of law in accordance
with Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. Whenever, in any case decided by the
Sandiganbayan, the penalty of reclusion perpetua, life imprisonment or death is
imposed, the decision shall be appealable to the Supreme Court in the manner
prescribed in the Rules of Court.
[157]
Rollo, pp. 464-467, Banco de Oro Unibank, Inc.'s Comment with Opposition.
[158]
Id. at 756, Petition/Motion for Reconsideration.
[159]
Id. at 684-686, Urgent Ex-Parte Motion for Clarification of the Resolution dated
02 April 2009.
[160]
Id. at 253, Complaint.
Asia United Bank, et al. v. Goodland Company, Inc., 660 Phil. 504, 514 (2011)
[Per J. Del Castillo, First Division].
[161]
[162]
Rollo, p. 261, Complaint.
See Maj. Gen. Garcia v. Sandiganbayan, 499 Phil. 589, 621-622 (2005) [Per J.
Tinga, En Banc].
[163]
[164]
Article 2088. The creditor cannot appropriate the things given by way of pledge or
mortgage, or dispose of them. Any stipulation to the contrary is null and void.
[165]
Rollo, pp. 767-768, 770-771, and 773-774.
[166]
Id. at 159, Promissory Note and Chattel Mortgage.
[167]
CIVIL CODE, art. 1240.
[168]

G.R.
MALAYAN
No.
INSURANCE
April 20, 2016
COMPANY,
INC.,
PETITIONER,
209011
VS.
DIANA
P.
ALIBUDBUD,
RESPONDENT.
THIRD DIVISION
[ G.R. No. 209011, April 20, 2016 ]
MALAYAN INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., PETITIONER, VS.
DIANA P. ALIBUDBUD, RESPONDENT.
DECISION
REYES, J.:
Before this Court is a Petition for Review[1] under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Court
filed by Malayan Insurance Company, Inc. (Malayan) seeking to reverse and set
aside the Decision[2] dated May 15, 2013 and Resolution[3] dated September 6, 2013
of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 92940, which dismissed their
complaint for replevin against Diana P. Alibudbud (Alibudbud) for lack of
jurisdiction.
Factual Background
Alibudbud was employed by Malayan on July 5, 2004 as Senior Vice President (SVP)
for its Sales Department. As SVP, she was issued a 2004 Honda Civic sedan bearing
plate no. XPR 822 under Malayan's Car Financing Plan [4] conditioned on the
following stipulations: (1) she must continuously stay and serve Malayan for at
least three full years from the date of the availment of the Car Financing Plan; and
(2) that in case of resignation, retirement or termination before the three-year
period, she shall pay in full 100% share of Malayan and the outstanding balance of
his/her share of the cost of the motor vehicle.[5]
Relatively, Alibudbud also executed a Promissory Note[6] and a Deed of Chattel
Mortgage[7] in favor of Malayan wherein it was expressly stated that: (1) the loan of
P360,000.00 shall be payable in 60 equal monthly installments at the rate of
P7,299.50 each, commencing on August 15, 2004 and every succeeding month
thereafter until fully paid; (2) Alibudbud shall refund Malayan an amount equivalent
to its 50% equity share in the motor vehicle, or P360,000.00 if she leaves Malayan
within three years from the availment of the subject vehicle; (3) should Alibudbud
resign, retire or otherwise be terminated or separated from Malayan's employ, any
remaining unpaid balance on the principal obligation shall immediately fall due and
demandable upon her who shall remit the same to Malayan within five days from
effectivity of such separation/termination; (4) Malayan is authorized to apply to the
payment of outstanding obligation of Alibudbud any such amounts of money that
may be due her from the company; (5) interests on all amounts outstanding as of
the date when all Alibudbud's obligations are treated immediately due and payable,
shall be compounded every 30 days until said obligations are fully paid; (6)
Alibudbud shall pay a penalty at the rate of 16% per annum on all amounts due and
unpaid; (7) in case Alibudbud fails to pay any installment, or any interest, or the
whole amount remaining unpaid which has immediately become due and payable
upon her separation from the Malayan, the mortgage on the property may be
foreclosed by Malayan, or it may take other legal action to enforce collection of the
obligation; (8) upon default, Alibudbud shall deliver the possession of the subject
vehicle to Malayan at its principal place of business; and (9) should Alibudbud fail or
refuse to deliver the possession of the mortgaged property to Malayan, thereby
compelling it to institute an action for delivery, Alibudbud shall pay Malayan
attorney's fees of 25% of the principal due and unpaid, and all expenses and cost
incurred in relation therewith including the premium of the bond obtained for the
writ of possession.[8]
On July 18, 2005, Alibudbud was dismissed from Malayan due to redundancy. In
view thereof, Malayan demanded that she surrender the possession of the car to
the company. Alibudbud sternly refused to do so.
On September 21, 2005, Malayan instituted a Complaint[9] for replevin and/or sum
of money before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila and prayed for the seizure
of the car from Alibudbud, or that she be ordered to pay P552,599.93 representing
the principal obligation plus late payment charges and P138,149.98 as attorney's
fees, should said car be no longer in running and presentable condition when its
return be rendered impossible.
On October 12, 2005, Alibudbud, in turn, filed a complaint [10] for illegal dismissal
against Malayan before the Labor Arbiter (LA) wherein she prayed for her
reinstatement.
In her Answer with Compulsory Counterclaim, [11] Alibudbud asseverated that a
reasonable depreciation of 20% should be deducted from the subject vehicle's book
value of P720,000.00, or P576,000.00, which makes her liable to pay only
P288,000.00 for the car's value.[12] She asserted a counterclaim of P17,809.00[13] as
compensatory damages and P40,000.00 as attorney's fees. [14] She prayed for the
suspension of the proceedings in view of the pendency of the labor dispute she
filed. This was, however, questioned by Malayan in its reply[15] as there was no
prejudicial question[16] raised in the labor dispute.
On January 30, 2006, Alibudbud filed a Motion to Suspend Proceedings [17] to
reiterate her prayer to defer the proceedings, asseverating that the labor case she
filed presents a prejudicial question to the instant case. She explained that the
resolution of the labor case will determine her rights and obligations, as well as that
of Malayan.
In an Order[18] dated February 17, 2006, the RTC of Manila, Branch 27, denied
Alibudbud's motion. It was opined that: (1) reference shall be made only on the
Promissory Note which Alibudbud executed in favor of Malayan in determining the
rights and obligations of the parties; (2) the cause of action in the replevin case is
rooted from the Promissory Note; and (3) the issue in the labor dispute is in no way
connected with the rights and obligations of the parties arising out of the
Promissory Note.
Trial on the merits ensued.
On July 13, 2006, Alibudbud moved for the dismissal[19] of the action grounded on
the impropriety of the bond put up by Malayan. This was, however, denied by the
RTC in its Order[20] dated October 5, 2006 with the pronouncement that Malayan
"can[,] by itself[,] file a surety bond in order to guaranty the return of the subject
property to the adverse party if such return be finally adjudged x x x." [21]
Alibudbud sought for reconsideration,[22] but it was denied in the RTC's
Order[23] dated December 19, 2006.
Alibudbud then successively filed motions to suspend the proceedings in the civil
case anchored on the same averment that suspension is necessary since she is
seeking reinstatement in the labor case which, if granted, would result to
irreconcilable conflict not contemplated by law, much less conducive to the orderly
administration of justice.[24] However, both motions were denied in an
Order[25] dated June 6, 2007. The RTC pointed out that the issue raised in the civil
action is completely separable with the issue raised in the labor case. [26]
Malayan applied for an ex-parte issuance of a writ of preliminary attachment,
[27]
which the RTC granted in its Order dated June 8, 2007. [28] The Honda Civic sedan
was, accordingly, attached.
Meanwhile, the complaint for illegal dismissal filed by Alibudbud was dismissed. The
LA's Decision[29] dated February 19, 2008 held that the redundancy she suffered
resulted from a valid re-organization program undertaken by Malayan in view of the
downturn in the latter's sales.[30] It further ruled that Alibudbud failed to establish
any violation or arbitrary action exerted upon her by Malayan, which merely
exercised its management prerogative when it terminated her services. [31]
On November 28, 2008, the RTC rendered a Decision [32] which granted the
complaint for replevin. The RTC mentioned the following observations and
conclusions, to wit: (1) Alibudbud is under obligation to pay in full the acquisition
cost of the car issued to her by Malayan; (2) the LA's Decision dated February 19,
2008 which dismissed the illegal dismissal complaint settled the issue being banked
upon by Alibudbud when she moved for the suspension of the proceedings in the
civil action; (3) Alibudbud's ownership over the car is not yet absolute for it bears
the notation "encumbered", thereby signifying her obligation to pay its value within
the period set forth in the Promissory Note and Deed of Chattel Mortgage; and (4)
the replevin action was converted into a money claim in view of Alibudbud's
vehement refusal to surrender the possession of the car.
Ruling of the CA
On appeal, the CA ruled, in its Decision[33] dated May 15, 2013, to set aside the
decision of the trial court. The CA explained that the RTC has no jurisdiction to take
cognizance over the replevin action because of the "employer-employee" relations
between the parties which Malayan never denied. Certainly, Alibudbud could not
have availed of the benefits of the Car Financing Plan if she was not employed by
Malayan. Citing Section 1,[34] Rule 9 of the 1997 Rules of Court, the CA upheld to
dismiss the replevin action considering that the ground of lack of jurisdiction may
be raised at any stage of the proceedings since jurisdiction is conferred by law.[35]
Malayan's motion for reconsideration[36] was denied.[37] Hence, this petition.
Ruling of the Court
The petition is impressed with merit.
It is well-settled that "(t)he jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in cases brought to it
from the CA is limited to reviewing and revising the errors of law imputed to it, its
findings of fact being conclusive. In several decisions, however, the Court
enumerated the exceptional circumstances when the Supreme Court may review
the findings of fact of the CA,"[38] such as in the instant case.
A careful study of the case would reveal that the RTC correctly took cognizance of
the action for replevin contrary to the pronouncement of the CA.
"Replevin is an action whereby the owner or person entitled to repossession of
goods or chattels may recover those goods or chattels from one who has wrongfully
distrained or taken, or who wrongfully detains such goods or chattels. It is designed
to permit one having right to possession to recover property in specie from one who
has wrongfully taken or detained the property. The term may refer either to the
action itself, for the recovery of personalty, or to the provisional remedy
traditionally associated with it, by which possession of the property may be
obtained by the plaintiff and retained during the pendency of the action." [39]
In reversing the trial court's ruling, the CA declared that "[Alibudbud] could not
have availed of the Car Financing Plan if she was not an employee of [Malayan].
The status of being an employee and officer of [Alibudbud] in [Malayan] was,
therefore, one of the pre-condition before she could avail of the benefits of the Car
Financing Plan. Such being the case, there is no doubt that [Alibudbud's] availing of
the Car Financing Plan being offered by [Malayan] was necessarily and intimately
connected with or related to her employment in the aforesaid Company." [40]
It should be noted, however, that the present action involves the parties'
relationship as debtor and creditor, not their "employer-employee" relationship.
Malayan's demand for Alibudbud to pay the 50% company equity over the car or, to
surrender its possession, is civil in nature. The trial court's ruling also aptly noted
the Promissory Note and Deed of Chattel Mortgage voluntarily signed by Alibudbud
to secure her financial obligation to avail of the car being offered under Malayan's
Car Financing Plan.[41] Clearly, the issue in the replevin action is separate and
distinct from the illegal dismissal case. The Court further considers it justified for
Malayan to refuse to accept her offer to settle her car obligation for not being in
accordance with the Promissory Note and Deed of Chattel Mortgage she executed.
[42]
Even the illegal dismissal case she heavily relied upon in moving for the
suspension of the replevin action was settled in favor of Malayan which was merely
found to have validly exercised its management prerogative in order to improve its
company sales.
As consistently held, "[t]he characterization of an employee's services as
superfluous or no longer necessary and, therefore, properly terminable, is an
exercise of business judgment on the part of the employer. The wisdom and
soundness of such characterization or decision is not subject to discretionary review
provided, of course, that a violation of law or arbitrary or malicious action is not
shown."[43]
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Decision dated May 15, 2013 and
Resolution dated September 6, 2013 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No.
92940 areREVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Decision dated November 28, 2008 of
the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 27, in Civil Case No. 05-113528 is,
accordingly,REINSTATED.
SO ORDERED.
Velasco, Jr., (Chairperson), Peralta, Perez, and Jardeleza, JJ., concur.
June 13, 2016

NOTICE OF JUDGMENT
Sirs / Mesdames:
was received by this Office on June 13, 2016 at 1:45 p.m.
Very truly yours,

[1]
Rollo, pp. 3-28.
Penned by Associate Justice Danton Q. Bueser, with Associate Justices Amelita G.

Tolentino and Ramon R. Garcia concurring; id. at 29-44.
[2]
[3]
Id. at 46-47.
[4]
Id. at 104-106.
[5]
Id. at 30.
[6]
Id. at 109-111.
[7]
Id. at 112-117.
[8]
Id. at 30-32.
[9]
Id. at 93-103.
[10]
Id. at 179-180.
[11]
Id. at 127-130.
[12]
Id. at 128.
[13]
Id.
[14]
Id. at 129.
[15]
Id. at 132-139.
[16]
Id. at 134.
[17]
Id. at 201-202.
[18]
Id. at 213-214.
[19]
Id. at 264-272.
[20]
Id. at 284-288.
[21]
Id. at 288.
[22]
Id. at 292-299.
[23]
Id. at 304.
[24]
Id. at 35.
[25]
Id. at 317.
[26]
Id.
[27]
Id. at 318-325.
[28]
Id. at 330-332.
[29]
Id. at 336-348.
[30]
Id. at 342.
[31]
Id. at 344.
[32]
Rendered by Judge Teresa P. Soriaso; id. at 49-59.
[33]
Id. at 29-44.
Section 1. Defenses and objections not pleaded. Defenses and objections not
pleaded either in a motion to dismiss or in the answer are deemed waived.
[34]
However, when it appears from the pleadings or the evidence on record that the
court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter, that there is another action
pending between the same parties for the same cause, or that the action is barred
by a prior judgment or by statute of limitations, the court shall dismiss the claim.
[35]
Rollo, p. 43.
[36]
Id. at 376-380.
[37]
Id. at 46-47.
Republic v. Bellate, G.R. No. 175685, August 7, 2013, 703 SCRA 210,
218, citing Remalante v. Tibe, 241 Phil. 930, 935-936 (1988).
[38]
[39]
Smart Communications, Inc. v. Astorga, 566 Phil. 422, 435 (2008).
[40]
Rollo, p. 39.
[41]
Id. at 57.
[42]
Id. at 58.
[43]
Smart Communications, Inc. v. Astorga, supra note 39, at 437.

G.R.
No.
167838
JOSE V. TOLEDO, GLENN PADIERNOS AND DANILO PADIERNOS, PETITIONERS, VERSUS COURT OF APPEALS, LOURDES
RAMOS, ENRIQUE RAMOS, ANTONIO RAMOS, MILAGROS RAMOS AND ANGELITA RAMOS AS HEIRS OF SOCORRO
RAMOS, GUILLERMO PABLO, PRIMITIVA CRUZ AND A.R.C. MARKETING CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS
PRESIDENT,
April 20, 2016
ALBERTO
C.
DY,
RESPONDENTS.
SPECIAL THIRD DIVISION

[ G.R. No. 167838, April 20, 2016 ]
JOSE V. TOLEDO, GLENN PADIERNOS AND DANILO
PADIERNOS, PETITIONERS, VERSUS COURT OF APPEALS,
LOURDES RAMOS, ENRIQUE RAMOS, ANTONIO RAMOS,
MILAGROS RAMOS AND ANGELITA RAMOS AS HEIRS OF
SOCORRO RAMOS, GUILLERMO PABLO, PRIMITIVA CRUZ AND
A.R.C. MARKETING CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS
PRESIDENT, ALBERTO C. DY, RESPONDENTS.
RESOLUTION
JARDELEZA, J.:
On August 5, 2015, the Court rendered a Decision granting petitioners Jose Toledo,
Glenn Padiernos and Danilo Padiernos' petition for review on certiorari. The
dispositive portion of the Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, we GRANT the petition and SET ASIDE the
assailed Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals dated October 22, 2004
and April 13, 2005, respectively, in CA G.R. SP No. 73670. Judgment is hereby
rendered declaring petitioners the owners of Lot 4, Block 2, Ilang-Ilang Street,
Sunrise Hills Subdivision, Quezon City presently covered by Transfer Certificate of
Title [TCT] No. RT-17876/(242918). The Register of Deeds of Quezon City is hereby
ordered to:
(a) CANCEL TCT No. RT-17876 (242918) in the name of ARC Marketing Corporation; and
(b) ISSUE a Transfer Certificate of Title in the name of petitioners Jose V. Toledo, Glenn
Padiernos and Danilo Padiemos.
SO ORDERED.[1]
On October 1, 2015, a motion was filed seeking for the reconsideration of this
Court's Decision.[2] Since this case involved a determination of the correctness of
the trial court's Order dated June 17, 2002 granting its motion to dismiss Civil Case
No. Q-97-30738,[3] respondent ARC Marketing Corporation (ARC Marketing) posits
that a reversal of such grant would consequently cause only a remand of the case
to the court of origin.[4]
Indeed, in addition to resolving the matter of the dismissal of Civil Case No. Q-9730738, the Court, to prevent undue hardship on the parties and on the basis of the
records before it, did decide the issue of ownership of the disputed property.[5] On
reconsideration, however, we agree that the issue of whether ARC Marketing is a
buyer in good faith involves a factual issue the determination of which cannot be
made by the Court in a petition for review filed under Rule 45. [6] While the foregoing
rule admits of certain exceptions,[7] none appears to be invoked in this case. Thus,
ARC Marketing's motion is GRANTED and the case is remanded to the court of
origin for trial on the merits, where the concerned parties may present evidence to
prove their respective claims and defenses. Accordingly, the dispositive portion of
the Decision is MODIFIED as follows:
WHEREFORE, we GRANT the petition and SET ASIDE the assailed Decision and
Resolution of the Court of Appeals dated October 22, 2004 and April 13, 2005,
respectively, in CA G.R. SP No. 73670. Civil Case No. Q-97-30738 is REMANDED to
the court of origin which is DIRECTED to resolve the case with dispatch.
SO ORDERED.
Velasco, Jr., (Chairperson), Peralta, Reyes, and Perez, JJ., concur.
June 13, 2016

NOTICE OF JUDGMENT
Sirs / Mesdames:
Please take notice that on April 20, 2016 a Resolution, copy attached hereto, was
Very truly yours,

[1]
Rollo, pp. 1029-1030.
[2]
Id. at 1033-1040.
[3]
Id. at 1016-1017.
[4]
Id. at 1034.
[5]
Decision, id. at 1024.
Rotairo v. Alcantara, G.R. No. 173632, September 29, 2014, 736 SCRA 584, 591
citing Peralta v. Heirs of Bernardina Abalon, G.R. Nos. 183448 & 183464, June 30,
2014, 727 SCRA 477, 500.
[6]
Peralta v. Heirs of Bernardina Abalon, G.R. Nos. 183448 & 183464, June 30,
2014, 727 SCRA 477, 500-501.
[7]

G.R.
No.
189577
PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK PETITIONER, VS. SPS. VICTORIANO & JOVITA FARICIA RIVERA, RESPONDENTS.
April 20, 2016
THIRD DIVISION
[ G.R. No. 189577, April 20, 2016 ]
PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK PETITIONER, VS. SPS.
VICTORIANO & JOVITA FARICIA RIVERA, RESPONDENTS.
DECISION
JARDELEZA, J.:
Before us is a Petition for Review on Certiorari assailing the Decision dated June 19,
2009[1] and the Resolution dated September 11, 2009[2] of the Court of Appeals
(CA). The assailed decision and resolution set aside the Orders dated October 25,
2006[3] and January 9, 2007[4] of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 272, Marikina City
(RTC) which dismissed the Complaint for Annulment of Sheriff's Sale with
Damages[5] filed by the respondents.
The Facts
On September 18, 1995, the Spouses Victoriano and Jovita Faricia Rivera (Spouses
Rivera) executed a real estate mortgage[6] in favor of the Philippine National Bank
(PNB) over a parcel of land (land) covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No.
288169[7] of the Register of Deeds of Marikina City.
The mortgage was executed to secure the payment of the housing loans [8] and
revolving credit line[9] obtained by the Spouses Rivera from PNB. The mortgage was
eventually foreclosed and the land was sold at public auction. [10]
On December 28, 2005, the Spouses Rivera filed a Complaint for Annulment of
Sheriff's Sale with Damages (Complaint) against PNB and Julia Coching Sosito
(Sosito), alleging that: 1) the Spouses Rivera mortgaged the land in favor of PNB;
2) the land was sold through public auction on September 9, 2004 by Sosito, sheriff
of Branch 272, RTC Marikina City; 3) the Spouses Rivera did not receive the notice
of the auction sale as it was sent to the wrong address at 26 Verdi Street, Ideal
Subdivision, Fairview, Quezon City when in fact, PNB knew the Spouses' correct
address; and 4) had the Spouses been informed of the auction sale, they would
have informed Sosito that they had already paid their obligation to PNB.[11] The
Spouses Rivera prayed that they be awarded moral and exemplary damages, plus
attorney's fees.[12]
Sosito did not file any answer or responsive pleading. On the other hand, PNB filed
a Motion to Dismiss[13] arguing that the Spouses Rivera had no cause of action
against it because they were duly notified of the auction sale, to wit:
In the case at bar, plaintiffs miserably failed to establish a cause of action in their
case against defendant as all transactions made between them and the Bank
were all in accordance with long standing and accepted banking practices,
regarding the granting of loans and the availments of the credit facilities
extended to plaintiffs. The loan and mortgage contracts between the Bank
and plaintiffs were properly and officially documented. By affixing their
signatures on the said contracts, they were deemed charged with
knowledge of all the stipulated charges imposed by the Bank and cannot,
by any stretch of the imagination, feign ignorance at this late stage.
Moreover, and more importantly, the Bank observed and complied with all
the stringent requirements under Act No. 3135, as amended, regarding the
extra-judicial foreclosure sale of plaintiff's mortgaged property.
[14]
(Emphasis in the original.)
PNB also alleged that Act No. 3135[15] does not require personal notice to the
mortgagor in case of auction sale and the Spouses Rivera failed to attach the official
receipts to show their substantial payments of the amortizations. [16] PNB prayed
that the Complaint be dismissed with prejudice for lack of cause of action. [17]
The Spouses Rivera filed their Opposition[18] to the Motion to Dismiss, stressing that
there was no proper notice and the obligation to PNB had been fully paid.
In an Order dated October 25, 2006, the RTC dismissed the Complaint for lack of
cause of action, to wit:
After a careful perusal of the allegations in plaintiffs' complaint for Annulment of
Sheriff's Sale with damages against defendants PNB and Julia Coching Sosito, it is
very patent that the same failed to state a cause of action. There being a proper
notice to plaintiffs of the auction sale of their mortgaged property, defendants had
not violated any rights of plaintiffs from which a cause of action had arisen. As
appearing on the face of plaintiffs' Complaint and their annexes, there is no
showing that there is flaw or defect in the conduct of the sheriff's sale of their
mortgaged property that would warrant its annulment and to hold defendants liable
for damages.[19]
The dispositive portion of the Order reads as follows:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, defendant PNB's Motion to dismiss is hereby
GRANTED and the plaintiff's Complaint filed against both defendants is ordered
DISMISSED for lack of cause of action.
SO ORDERED.[20]
The Spouses Rivera filed a Motion for Reconsideration but the same was denied in
an Order dated January 9, 2007. The Spouses Rivera then filed an appeal to the CA.
In a Decision dated June 19, 2009, the CA set aside the assailed Orders and
remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings.
The CA held that the allegations in the Complaint sufficiently made out a cause of
action against PNB. It ruled that the trial court erred in considering extraneous
matters, such as PNB's assertion that the spouses were notified of the auction sale
and that personal notice is not required by law when it ordered the dismissal of the
complaint.[21] The dispositive portion of the Decision reads as follows:
WHEREFORE, the appealed Orders dated October 25, 2006 and January 9, 2007 of
the trial court are set aside and the case is remanded to the trial court for further
proceedings.
SO ORDERED.[22]
PNB filed a Motion for Reconsideration which was denied by the CA in a Resolution
dated September 11, 2009. Hence, this appeal.
In its Petition for Review on Certiorari,[23] PNB asserts that the CA seriously erred
when it set aside and reversed the order of the trial court dismissing the case. The
respondent spouses failed to meet the essential elements for a valid cause of action
to exist, i.e., they failed to show that they have a legal right and that PNB had a
correlative duty to respect or not to violate such right. More importantly, no such
act or omission was committed by PNB which may be considered a violation of the
respondents' rights. PNB also maintains that the respondents' allegation of payment
should not constitute a sufficiently stated cause of action. Lastly, it maintains that
the findings of the CA run counter to the time-honored principle that no notice of
auction sale is required to be sent to the mortgagors in case of extrajudicial
foreclosure sales.
The Issue
The sole issue for our consideration is whether the CA erred in setting aside the
Orders of the RTC and remanding the case to the trial court for further proceedings.
Our Ruling
The CA correctly set aside the RTC Orders and remanded the case to the trial court
for further proceedings. Like the CA, we find that there is an apparent confusion
over the ground relied upon for the dismissal of the case, as shown by the parties'
pleadings, as well as the challenged Order of the RTC.
For the guidance of the bar and the bench, we explain.
Failure to state a cause of action and lack of cause of action distinguished
We have consistently held that there is a difference between failure to state a cause
of action, and lack of cause of action. These legal concepts are distinct and separate
from each other.
Section 2, Rule 2 of the Revised Rules of Civil Procedure defines a cause of action
as the act or omission by which a party violates a right of another. Its elements are
as follows:
1)
A right in favor of the plaintiff by whatever means and under whatever law it arises or is
2)
3)
created;
An obligation on the part of the named defendant to respect or not to violate such right; and
Act or omission on the part of such defendant in violation of the right of the plaintiff or
constituting a breach of the obligation of the defendant to the plaintiff for which the latter
may maintain an action for recovery of damages or other appropriate relief.[24]
Lack of cause of action refers to the insufficiency of the factual basis for the action.
[25]
Dismissal due to lack of cause of action may be raised any time after the
questions of fact have been resolved on the basis of stipulations, admissions or
evidence presented by the plaintiff.[26] It is a proper ground for a demurrer to
evidence under Rule 33 of the Revised Rules of Civil Procedure, which provides:
Section 1. Demurrer to evidence. After the plaintiff has completed the
presentation of his evidence, the defendant may move for dismissal on the ground
that upon the facts and the law the plaintiff has shown no right to relief. If his
motion is denied he shall have the right to present evidence. If the motion is
granted but on appeal the order of dismissal is reversed he shall be deemed to have
waived the right to present evidence.
In this case, the RTC could not have dismissed the Complaint due to lack of cause
of action for as stated above, such ground may only be raised after the plaintiff has
completed the presentation of his evidence.
If the allegations of the complaint do not state the concurrence of the above
elements, the complaint becomes vulnerable to a motion to dismiss on the ground
of failure to state a cause of action which is the proper remedy under Section 1 (g)
of Rule 16 of the Revised Rules of Civil Procedure, which provides:
Section 1. Grounds. Within the time for but before filing the answer to the
complaint or pleading asserting a claim, a motion to dismiss may be made on any
of the following grounds:
xxx
(g) That the pleading asserting the claim states no cause of action; x x x
The case of Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Limited v. Catalan [27] laid
down the test to determine the sufficiency of the facts alleged in the complaint, to
wit:
The elementary test for failure to state a cause of action is whether the complaint
alleges facts which if true would justify the relief demanded. Stated otherwise, may
the court render a valid judgment upon the facts alleged therein? The inquiry is into
the sufficiency, not the veracity of the material allegations. If the allegations in the
complaint furnish sufficient basis on which it can be maintained, it should not be
dismissed regardless of the defense that may be presented by the defendants. [28]
By filing a Motion to Dismiss, a defendant hypothetically admits the truth of the
material allegations of the ultimate facts contained in the plaintiffs complaint.
[29]
When a motion to dismiss is grounded on the failure to state a cause of action, a
ruling thereon should, as a rule, be based only on the facts alleged in the
complaint.[30]
Applying the foregoing principles to this case, the CA correctly found that the
Complaint filed by the Spouses Rivera sufficiently stated a cause of action for
annulment of sheriff's sale. We quote with favor the relevant portion of the
Decision:
Thus, by filing a motion to dismiss on the ground that the complaint does not state
a cause of action, defendant-appellee PNB hypothetically admits the material
allegations in the complaint. These material allegations read:
3. That plaintiff is the owner of a parcel of residential lot with improvements located
at blk 17 lot 2 La Colina Subdivision, Parang, Marikina City which it mortgaged to
defendant PNB x x x;
4. That plaintiff came to know that said property had been sold at public auction on
September 9, 2004 by co-defendant sheriff, x x x and that the highest bidder was
defendant PNB x x x;
5. That there was no notice received by the plaintiff regarding this auction sale as a
careful verification would show that the notice was sent to the wrong address at 26
Verdi Street, Ideal Subdivision, Fairview, Quezon City when defendant PNB knows
fully well my correct address;
6. That had plaintiff been formally informed of the auction sale he could have made
known to co- defendant sheriff that he has already paid his obligation of defendant
corporation considering that plaintiff had made a total payment to defendant PNB in
the amount of P2,292,159.62 which is even more than the amount of
P2,250,000.00 being claimed by defendant PNB.
The foregoing allegations of non-receipt by plaintiffs-appellants of any notice of the
auction sale and their full payment of their obligation to defendant-appellee PNB are
hypothetically admitted by the latter and sufficiently make out a cause of action
against defendants-appellees. Whether said allegations are true or not are
inconsequential to a determination of the sufficiency of the allegations in the
complaint.[31]
Allegation of payment of the mortgage loan
Like the CA, we also observe that the RTC did not address the respondents'
allegation that they had fully paid the mortgage loan. As correctly stated by the CA,
"[o]n this basis alone, the trial court should have denied the motion to dismiss
because the complaint sufficiently alleged a cause of action." [32]
In an action for annulment of sheriff's sale on the ground that payment of the
mortgage loan had already been made, an allegation to that effect would be
sufficient to state a cause of action. For if payment were already made, then there
would have been no basis for the auction sale because the obligation had already
been satisfied.
Hypothetically admitting such fact, PNB's foreclosure of the mortgage and sale of
the subject property constituted an act in violation of the respondents' rights over
their property for which they may maintain an action for recovery of damages or
other appropriate relief.
Personal notice in extrajudicial foreclosure of mortgage
PNB alleges that personal notice is not required in extrajudicial foreclosures. The
general rule is that personal notice to the mortgagor in extrajudicial foreclosure
proceedings is not necessary. Section 3[33] of Act No. 3135 only requires the posting
of the notice of sale in three public places and the publication of that notice in a
newspaper of general circulation.[34] However, in several instances, we recognized
that the parties may stipulate otherwise, thus in Metropolitan Bank and Trust
Company v. Wong,[35] we explained:
...a contract is the law between the parties and, that absent any showing that its
provisions are wholly or in part contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order,
or public policy, it shall be enforced to the letter by the courts. Section 3, Act No.
3135 reads:
"Sec. 3. Notice shall be given by posting notices of the sale for not less than twenty
days in at least three public places of the municipality or city where the property is
situated, and if such property is worth more than four hundred pesos, such notice
shall also be published once a week for at least three consecutive weeks in a
newspaper of general circulation in the municipality and city."
The Act only requires (1) the posting of notices of sale in three public places, and
(2) the publication of the same in a newspaper of general circulation. Personal
notice to the mortgagor is not necessary. Nevertheless, the parties to the mortgage
contract are not precluded from exacting additional requirements. In this case,
petitioner and respondent in entering into a contract of real estate mortgage,
agreed inter alia:
"all correspondence relative to this mortgage, including demand letters,
summonses, subpoenas, or notifications of any judicial or extra-judicial action shall
be sent to the MORTGAGOR at 40-42 Aldeguer St., Iloilo City, or at the address that
may hereafter be given in writing by the MORTGAGOR to the MORTGAGEE."
Precisely, the purpose of the foregoing stipulation is to apprise respondent of any
action which petitioner might take on the subject property, thus according him the
opportunity to safeguard his rights. When petitioner failed to send the notice of
foreclosure sale to respondent, he committed a contractual breach sufficient to
render the foreclosure sale on November 23, 1981 null and void. [36] (Citations
omitted.)
The determination of the veracity of the allegations on payment as well as PNB's

compliance with the notice requirement under the law are better ventilated in
actual trial where evidence may be presented, refuted, and ultimately decided
upon. Thus, remand to the trial court is necessary.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition for Review on Certiorari is
hereby DENIED for lack of merit. The Decision dated June 19, 2009 and the
Resolution dated September 11, 2009 of the Court of Appeals are AFFIRMED. The
case is hereby REMANDED to the trial court for further proceedings.
SO ORDERED.
Velasco, Jr., (Chairperson), Brion,* Perez, and Reyes, JJ., concur.
June 13, 2016

NOTICE OF JUDGMENT
Sirs / Mesdames:
Very truly yours,

Designated as additional Member per Raffle dated December 2, 2009.
Penned by CA Associate Justice Fernanda Lampas-Peralta, with Associate Justices

Andres B. Reyes, and Apolinario D. Bruselas, Jr. concurring.
[1]
[2]
Id. at 48.
[3]
Id. at 157-159.
[4]
Id. at 160.
[5]
Id. at 119-122.
[6]
Id. at 66-72.
[7]
Id. at 73-74.
[8]
Id. at 75-91.
[9]
Id. at 92-97.
[10]
Id. at 118.
[11]
Id. at 39.
[12]
Id. at 121.
[13]
Id. at 123-153.
[14]
Id. at 128.
An Act to Regulate the Sale of Property under Special Powers Inserted in or

Annexed to Real Estate Mortgages (1924).
[15]
[16]
Rollo, p. 143.
[17]
Id. at 151.
[18]
Id. at 154-156.
[19]
Id. at 159.
[20]
Id.
[21]
Rollo, pp. 43-46.
[22]
Id. at 46.
[23]
Id. at 13-37.
[24]
Agoy v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 162927, March 6, 2007, 517 SCRA 535, 541.
[25]
Zuniga-Santos v. Santos-Gran, G.R. No. 197380, October 8, 2014, 738 SCRA
33, 39.
[26]
Macaslang v. Zamora, G.R. No. 156375, May 30, 2011, 649 SCRA 92, 106-107.
[27]
G.R. Nos. 159590-91, October 18, 2004, 440 SCRA 498.
[28]
Id. at 510-511.
Vitangcol v. New Vista Properties, Inc., G.R. No. 176014, September 17, 2009,
600 SCRA 82, 93.
[29]
[30]
Id.
[31]
Rollo, pp. 42-43
[32]
Id. at 44.
Section 3. Notice shall be given by posting notices of the sale for not less than
twenty days in at least three public places of the municipality or city where the
property is situated, and if such property is worth more than four hundred pesos
such notice shall also be published once a week for at least three consecutive
weeks in a newspaper of general circulation in the municipality or city.
[33]
Ramirez v. Manila Banking Corporation, G.R. No. 198800, December 11, 2013,
712 SCRA 610.
[34]
[35]
G.R. No. 120859, June 26, 2001, 359 SCRA 608.
[36]
Id. at 614-615.

G.R.
No.
167679
ING BANK N.V., ENGAGED IN BANKING OPERATIONS IN THE PHILIPPINES AS ING BANK N.V. MANILA BRANCH,
PETITIONER,
VS.
COMMISSIONER
OF
INTERNAL
REVENUE,
RESPONDENT.
April 20, 2016
SECOND DIVISION
[ G.R. No. 167679, April 20, 2016 ]
ING BANK N.V., ENGAGED IN BANKING OPERATIONS IN THE
PHILIPPINES AS ING BANK N.V. MANILA BRANCH,
PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,
RESPONDENT.
RESOLUTION
LEONEN, J.:
For resolution is respondent Commissioner of Internal Revenue's Motion for Partial
Reconsideration[1] of our Decision[2] dated July 22, 2015, which partly granted the
Rule 45 Petition of ING Bank N.V. Manila Branch.[3] We set aside the assessments
for deficiency documentary stamp taxes on petitioner's special savings accounts for
the taxable years 1996 and 1997 and deficiency tax on onshore interest income for
taxable year 1996 "in view of [its] availment of the tax amnesty program under
Republic Act No. 9480."[4] However, we affirmed the Court of Tax Appeals En Banc's
April 5, 2005 Decision holding petitioner "liable for deficiency withholding tax on
compensation for the taxable years 1996 and 1997 in the total amount of
P564,542.67 inclusive of interest[.]" [5]
Petitioner filed its Opposition.[6]
The sole issue raised in the Motion for Partial Reconsideration is whether
documentary stamp taxes are excluded from the tax amnesty granted by Republic
Act No. 9480.[7]
Earlier, respondent argued that petitioner could not avail itself of the tax amnesty
under Republic Act No. 9480[8] because both the Court of Tax Appeals En Banc and
Second Division ruled in respondent's favor and confirmed the liability of petitioner
for deficiency documentary stamp taxes, onshore taxes, and withholding taxes.
Respondent contended that the Bureau of Internal Revenue's Revenue

Memorandum Circular No. 19-2008[10] specifically excludes "cases which were ruled
by any court (even without finality) in favor of the [Bureau of Internal Revenue]
prior to amnesty availment of the taxpayer" from the coverage of the tax amnesty
under Republic Act No. 9480.[11]
[9]
In our Decision dated July 22, 2015, we found respondent's argument untenable.
We held that "[t]axpayers with pending tax cases may avail [themselves] . . . of the
tax amnesty program[.]"[12] We also held that Revenue Memorandum Circular No.
19-2008 cannot override Republic Act No. 9480 and its Implementing Rules and
Regulations, which only exclude from tax amnesty "tax cases subject of final and
executory judgment by the courts."[13]
In its present Motion for Partial Reconsideration, respondent argues for the first
time that the documentary stamp taxes on petitioner's special savings accounts for
taxable years 1996 and 1997 are not covered by Republic Act No. 9480, pursuant
to Q-l of Revenue Memorandum Circular Nos. 69-2007 [14] and 19-2008.[15] This
time, respondent claims that the revenue memorandum circulars exclude
documentary stamp taxes for being "[t]axes passed-on and collected from
customers for remittance to the [Bureau of Internal Revenue] [,]" [16]
The pertinent provisions of the revenue memorandum circulars are as follows:
REVENUE MEMORANDUM CIRCULAR NO. 69-2007
....
Q-1 What type of taxes and what taxable period/s are covered by the Tax Amnesty Program
under RA 9480 as implemented by DO 29-07?
A-1 The Tax Amnesty Program (TAP) covers all national internal revenue taxes such as income
tax, estate tax, donor's tax and capital gains tax, value added tax, other percentage taxes,
excise taxes and documentary stamp taxes, except withholding taxes and taxes passed-on
and already collected from the customers for remittance to the BIR, these taxes/funds
being considered as funds held in trust for the government. Moreover, the time-honored
doctrine that "No person shall unjustly enrich himself at the expense of another" should
always be observed. (Emphasis supplied)
REVENUE MEMORANDUM CIRCULAR NO. 19-2008
....
Who may avail of the amnesty?
The following taxpayers may avail of the Tax Amnesty Program:
- Individuals
- Estates and Trusts
- Corporations
- Cooperatives and tax-exempt entities that have become taxable as of December
31, 2005
- Other juridical entities including partnerships.
Fiscal year taxpayers may likewise avail of the tax amnesty using their Financial
Statement ending in any month of 2005.
EXCEPT:
x Withholding agents with respect to their withholding tax liabilities
x Those with pending cases:
Under the jurisdiction of the PCGG
Involving violations of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act
Involving violations of the Anti-Money Laundering Law
For tax evasion and other criminal offenses under the NIRC and/or the RPC
x Issues and cases which were ruled by any court (even without finality) in favor of
the BIR prior to amnesty availment of the taxpayer, (e.g. Taxpayers who have failed
to observe or follow BOI and/or PEZA rules on entitlement to Income Tax Holiday
Incentives and other incentives)
x Cases involving issues ruled with finality by the Supreme Court prior to the
effectivity of RA 9480 (e.g. DST on Special Savings Account)
x Taxes passed on and collected from customers for remittance to the BIR
x Delinquent Accounts/Accounts Receivable considered as assets of the
BIR/Government, including self-assessed tax. (Emphasis supplied)
Respondent contends that the ruling in Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company v.
Commissioner of Internal Revenue,[17] to the effect that documentary stamp tax is
not among the taxes excluded from the coverage of Republic Act No. 9480, must be
revisited.[18]
On the other hand, petitioner avers that respondent's position on the exclusion of
documentary stamp taxes from the coverage of Republic Act No. 9480 is nothing
but a "disguised variant"[19] of her previous argument, which was rejected by this
Court.[20] Petitioner directs respondent's attention to previous rulings of this Court
holding that "administrative issuances, such [as revenue memorandum circulars],
cannot amend or modify the law."[21] It argues that "[respondent, through mere
administrative issuances, cannot impose additional requirements and conditions
which would remove taxpayers who are otherwise qualified to avail themselves of
the tax amnesty[.]"[22]
Finally, petitioner faults respondent for misleading this Court by falsely asserting
that it collected documentary stamp taxes from its clients. Allegedly, there is
nothing in the records to support such claim. [23] Petitioner argues that on the
contrary, the assessment for deficiency taxes arose from respondent's failure to
collect and remit the documentary stamp taxes on its special savings accounts,
because at that time, there was yet no conclusive ruling on whether these accounts
were subject to documentary stamp taxes under Section 180 [24] of the 1977
National Internal Revenue Code.[25]
We deny the Motion for Partial Reconsideration.
I
"The [documentary stamp tax] is one of the taxes covered by the Tax Amnesty
Program under [Republic Act No.] 9480."[26] The law expressly covers "all national
internal revenue taxes for the taxable year 2005 and prior years . . . that have
remained unpaid as of December 31, 2005 [.]"[27] The documentary stamp tax is
considered a national internal revenue tax under Section 21 [28] of Republic Act No.
8424, otherwise known as the National Internal Revenue Code of 1997.
Republic Act No. 9480 provides a general grant of tax amnesty subject only to the
cases specifically excepted by it. Thus, excluded from the tax amnesty are only
those cases enumerated under Section 8:
SEC. 8. Exceptions. The tax amnesty provided in Section 5 hereof shall not
extend to the following persons or cases existing as of the effectivity of this Act:
a. Withholding agents with respect to their withholding tax liabilities;
b. Those with pending cases falling under the jurisdiction of the Presidential
Commission on Good Government;
c. Those with pending cases involving unexplained or unlawfully acquired
wealth or under the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act;
d. Those with pending cases filed in court involving violation of the Anti-Money
Laundering Law;
e. Those with pending criminal cases for tax evasion and other criminal offenses
under Chapter II of Title X of the National Internal Revenue Code of 1997, as
amended, and the felonies of frauds, illegal exactions and transactions, and
malversation of public funds and property under Chapters III and IV of Title
VII of the Revised Penal Code; and
f. Tax cases subject of final and executory judgment by the courts.
The same exceptions were reiterated in Department of Finance Order No. 29-07,
otherwise known as the Rules and Regulations to Implement Republic Act No. 9480.
Respondent claims that petitioner's liability for deficiency documentary stamp taxes
is excluded from the tax amnesty program because documentary stamp taxes are
"[t]axes passed-on and collected from customers for remittance to the [Bureau of
Internal Revenue] [,]" pursuant to Revenue Memorandum Circular Nos. 69-2007
and 19-2008.[29]
This Court has previously held that administrative issuances such as revenue
memorandum circulars cannot amend nor modify the law.
In Philippine Bank of Communications v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue,[30] this
Court upheld the nullification of Revenue Memorandum Circular No. 7-85 issued by
the Acting Commissioner of Internal Revenue because it was not in harmony with,
or was contrary to, the express provision of Section 230 of 1977 National Internal
Revenue Code. Hence, the circular cannot be given weight for to do so would, in
effect, amend the statute.[31] This Court emphasized:
It bears repeating that Revenue memorandum-circulars are considered
administrative rulings (in the sense of more specific and less general interpretations
of tax laws) which are issued from time to time by the Commissioner of Internal
Revenue. It is widely accepted that the interpretation placed upon a statute by the
executive officers, whose duty is to enforce it, is entitled to great respect by the
courts. Nevertheless, such interpretation is not conclusive and will be ignored if
judicially found to be erroneous. Thus, courts will not countenance administrative
issuances that override, instead of remaining consistent and in harmony with, the
law they seek to apply and implement.[32] (Citations omitted)
In Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Court of Appeals, et al.,[33] another case
involving tax amnesty:
The authority of the Minister of Finance (now the Secretary of Finance), in
conjunction with the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, to promulgate all needful
rules and regulations for the effective enforcement of internal revenue laws cannot
be controverted. Neither can it be disputed that such rules and regulations, as well
as administrative opinions and rulings, ordinarily should deserve weight and respect
by the courts. Much more fundamental than either of the above, however, is that
all such issuances must not override, but must remain consistent and in harmony
with the law they seek to apply and implement. Administrative rules and
regulations are intended to carry out, neither to supplant nor to modify, the law.
[34]
(Emphasis supplied)
In that case, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue refused to cancel its
assessment of deficiency income and business taxes against the taxpayer.[35] The
Commissioner argued that "Revenue Memorandum Order No. 4-87 . . .
implementing Executive Order No. 41, had construed the amnesty coverage to
include only assessments issued by the Bureau of Internal Revenue after the
promulgation of the executive order on 22 August 1986 and not to assessments
theretofore made."[36] This Court rejected the Commissioner's claim and ruled that if
"Executive Order No. 41 had not been intended to include 1981-1985 tax liabilities
already assessed (administratively) prior to 22 August 1986, the law could have
simply so provided in its exclusionary clauses."[37]
Similarly, in CS Garment, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue,[38] this Court
struck down as exception "[i]ssues and cases which were ruled by any court (even
without finality) in favor of the [Bureau of Internal Revenue] prior to amnesty
availment of the taxpayer" under the Bureau's Revenue Memorandum Circular No.
19-2008, for going beyond the scope of the provisions of the 2007 Tax Amnesty
Law.[39]
One of the exceptions provided under Section 8 of Republic Act No. 9480 is
"[withholding agents with respect to their withholding tax
Withholding tax is merely a method of collecting income tax in advance. The
perceived tax is collected at the source of income payment to ensure collection. "In
the operation of the withholding tax system, the [income] payee is the taxpayer,
the person on whom the tax is imposed, while the [income] pay or, a separate
entity, acts no more than an agent of the government for the collection of the tax in
order to ensure its payment."[40] "In other words, the withholding agent is merely a
tax collector, not a taxpayer."[41]
In Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue,
[42]
this Court ruled that "the liability of the withholding agent is independent from
that of the taxpayer."[43] Further:
The [withholding agent] cannot be made liable for the tax due because it is the
[taxpayer] who earned the income subject to withholding tax. The withholding
agent is liable only insofar as he failed to perform his duty to withhold the tax and
remit the same to the government. The liability for the tax, however, remains with
the taxpayer because the gain was realized and received by him. [44]
Parenthetically, withholding tax is different from indirect tax. In Asia International
Auctioneers, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue:[45]
Indirect taxes, like VAT and excise tax, are different from withholding taxes. To
distinguish, in indirect taxes, the incidence of taxation falls on one person but the
burden thereof can be shifted or passed on to another person, such as when the tax
is imposed upon goods before reaching the consumer who ultimately pays for it. On
the other hand, in case of withholding taxes, the incidence and burden of taxation
fall on the same entity, the statutory taxpayer. The burden of taxation is not shifted
to the withholding agent who merely collects, by withholding, the tax due from
income payments to entities arising from certain transactions and remits the same
to the government. Due to this difference, the deficiency VAT and excise tax cannot
be "deemed" as withholding taxes merely because they constitute indirect taxes.
[46]
(Citations omitted)
To be sustainable, therefore, the added exception "taxes passed-on and collected
from customers for remittance to the [Bureau of Internal Revenue]" provided in
Revenue Memorandum Circular Nos. 69-2007 and 19-2008 must be essentially
equivalent to the withholding tax liabilities of a withholding agent. Thus, a taxpayer
who is deemed to be a "withholding or collecting agent" of "the tax collected from
[its] customer" is excluded from the coverage of the tax amnesty, with respect to
its liability as a withholding or collecting agent.
II
Documentary stamp taxes on special savings accounts are direct liabilities of
petitioner and not simply "[t]axes passed-on and collected from customers for
remittance to the [Bureau of Internal Revenue]" as argued by respondent.
A documentary stamp tax is a tax on documents, instruments, loan agreements,
and papers evidencing the acceptance, assignment, sale, or transfer of an
obligation, right, or property.[47] The tax is "levied on the exercise by persons of
certain privileges conferred by law for the creation, revision, or termination of
specific legal relationships through the execution of specific instruments." [48] The
law taxes the document because of the transaction.
Under Section 173 of the 1997 National Internal Revenue Code, the documentary
stamp tax due is paid by the person "making, signing, issuing, accepting, or
transferring" the instrument.
Revenue Regulations No. 9-2000[49] clarifies that all parties to a transaction, and not
only the person making, signing, issuing, accepting, or transferring the document,
are primarily liable for the documentary stamp tax. It provides:
SEC. 2. Nature of the Documentary Stamp Tax and Persons Liable for the
Tax. (a) In General - The documentary stamp taxes under Title VII of the Code is a tax
on certain transactions. It is imposed against "the person making, signing, issuing,

accepting, or transferring" the document or facility evidencing the aforesaid
transactions. Thus, in general, it may be imposed on the transaction itself or upon
the document underlying such act. Any of the parties thereto shall be liable for the
full amount of the tax due: Provided, however, that as between themselves, the
said parties may agree on who shall be liable or how they may share on the cost of
the tax.
(b) Exception - Whenever one of the parties to the taxable transaction is exempt
from the tax imposed under Title VII of the Code, the other party thereto who is not
exempt shall be the one directly liable for the tax. (Emphasis supplied)
"As a general rule, therefore, any of the parties to a transaction shall be liable for
the full amount of the documentary stamp tax due, unless they agree among
themselves on who shall be liable for the same."[50]
Section 3 of Revenue Regulations No. 9-2000 further prescribes the mode of
payment and remittance of the documentary stamp tax:
SEC. 3. Mode of Payment and Remittance of the Tax (a) In general - Unless otherwise provided in these Regulations, any of the
aforesaid parties to the taxable transaction shall pay and remit the full amount of
the tax in accordance with the provisions of Section 200 of the Code.
(b) Exceptions (1) If one of the parties to the taxable transaction is exempt from the tax, the other
party who is not exempt shall be the one directly liable for the tax, in which case,
the tax shall be paid and remitted by the said non-exempt party, unless otherwise
provided in these Regulations.
(2) If the said tax-exempt party is one of the persons enumerated in Section 3(c)
(4) hereof he shall be constituted as agent of the Commissioner for the collection of
the tax, in which case, he shall remit the tax so collected in the same manner and
in accordance with the provisions of Section 200 of the Code: Provided, however,
that if he fails to collect and remit the same as herein required, he shall be treated
personally liable for the tax, in addition to the penalties prescribed under Title X of
the Code for failure to pay the tax on time.
(3) The said tax-exempt party, who is constituted as agent for the collection of the
tax, shall issue an acknowledged receipt in respect of the documentary stamp tax
so collected from the aforesaid another party and the same shall be remitted in
accordance with the provisions of these Regulations.
(c) Person liable to remit the DST - In general, the full amount of the tax imposed
under Title VII of the Code may be remitted by any of the party or parties to the
taxable transaction, except in the following cases:
(1) Stamp tax on bonds, debentures, certificates of indebtedness, deposit
substitute, or other similar instruments - The tax shall be remitted by the person
who issued the instrument (e.g. "X" CORPORATION borrowed funds from the public
though the issuance and sale of its interest-bearing Bonds. In this case, the stamp
tax due thereon shall be remitted by "X" CORPORATION.)
....
(4) When one of the parties to the taxable document or transaction is included in
any of the entities enumerated below, such entity shall be responsible for the
remittance of the stamp tax prescribed under Title VII of the Code: Provided,
however, that if such entity is exempt from the tax herein imposed, it shallremit the
tax as a collecting agent, pursuant to the preceding paragraph 3(b)(2) hereof, any
provision of these Regulations to the contrary notwithstanding:
(a A bank, a quasi-bank or non-bank financial intermediary, a finance company, or an insurance,

) a surety, a fidelity, or annuity company[.] (Emphases supplied)
This Court has previously declared a special savings account or special savings
deposit account to be a certificate of deposit drawing interest subject to the
documentary stamp tax.[51] A certificate of deposit is "a written acknowledgment by
a bank of the receipt of a sum of money on deposit which the bank promises to pay
to the depositor, to the order of the depositor, or to some other person or his order,
whereby the relation of debtor or creditor between the bank and the depositor is
created."[52]
Petitioner is directly liable for the documentary stamp tax as the maker and issuer
of the instrument or any written memorandum evidencing the special savings
account transaction.
As a party to a taxable transaction, petitioner is responsible for the payment and
remittance of the documentary stamp tax. However, if petitioner were exempt from
the tax, it should be required to remit the same only as a collecting agent of
respondent.
In this case, there is no proof that petitioner is exempt from the documentary
stamp tax on the special savings accounts. Neither is there any
agreement/evidence on record showing the party liable for the documentary stamp
tax due on the accounts. We cannot simply give credence to respondent's
unsubstantiated allegation that petitioner passed on and collected the documentary
stamp taxes on special savings accounts from its clients. Bare allegations do not
constitute substantial evidence and, thus, have no probative value.
WHEREFORE, the Motion for Partial Reconsideration is DENIED WITH FINALITY.
SO ORDERED.
Carpio, (Chairperson), Brion, Del Castillo, and Mendoza, JJ., concur.
Rollo, pp. 957-964. The Motion was received by this Court on September 18,
2015.
[1]
Id. at 918-943; ING Bank N.V. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No.
167679, July 22, 2015 <http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?
file=/jurisprudence/2015/july2015/167679.pdf> [Per J. Leonen, Second Division].
[2]
Rollo, p. 942, Supreme Court Decision; ING Bank N.V. v. Commissioner of

Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 167679, July 22,
2015<http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?
file=/jurisprudence/2015/july2015/167679.pdf> 25 [Per J. Leonen, Second
Division].
[3]
[4]
Id.
[5]
Id.
[6]
Rollo, pp. 986-995.
[7]
Id. at 958.
An Act Enhancing Revenue Administration and Collection by Granting an Amnesty

on All Unpaid Internal Revenue Taxes Imposed by the National Government for
Taxable Year 2005 and Prior Years (2007).
[8]
[9]
Rollo, pp. 876-879, Comment.
Circularizing the Full Text of "A Basic Guide on the Tax Amnesty Act of 2007" for
Taxpayers Who Wish to Avail of the Tax Amnesty Pursuant to Republic Act No. 9480
(2008).
[10]
[11]
Rollo, pp. 877-878.
Id. at 926, Supreme Court Decision; ING Bank N.V. v. Commissioner of Internal
Revenue, G.R. No. 167679, July 22,
file=/jurisprudence/2015/july2015/167679.pdf> 9 [Per J. Leonen, Second Division],
[12]
Rollo, p. 927, Supreme Court Decision; ING Bank N.V. v. Commissioner of

Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 167679, July 22,
file=/jurisprudence/2015/july2015/167679.pdf> 10 [Per J. Leonen, Second
Division].
[13]
Clarification of Issues Concerning the Tax Amnesty Program Under Republic Act
No. 9480 as Implemented by Department Order No. 29-07 (2007).
[14]
[15]
Rollo, pp. 958-959, Motion for Partial Reconsideration.
[16]
Id. at 960-961.
[17]
612 Phil. 544 (2009) [Per J. Chico-Nazario, Third Division].
[18]
[19]
Id. at 990, Opposition.
[20]
Id.
[21]
Id. at 991
[22]
Id. at 993.
[23]
Id.
1977 TAX CODE, sec. 180, as amended by Rep. Act No. 7660 (1993), sec. 7,
provides:
[24]
SEC. 180. Stamp tax on all loan agreements, promissory notes, bills of exchange,
drafts, instruments and securities issued by the government or any of its
instrumentalities, certificates of deposit bearing interest and others not payable on
sight or demand. - On all loan agreements signed abroad wherein the object of the
contract is located or used in the Philippines; bills of exchange (between points
within the Philippines), drafts, instruments and securities issued by the Government
or any of its instrumentalities or certificates of deposits drawing interest, or orders
for the payment of any sum of money otherwise than at sight or on demand, or on
all promissory notes, whether negotiable or non-negotiable, except bank notes

issued for circulation, and on each renewal of any such note, there shall be
collected a documentary stamp tax of Thirty centavos (P0.30) on each two hundred
pesos, or fractional part thereof, of the face value of any such agreement, bill of
exchange, draft, certificate of deposit, or note: Provided, That only one
documentary stamp tax shall be imposed on either loan agreement, or promissory
notes issued to secure such loan, whichever will yield a higher tax: Provided,
however, That loan agreements or promissory notes the aggregate of which does
not exceed Two hundred fifty thousand pesos (P250,000) executed by an individual
for his purchase on installment for his personal use or that of his family and not for
business, resale, barter or hire of a house, lot, motor vehicle, appliance or furniture
shall be exempt from the payment of the documentary stamp tax provided under
this section.
[25]
Rollo, pp. 993-994, Opposition.
Philippine Banking Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 597 Phil.

363, 388 (2009) [Per J. Carpio, First Division].
[26]
[27]
Rep. Act No. 9480 (2007), sec. 1.
[28]
TAX CODE, sec. 21 provides:
SEC. 21. Sources of Revenue. - The following taxes, fees and charges are deemed
to be national internal revenue taxes:
(a) Income tax;
(b) Estate and donor's taxes;
(c) Value-added tax;
(d) Other percentage taxes;
(e) Excise taxes;
(f) Documentary stamp taxes; and
(g) Such other taxes as are or hereafter may be imposed and collected by the
Bureau of Internal Revenue.
[29]
[30]
361 Phil. 916 (1999) [Per J. Quisumbing, Second Division].
[31]
Id. at 926-928.
[32]
Id. at 928-929.
[33]
310 Phil. 392 (1995) [Per J. Vitug, Third Division].
[34]
Id. at 397.
[35]
Id. at 394.
[36]
Id.
[37]
Id. at 399.
G.R. No. 182399, March 12, 2014, 718 SCRA 614 [Per C.J. Sereno, First
Division].
[38]
[39]
Id. at 633-634.
Bank of America NT & SA v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 103092, July 21, 1994,
234 SCRA 302, 310 [Per J. Vitug, Third Division].
[40]
Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Court of Appeals, 361 Phil. 103, 117

(1999) [Per J. Martinez, First Division].
[41]
[42]
672 Phil. 514 (2011) [Per J. Mendoza, Third Division].
[43]
Id. at 529.
[44]
Id.
[45]
695 Phil. 852 (2012) [Per J. Perlas-Bernabe, Second Division].
[46]
Id. at 859-860.
[47]
TAX CODE, sec. 173 provides:
SEC. 173. Stamp Taxes Upon Documents, Loan Agreements, Instruments and
Papers. - Upon documents, instruments, loan agreements and papers, and upon
acceptances, assignments, sales and transfers of the obligation, right or property
incident thereto, there shall be levied, collected and paid for, and in respect of the
transaction so had or accomplished, the corresponding documentary stamp taxes

prescribed in the following Sections of this Title, by the person making, signing,
issuing, accepting, or transferring the same wherever the document is made,
signed, issued, accepted or transferred when the obligation or right arises from
Philippine sources or the property is situated in the Philippines, and the same time
such act is done or transaction had: Provided, That whenever one party to the
taxable document enjoys exemption from the tax herein imposed, the other party
who is not exempt shall be the one directly liable for the tax.
International Exchange Bank v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 549 Phil.
456, 467 (2007) [Per J. Carpio Morales, Second Division], citing Philippine Home
Assurance Corporation v. Court of Appeals, 361 Phil. 368, 372-373 (1999) [Per J.
Mendoza, Second Division].
[48]
Mode of Payment and/or Remittance of the Documentary Stamp Tax (DST)

Under Certain Conditions (2000).
[49]
Republic v. Soriano, G.R. No. 211666, February 25,

2015 <http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?
file=/jurisprudence/2015/february2015/211666.pdf> 11 [Per J. Peralta, Third
Division].
[50]
Philippine Banking Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 597 Phil.

363, 379-382 (2009) [Per J. Carpio, First Division]. These products as well as the
Savings Plus Deposit Account in China Banking Corporation v. Commissioner of
Internal Revenue (617 Phil. 522, 539 (2009) [Per J. Peralta, Third Division]), the
Savings Account-Fixed Savings Deposit in International Exchange Bank v.
Commissioner of Internal Revenue (549 Phil. 456, 463-466 (2007) [Per J. Carpio
Morales, Second Division]), and Savings Account Plus in Prudential Bank v.
Commissioner of Internal Revenue (670 Phil. 339, 347-349 (2011) [Per J. Del
Castillo, First Division]) were all essentially the same and considered as deposit
drawing interest subject to documentary stamp tax. They all possess the following
features:
[51]
(1) Amount deposited is withdrawable anytime;

(2) The same is evidenced by a passbook;
(3) The rate of interest offered is the prevailing market rate, provided the depositor would
maintain his minimum balance within a certain period, and should he withdraw before the
period, his deposit would earn the regular savings deposit rate.
Id. at 382, citing Far East Bank and Trust Company v. Querimit, 424 Phil. 721,
730 (2002) [Per J. Mendoza, Second Division].
[52]

G.R.
No.
174333
PILIPINAS SHELL FOUNDATION, INC. AND SHELL PHILIPPINES EXPLORATION B.V., PETITIONERS, VS. TOMAS M.
FREDELUCES, MARCOS B. CORPUZ, JR., REYNALDO M. SAMONTE, NORMA M. SAMONTE, AMBROCIO VILLANUEVA,
SALVACION A. BON, RAMIRO A. BON, LUZVIMINDA B. ANDILLO, LUDIVICO F. BON, ELMO AREGLO, ROSE A. SAN
PEDRO, DANTE U. SANTOS, SR., MIGUEL SANTOS, EFREN U. SANTOS, RIC U. SANTOS, SIMON MARCE, JR., JOEL F.
SALINEL,
BEBIANA
SAN
PEDRO,
AND
MARINA
SANTOS,
RESPONDENTS.
April 20, 2016
SECOND DIVISION
[ G.R. No. 174333, April 20, 2016 ]
PILIPINAS SHELL FOUNDATION, INC. AND SHELL
PHILIPPINES EXPLORATION B.V., PETITIONERS, VS. TOMAS
M. FREDELUCES, MARCOS B. CORPUZ, JR., REYNALDO M.
SAMONTE, NORMA M. SAMONTE, AMBROCIO VILLANUEVA,
SALVACION A. BON, RAMIRO A. BON, LUZVIMINDA B.
ANDILLO, LUDIVICO F. BON, ELMO AREGLO, ROSE A. SAN
PEDRO, DANTE U. SANTOS, SR., MIGUEL SANTOS, EFREN U.
SANTOS, RIC U. SANTOS, SIMON MARCE, JR., JOEL F.
SALINEL, BEBIANA SAN PEDRO, AND MARINA SANTOS,
RESPONDENTS.
DECISION
LEONEN, J.:
When a motion to dismiss is filed, only allegations of ultimate facts are

hypothetically admitted. Allegations of evidentiary facts and conclusions of law, as
well as allegations whose falsity is subject to judicial notice, those which are legally
impossible, inadmissible in evidence, or unfounded, are disregarded.
This resolves a Petition for Review on Certiorari[1] assailing the Court of Appeals
Decision[2] and Resolution[3] in CA-G.R. CV No. 74791. Except for respondent Tomas
M. Fredeluces, the Court of Appeals reinstated the Complaint [4] for damages filed by
respondents Marcos B. Corpuz, Jr., Reynaldo M. Samonte, Norma M. Samonte,
Ambrocio Villanueva, Salvacion A. Bon, Ramiro A. Bon, Luzviminda B. Andillo,
Ludivico F. Bon, Elmo Areglo, Rose A. San Pedro, Dante U. Santos, Sr., Miguel
Santos, Efren U. Santos, Ric U. Santos, Simon Marce, Jr., Joel F. Salinel, Bebiana
San Pedro, and Marina Santos against petitioners Pilipinas Shell Foundation, Inc.
and Shell Philippines Exploration B.V.[5] The Court of Appeals remanded the case to
Branch 72 of the Regional Trial Court of Olongapo City, which had earlier dismissed
the Complaint for damages on the grounds of litis pendentia, failure to state a
cause of action, and lack of cause of action.[6]
With respect to Tomas M. Fredeluces, the Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of
the Complaint on the ground of lack of cause of action. [7]
Pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 87, otherwise known as the Oil Exploration and
Development Act of 1972, the Republic of the Philippines entered into Service
Contract No. 38 and engaged the services of Shell Philippines Exploration B.V. "for
the exploration, development[,] and production of petroleum resources in an . . .
area offshore northwest of . . . Palawan[.]"[8] The service contractors eventually
discovered in offshore Malampaya-Camago at least 2.5 trillion cubic feet of natural
gas deposits.[9]
Exploration and development of the Malampaya-Camago natural gas reservoir
required the construction and operation of a shallow water platform off the coast of
Palawan. The water platform further required a concrete gravity structure that
would sit on the seabed, and a topside or the platform's deck which would sit on
top of the concrete gravity structure.[10]
The topside was constructed in Singapore. As for the concrete gravity structure,
Shell Philippines Exploration B.V. searched for possible construction sites here in the
Philippines. Subsequently identified as a possible construction site was Subic,
Zambales, and Shell Philippines Exploration B.V. met with representatives of the
Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority.[11]
The Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority proposed a 40-hectare site in Sitio Agusuhin
as a possible construction site for the concrete gravity structure. [12] The site formed
part of the military reservation of the former naval base of the United States in
Subic, which, under Republic Act No. 7227,[13] became part of the Subic Special
Economic Zone.[14]
Results of a socio-economic survey commissioned by Shell Philippines Exploration
B.V. showed that there were about 200 households living at or near the proposed
construction site. Together with the Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority and Pilipinas
Shell Foundation, Inc., Shell Philippines Exploration B.V. established contact with
the occupants of Sitio Agusuhin. It was ultimately determined that 80 households
would have to be relocated to nearby areas within the Subic Seaport Economic Free
Zone to carry out the project.[15]
In May 1998, the Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority and Shell Philippines Exploration
B.V. entered into a Lease and Development Agreement for the construction of the
concrete gravity structure in Sitio Agusuhin. The Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority
undertook to relocate the affected households, while Shell Philippines Exploration
B.V. undertook to give financial assistance to them.[16]
The undertakings of Shell Philippines Exploration B.V. were implemented through
Pilipinas Shell Foundation, Inc. By the end of May 1998, Pilipinas Shell Foundation,
Inc. concluded agreements with some of the affected households. In exchange for
financial assistance, some of the claimants voluntarily dismantled their houses and
relocated to nearby areas within the Subic Seaport Economic Free Zone. Other
claims, however, were denied by Shell Philippines Exploration B.V. for the claimant's
failure to show that he or she resided in Sitio Agusuhin prior to the construction
project.[17]
With the assistance of the Subic Sangguniang Bayan, a Compensation Community
Relations Study Group was organized to re-evaluate the claims that had been
previously denied by Shell Philippines Exploration B.V.[18] In the meantime, the
construction of the concrete gravity structure was completed, and the shallow water
platform was successfully installed in Palawan on June 2, 2000. [19] Shell Philippines
Exploration B.V. turned over Sitio Agusuhin to the Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority,
cleared, leveled, and elevated, together with improvements "consisting of a finger
pier, a fence and gate, a drainage system[,] and a berthing facility for ferry sea
crafts or similar vessels along the southern bank of the basin."[20]
On December 1, 2000, a Complaint for damages was filed against Shell Philippines
Exploration B.V. and Pilipinas Shell Foundation, Inc. before the Regional Trial Court
of Olongapo City.[21] Tomas M. Fredeluces, Marcos B. Corpuz, Jr., Reynaldo M.
Samonte, Norma M. Samonte, Ambrocio Villanueva, Salvacion A. Bon, Ramiro A.
Bon, Luzviminda B. Andillo, Ludivico F. Bon, Elmo Areglo, Rose A. San Pedro, Dante
U. Santos, Sr., Miguel Santos, Efren U. Santos, Ric U. Santos, Simon Marce, Jr., Joel
F. Salinel, Bebiana San Pedro, and Marina Santos (Fredeluces, et al.) alleged that
having resided in the area even prior to 1998, they were lawful residents of Sitio
Agusuhin.[22] They allegedly constructed their houses and introduced improvements
in Sitio Agusuhin, such as fruit trees and other seasonal plants. [23]
However, "[f]or the direct benefit of the defendants [Shell Philippines Exploration
B.V. and Pilipinas Shell Foundation, Inc.],"[24] Fredeluces, et al. were "effectively
evicted"[25] from their homes in "total disregard"[26] of their rights. Admitting that
some of the claimants were given financial assistance, Fredeluces, et al. alleged
that the amounts given were "insufficient to compensate the damages they
sustained[.]"[27] Worse, they were allegedly "pressured, coerced or . . . 'sweet
talked'"[28]into signing quitclaims and waivers.
"In arbitrarily and unlawfully evicting [Fredeluces, et al.] from their place of abode
and livelihood,"[29] Shell Philippines Exploration B.V. and Pilipinas Shell Foundation,
Inc. allegedly failed to act with justice, "did not give . . . [Fredeluces, et al.] their
due[,] and acted in bad faith."[30] The actions of Shell Philippines Exploration B.V.
and Pilipinas Shell Foundation, Inc. were allegedly contrary to law, for which they
should pay Fredeluces, et al. the following amounts representing actual damages:
1. Tomas Fredeluces
2. Marcos Corpuz, Jr.
3. Reynaldo Samonte
4. Norma Samonte
5. Ambrocio Villanueva
6. Salvacion Bon
7. Ramiro Bon
8. Luzviminda Andillo
9. Ludivico Bon
10. Elmo Areglo
11. Rose San Pedro
12. Dante Santos, Sr.,
13. Miguel Santos
14. Efren Santos
15. Ric Santos
16. Simon Marce, Jr.
17. Joel Salinel
18. Bebiana San Pedro
19. Marina Santos
TOTAL
P27,000,000.00
905,000.00
2,000,000.00
2,000,000.00
1,700,000.00
750,000.00
1,000,000.00
500,000.00
500,000.00
1,000,000.00
500,000.00
12,000,000.00
4,000,000.00
5,000,000.00
1,000,000.00
4,000,000.00
(no amount)
1,500,000.00
3,000,000.00
P68,255,000.00[31]
In addition to their allegations, Fredeluces, et al. moved that they be allowed to

litigate as paupers considering that "[t]he gross income of each of [them] and the
members of their [families] do not exceed P3,000.00[,]"[32] and that none of them
allegedly owned real property.[33]
Instead of answering the Complaint, Shell Philippines Exploration B.V. and Pilipinas
Shell Foundation, Inc. moved to dismiss[34] the complaint based on the grounds
oflitis pendentia, failure to state a cause of action, and lack of cause of action. [35]
Shell Philippines Exploration B.V. and Pilipinas Shell Foundation, Inc. alleged that
five (5) of the plaintiffsnamely, Dante U. Santos, Sr., Efren U. Santos, Miguel
Santos, Ric U. Santos, and Bebiana San Pedroearlier filed against them a
Complaint[36] for sum of money.[37] This Complaint, filed on October 9, 2000 also
before the Regional Trial Court of Olongapo City, allegedly prayed for payment of
disturbance compensation for their eviction from Sitio Agusuhin for the construction
of the concrete gravity structure.[38] Shell Philippines Exploration B.V. and Pilipinas
Shell Foundation, Inc. argued that the Complaint for sum of money and the
Complaint for damages had substantially similar causes of action and relief sought,
rendering the subsequently filed Complaint for damages dismissible on the ground
of litis pendentia.[39]
According to Shell Philippines Exploration B.V. and Pilipinas Shell Foundation, Inc.,
Fredeluces, et al. were praying for payment of damages corresponding to the value
of the land they previously occupied, a right that did not belong to them because
they never owned the land in Sitio Agusuhin.[40] Shell Philippines Exploration B.V.
and Pilipinas Shell Foundation, Inc. emphasized that Sitio Agusuhin belonged to the
Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority pursuant to Republic Act No. 7227; hence, lands
in Sitio Agusuhin are government property not subject to private ownership. [41] In
addition, Fredeluces, et al.'s claims for the value of the improvements they
introduced in Sitio Agusuhin were allegedly paid as evidenced by the quitclaims
they had signed.[42] Consequently, the Complaint for damages failed to state a
cause of action.[43]
With respect to Tomas M. Fredeluces and Ludivico F. Bon, Shell Philippines
Exploration B.V. and Pilipinas Shell Foundation, inc. alleged that these plaintiffs
never resided in Sitio Agusuhin.[44] Tomas M. Fredeluces and Ludivico F. Bon were
not entitled to any compensation and, therefore, lacked a cause of action against
Shell Philippines Exploration B.V. and Pilipinas Shell Foundation, Inc.[45]
Fredeluces, et al. opposed the Motion to Dismiss and prayed for its denial. [46] In
their Opposition,[47] Fredeluces, et al. argued that Shell Philippines Exploration B.V.
and Pilipinas Shell Foundation, Inc., in filing their Motion to Dismiss, hypothetically
admitted the factual allegations in their Complaint. Corollarily, the trial court may
not inquire into the truth of the allegations and may only resolve the Motion to
Dismiss based on the facts as alleged in the Complaint. [48]
Countering the first ground of the Motion to Dismiss, Dante U. Santos, Efren U.
Santos, Miguel Santos, Ric U. Santos, and Bebiana San Pedro claimed that they
were not aware of their inclusion as plaintiffs in the earlier filed Complaint for sum
of money. In any case, they had allegedly revoked the Special Power of Attorney
that they executed in favor of Atty. Renato H. Collado before the lawyer filed the
Complaint for sum of money on their behalf. It follows that the Complaint for sum
of money was filed without their authority and should be deemed not to have been
filed. Litis pendentia, therefore, should not apply.[49]
Fredeluces, et al. expressly admitted that they never owned Sitio Agusuhin.
[50]
Nevertheless, they contended that they "were peacefully settled in the area and
[had] introduced improvements"[51] when Shell Philippines Exploration B.V. and
Pilipinas Shell Foundation, Inc. "summarily evicted"[52] them. It is for their "unlawful
eviction"[53] from, not ownership of, Sitio Agusuhin for which Fredeluces, et al.
demand payment of damages.[54]
Although admitting that they executed quitclaims in favor of Shell Philippines
Exploration B.V. and Pilipinas Shell Foundation, Inc., Fredeluces, et al. specifically
alleged that they were pressured, coerced, or "sweet-talked" into signing them.
[55]
In effect, Fredeluces, et al. assailed the validity of these quitclaims for lack of
consent, an issue requiring the presentation of evidence during trial. [56] Fredeluces,
et al. similarly argued that the issue of residence of Tomas M. Fredeluces and
Ludivico F. Bon required the presentation of evidence during trial. [57]
On April 20, 2001, the Motion to Dismiss was heard. [58] Subsequently, in the
Order[59] dated June 7, 2001, Branch 72 of the Regional Trial Court of Olongapo City
granted the Motion to Dismiss and ruled in favor of Shell Philippines Exploration B.V.
and Pilipinas Shell Foundation, Inc.[60]
Between the Complaint for sum of money and the Complaint for damages, the trial
court found identity of parties, causes of action, and reliefs sought. [61] The trial
court said that Dante U. Santos, Efren U. Santos, Miguel Santos, Ric U. Santos, and
Bebiana San Pedro "cannot feign ignorance that they were not aware that they
were included as party plaintiffs in the [Complaint for sum of money]" [62] because
"they actively secured copies of . . . Certificates of Occupancy" [63] in Sitio Agusuhin,
which were annexed to the earlier filed Complaint.
The trial court likewise held that the Complaint for damages failed to state a cause
of action. According to the trial court, Fredeluces, et al. based the amount of actual
damages they sought on the fair market values of the parcels of land they occupied
and of the improvements introduced on the property. Fredeluces, et al. effectively

prayed for payment of just compensation, a relief they cannot avail themselves of
because they do not own the land in Sitio Agusuhin.[64]
As for the quitclaims, the trial court held that they were valid since Fredeluces, et
al. voluntarily executed them. Fredeluces, et al. even voluntarily vacated Sitio
Agusuhin after they received financial assistance from Shell Philippines Exploration
B.V. and Pilipinas Shell Foundation, Inc.[65]
In resolving the issue of whether Tomas M. Fredeluces and Ludivico F. Bon were
former residents of Sitio Agusuhin, the trial court relied on the Affidavit [66] of a
certain Robert Hadji (Hadji), a former resident of Sitio Agusuhin and Pilipinas Shell
Foundation, Inc.'s Community Coordinator in the site. Hadji stated in his Affidavit
that Tomas M. Fredeluces and Ludivico F. Bon never resided in Sitio Agusuhin.
[67]
While the resolution of the issue would generally require presentation of
evidence during trial, the trial court said that Fredeluces, et al. did not even bother
to attend the hearing of the Motion to Dismiss on April 20, 2001 to present
evidence contrary to the allegations of Shell Philippines Exploration B.V. and
Pilipinas Shell Foundation, Inc.[68] Failing to present such contrary evidence, Tomas
M. Fredeluces and Ludivico F. Bon should be deemed non-residents of Sitio
Agusuhin and, therefore, were not entitled to any compensation. [69]
The dispositive portion of the Order dated June 7, 2001 reads:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Motion to Dismiss filed by the
defendants dated April 5, 2001 is hereby granted. The case is ordered DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.[70]
Fredeluces, et al. filed a Notice of Appeal before the Court of Appeals on June 28,
2001.[71] The parties subsequently filed their respective appeal briefs, [72] both
reiterating the arguments they had made before the trial court.
In contrast with the trial court, the Court of Appeals appreciated in evidence a
Revocation of Special Power of Attorney allegedly executed by Dante U. Santos,
Efren U. Santos, Miguel Santos, Ric U. Santos, and Bebiana San Pedro. [73] The
Complaint for sum of money was, thus, filed without their authority, and there was
no litis pendentia so as to bar the filing of the Complaint for damages on December
1, 2000.
Despite Fredeluces, et al.'s admission that they did not own the parcels of land they
occupied in Sitio Agusuhin, the Court of Appeals nonetheless held that Fredeluces,
et al. may file a complaint for damages for having been "adversely affected by
[Shell Philippines Exploration B.V.'s] construction works." [74] Fredeluces, et al. may
likewise repudiate the quitclaims they executed.[75]
As to the issue of residence, the Court of Appeals found that Ludivico F. Bon
formerly resided in Sitio Agusuhin. The Court of Appeals relied on the Report
submitted by the Compensation Community Relations Study Group where Ludivico
F. Bon was listed as one of the beneficiaries. [76] As for Tomas M. Fredeluces, he was
not listed on the Report; thus, he was not entitled to any financial assistance. [77]
Thus, the Court of Appeals partially granted the appeal in the Decision dated
January 25, 2006, the dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, except with respect to appellant Tomas Fredeluces, appellants'
complaint is ordered REINSTATED and the case is, accordingly, REMANDEDto the
trial court for further proceedings.
SO . . . .
. . . . ORDERED.[78] (Emphasis in the original)
Shell Philippines Exploration B.V. and Pilipinas Shell Foundation, Inc. filed a Motion
for Partial Reconsideration and/or Clarification,[79] which the Court of Appeals denied
in the Resolution dated August 16, 2006.[80]
Assailing the Court of Appeals' January 25, 2006 Decision and August 16, 2006
Resolution, petitioners Pilipinas Shell Foundation, Inc. and Shell Philippines
Exploration B.V. filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari before this Court.
[81]
Respondents Tomas M. Fredeluces, Marcos B. Corpuz, Jr., Reynaldo M. Samonte,
Norma M. Samonte, Ambrocio Villanueva, Salvacion A. Bon, Ramiro A. Bon,
Luzviminda B. Andillo, Ludivico F. Bon, Elmo Areglo, Rose A. San Pedro, Dante U.
Santos, Sr., Miguel Santos, Efren U. Santos, Ric U. Santos, Simon Marce, Jr., Joel F.
Salinel, Bebiana San Pedro, and Marina Santos filed their Comment,[82] to which
petitioners replied.[83]
Pilipinas Shell Foundation, Inc. and Shell Philippines Exploration B.V. maintain
that litis pendentia barred the filing of the Complaint for damages. Litis
pendentiaeventually ripened into res judicata when the Decision on the Complaint
for sum of money became final and executory.[84]
Pilipinas Shell Foundation, Inc. and Shell Philippines Exploration B.V. allege that the
earlier filed Complaint, for sum of money, where Dante U. Santos, Efren U. Santos,
Miguel Santos, Ric U. Santos, and Bebiana San Pedro were likewise plaintiffs, was
dismissed by the trial court[85] on the ground of failure to state a cause of action.
[86]
This ruling was affirmed by the Court of Appeals in the Decision [87] dated
February 27, 2004, and an Entry of Judgment[88] was issued on April 1, 2004.
Considering that the Complaint for sum of money and the Complaint for damages
share substantially identical parties, causes of action, and reliefs sought, [89] Pilipinas
Shell Foundation, Inc. and Shell Philippines Exploration B.V. argue that the February
27, 2004 Court of Appeals Decision became res judicata so as to bar the
proceedings before this Court.[90]
Even assuming that Dante U. Santos, Efren U. Santos, Miguel Santos, Ric U.
Santos, and Bebiana San Pedro signed the Revocation and Cancellation of Special
Power of Attorney, Pilipinas Shell Foundation, Inc. and Shell Philippines Exploration
B.V. argue that the five (5) respondents should be deemed not to have revoked the
authority to file the Complaint for sum of money.[91] Dante U. Santos, Efren U.
Santos, Miguel Santos, Ric U. Santos, and Bebiana San Pedro never informed the
trial court that they were included as plaintiffs in the Complaint for sum of money.
[92]
Further, Bebiana San Pedro did not sign the Revocation and Cancellation of
Special Power of Attorney.[93] Dante U. Santos, Efren U. Santos, Miguel Santos, Ric
U. Santos, and Bebiana San Pedro remain guilty of forum shopping. [94]
Apart from the existence of litis pendentia, Pilipinas Shell Foundation, Inc. and Shell
Philippines Exploration B.V. insist that the Complaint for damages failed to state a
cause of action.[95] According to Pilipinas Shell Foundation, Inc. and Shell Philippines
Exploration B.V., Fredeluces, et al. failed to allege specific acts from which it may be
inferred that Pilipinas Shell Foundation, Inc. and Shell Philippines Exploration B.V.
violated the law or acted in bad faith.[96] Instead of alleging ultimate facts,
Fredeluces, et al. repeatedly made conclusions of law in their Complaint for
damages, such as that they were "lawful residents" [97] of Sitio Agusuhin, or that
Pilipinas Shell Foundation, Inc. and Shell Philippines Exploration B.V. "arbitrarily and
unlawfully evict[ed] [Fredeluces, et al.] from their place of abode and
livelihood[.]"[98]Fredeluces, et al. failed to specifically allege the acts from which
they inferred that they were lawful residents of Sitio Agusuhin or that they were
unlawfully evicted.[99] Their Complaint for damages was, therefore, correctly
dismissed.[100]
Pilipinas Shell Foundation, Inc. and Shell Philippines Exploration B.V. argue that the
Court of Appeals erred in limiting itself with the allegations of the Complaint for
damages when it ruled that Fredeluces, et al. had the right to demand for
compensation from Pilipinas Shell Foundation, Inc. and Shell Philippines Exploration
B.V. The rule that the allegations of the complaint are hypothetically admitted when
a motion to dismiss is filed is subject to exceptions. Annexes to the complaint as
well as matters of judicial notice may be considered in dismissing a complaint on
the ground of failure to state a cause of action.[101]
One matter of judicial notice is that the Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority, not
Fredeluces, et al., own Sitio Agusuhin,[102] pursuant to Republic Act No. 7227. Not
being owners, Fredeluces, et al. may not demand compensation based on the value
of the properties they formerly occupied.[103] They were possessors in bad faith who,
under Article 449[104] of the Civil Code, are not entitled to any indemnity with
respect to improvements they have introduced in Sitio Agusuhin. [105] Assuming that
Fredeluces, et al. are entitled to compensation for the improvements they
introduced in Sitio Agusuhin, their claims have been paid as evidenced by the
quitclaims they executed.[106]
With respect to Tomas M. Fredeluces and Ludivico F. Bon, Pilipinas Shell Foundation,
Inc. and Shell Philippines Exploration B.V. maintain that they are non-residents of
Sitio Agusuhin and, therefore, are not entitled to any financial assistance. [107]
Lastly, the Complaint for damages should be deemed not to have been filed
because Fredeluces, et al. failed to pay the required filing fees. [108]
In their five-page Comment, with the last page being the signature page,
Fredeluces, et al. quoted heavily from the Court of Appeals Decision to argue
that litis pendentia does not exist in this case; that their Complaint for damages
sufficiently stated a cause of action; and that they have sufficiently proven that
they are pauper litigants.[109]
On the issue of litis pendentia, Dante U. Santos, Efren U. Santos, Miguel Santos, Ric
U. Santos, and Bebiana San Pedro maintain that the Complaint for sum of money
was filed without their authority considering that they executed the Revocation and
Cancellation of Special Power of Attorney before the Complaint for sum of money
was filed.[110]
On the issue of failure to state a cause of action, Fredeluces, et al. insist on the
application of the general rule that only matters alleged in the Complaint may be
considered in resolving motions to dismiss. [111] They fail to explain why the
exceptions to the rule do not apply in this case.
On the issue of failure to pay filing fees, Fredeluces, et al. claim that they are
pauper litigants as evidenced by Certifications from the Municipal Assessor of Subic.
[112]
The issues for this Court's resolution are:

First, whether respondents Fredeluces, et al.'s Complaint for damages should be
dismissed on the ground of litis pendentia; and,
Second, whether the Complaint for damages should be dismissed on the ground of
failure to state a cause of action.
We grant the Petition. The Complaint for damages should have been dismissed as
to respondent Bebiana San Pedro on the ground of litis pendentia. As for the rest of
respondents, their Complaint failed to state a cause of action.
I
Only one suit may be instituted for a single cause of action. [113] Hence, any suit
subsequently filed for the same cause of action becomes unnecessary and
vexatious.[114] When there is more than one suit pending between the same parties
for the same cause of action, litis pendentia exists and a motion to dismiss may be
filed on this ground. Rule 16, Section 1(e) of the Rules of Court provides:
SECTION 1. Grounds.Within the time for but before filing the answer to the
....
(e) That there is another action pending between the same parties for the same
cause[.]
Litis pendentia in Latin means "a pending suit."[115] Occasionally referred to as lis
pendens[116] or auter action pendant,[117] litis pendentia has the following elements:
first, "[i]dentity of parties, or at least such parties as those representing the same
interests in both actions;"[118] second, "[i]dentity of rights asserted and reliefs
prayed for, the reliefs being founded on the same facts;" [119] and third, "[i]dentity
with respect to the two preceding particulars in the two cases, such that any
judgment that may be rendered in the pending case, regardless of which party is
successful, would amount to res judicata in the other case."[120]
The first element of litis pendentiaidentity of partiesis absent with respect to
respondents Dante U. Santos, Efren U. Santos, Miguel Santos, and Ric U. Santos.
They executed on September 4, 2000[121] the Revocation and Cancellation of Special
Power of Attorney and withdrew the authority they had earlier granted Atty. Renato
M. Collado to file a case in their behalf. Moreover, the Court of Appeals found that
their signatures do not appear on the Verification and Certification against Forum
Shopping appended to the Complaint for sum of money filed on October 9, 2000.
With the Complaint for sum of money having been filed without the authority of
respondents Dante U. Santos, Efren U. Santos, Miguel Santos, and Ric U. Santos,
they should be deemed non-plaintiffs in the Complaint for sum of money.
Consequently, the pendency of the Complaint for sum of money did not bar them
from filing the Complaint for damages on December 1, 2000.
The same cannot be said for respondent Bebiana San Pedro. Respondent Bebiana
San Pedro was guilty of forum shopping, repetitively filing complaints asserting "the
same essential facts and circumstances, and all raising substantially the same
issues"[122] against the same defendants.
Respondent Bebiana San Pedro was a party plaintiff both in the Complaint for sum
of money and in the Complaint for damages. Unlike respondents Dante U. Santos,
Efren U. Santos, Miguel Santos, and Ric U. Santos, respondent Bebiana San Pedro
did not sign any document similar to the Revocation and Cancellation of Special
Power of Attorney. Thus, she did not revoke the authority of Atty. Renato H. Collado
to file the Complaint for sum of money on her behalf. The Complaint for sum of
money was filed with her authority and was pending when the Complaint for
damages was subsequently filed before the same trial court.
The second element of litis pendentia likewise exists with respect to respondent
Bebiana San Pedro. There is substantial identity of rights asserted and reliefs
sought between the Complaint for sum of money and the Complaint for damages.
"A cause of action is the act or omission by which a party violates a right of
another."[123] For a cause of action to exist, there must be "a right existing in favor
of the plaintiff;"[124] "a corresponding obligation on the part of the defendant to
respect such right;"[125] and, "an act or omission of the defendant which constitutes
a violation of the plaintiffs right which defendant had the duty to respect." [126]
The following allegations show that the Complaint for sum of money and the
Complaint for damages similarly assert the supposed right of respondents as
possessors of parcels of land they previously occupied in Sitio Agusuhin:
Complaint for sum of money filed on

October 9, 2000
2. That plaintiffs are the possessor and longtime occupants under claim of ownership of
certain parcels of land situated in Sitio
Agusuhin, Cawag, Subic Zambales; . . . .
Complaint for damages filed on December 1,

2000
3. The plaintiffs are lawful residents at Sitio
Agusuhin, Bgy. Cawag, Subic, Zambales. They
have settled in this place long prior to 1998.
They have put up their residence in this area

and constructed their residential structures of
various kind. They have put in various
4. That plaintiffs are in possession of the
improvements, like fruit trees and devoted the
following areas which were expropriated by the area to seasonal plants. The place was a
defendants, and their corresponding values[:] community by itself.[128]
....
[Name: Bibiana [sic] San Pedro

Area occupied: 20,000 sq.m.
Amount: 1,500,000.00
Disturbance compensation:
80,000.00].[127]
The Complaints similarly allege that petitioners had an obligation to respect the
supposed right of respondents when petitioners commenced the construction of the
concrete gravity structure:

October 9, 2000
3. That sometime in 1998, the defendant
Pilipinas Shell Foundation, Inc. thru its
exploration and development arm Shell
Philippines Exploration, expropriated some
325,000 square meters of land belonging to the
plaintiffs for the construction of the Malampaya
Concrete Gravity Structure under the helm of
Shell Philippines Exploration's Malampaya
deepwater gas power project, the value of the
expropriated parcels of land belonging to
plaintiffs amounted to TWENTY-FIVE
MILLION FOUR HUNDRED NINETY-FIVE
THOUSAND PESOS (P25,495,000.00)
computed at SEVENTY FIVE PESOS (P75.00)
per square meter plus a disturbance fee of
EIGHTY THOUSAND PESOS (P80,000) per
occupant. This is the amount paid by the
defendant Corporation to the other lucky
occupants similarly situated as the plaintiffs[.]

2000
4. About 1998, the defendants, upon agreement
drawn up with the Subic Bay Metropolitan
Authority, used this area as a launching site of
its exploration project for Shell CGS Project
(Malampaya project). The project site required
the use of 400,000 square meters of land.
5. The area in the actual occupation and use by
the plaintiffs were inside the 400,000 square
meter site used by the plaintiffs.[130]
[129]
The Complaints allege a similar violative act: petitioners allegedly failed to

sufficiently compensate respondents for their eviction from Sitio Agusuhin:

October 9, 2000
2000
5. That the defendant Corporation thru Mr[.]
6. For the direct benefit of the defendants, the
David Greer, after occupying and actually
plaintiffs were effectively evicted starting in
completing the construction works on the
May 1998. There was a total disregard of the
aforesaid parcels of land, reneged on its verbal rights of the plaintiffs; although, the defendants
promise to compensate the plaintiffs for the
tried to work out an acceptable compensation
value of their lands which were expropriated by package for the plaintiffs, which, however,
the former, for which reason the latter requested failed.
the assistance of counsel who sent a letter to the
defendant dated March 15, 2000; . . .
7. Some of the plaintiffs were paid some
amount, others were not. For those who
....
accepted some amounts, the payment were
insufficient to compensate the damages they
9. That despite several and repeated demands sustained, but they have to accept said amount
from the plaintiff, and defendants['] repeated
for them to somehow start their life.
assurances of payment thru defendant Mr.
Greer, several meetings and submissions of
....
numerous requirements as requested by the

latter, the defendants failed and refused, and
continuously fail and refuse to settle the
abovementioned valid and legal claims of the
plaintiffs, which constrained plaintiffs[']
counsel to send another letter dated April 15,
2000; . . .
10. That after the plaintiffs['] counsel received
defendants['] reply letter dated May 30, 2000,
nothing was heard of from the defendants
again[.][131]
9. In arbitrarily and unlawfully evicting the

plaintiffs from their place of abode and
livelihood, the defendants did not [sic] with
justice, they did not give to the plaintiffs their
due and acted in bad faith. The said action taken
on the plaintiffs was contrary to law, in the
process, they willfully and negligently caused
damage to the plaintiff[s].
...
10. The damages suffered by the plaintiffs by
their eviction from the area are in the following
amounts [Name of Plaintiffs: San Pedro, B Actual
Damages: P1,500,000.00].[132]
As for the reliefs sought, respondents Dante Santos, Efren Santos, Miguel Santos,
Ric Santos, and Bebiana San Pedro, in the Complaint for sum of money, prayed for
amounts equivalent to the "value of their lands[,]"[133] while respondents, in their
Complaint for damages, prayed for actual damages suffered by them. [134] In both
Complaints, respondent Bebiana San Pedro prayed that she be paid
P1,500,000.00 in addition to the prayer for payment of moral damages,
exemplary damages, and attorney's fees.[135] Respondent Bebiana San Pedro sought
substantially identical reliefs in the Complaint for sum of money and the Complaint
for damages.
Because of the substantial identity of parties, causes of action, and reliefs sought in
the Complaint for sum of money and Complaint for damages, all the elements oflitis
pendentia are present with respect to respondent Bebiana San Pedro. Judgment in
any of the Complaints would be res judicata in the other, i.e., a final and executory
judgment in any of the Complaints would be "conclusive of the rights of the parties
or their privies . . . on the points and matters in issue in the first suit." [136]
A final and executory judgment has been rendered on the Complaint for sum of
money. In the Order[137] dated October 3, 2001, Branch 72 of the Regional Trial
Court,[138] Olongapo City dismissed the Complaint for sum of money on the ground
of failure to state a cause of action.[139] The trial court, the same branch that
decided the Complaint for damages, held that respondents had no right to demand
compensation equivalent to the value of the parcels of land they previously
occupied because they never possessed the properties in the concept of an owner.
[140]
Moreover, despite being possessors in bad faith, respondents received
compensation from petitioners.[141] Specifically, respondent Bebiana San Pedro
received P100,000.00 as evidenced by the quitclaim she had signed. [142] She may
not ask for compensation anew.
The trial court Order dated October 3, 2001 was upheld on appeal in the Decision
dated February 27, 2004.[143] The Court of Appeals subsequently issued the Entry of
Judgment declaring the Decision dated February 27, 2004 final and executory as of
April 1, 2004.[144]
Since the Complaint for sum of money and the Complaint for damages assert
substantially identical causes of action and seek similar reliefs, the Decision dated
February 27, 2004 binds respondent Bebiana San Pedro. The Decision dated
February 27, 2004 is res judicata with respect to the right of respondent Bebiana
San Pedro to recover compensation for vacating Sitio Agusuhin.[145] That respondent
Bebiana San Pedro received P100,000.00 from petitioners as disturbance
compensation,[146] and that she voluntarily signed a quitclaim to waive any claims
she might have over the parcel of land she occupied in Sitio Agusuhin, are
conclusive upon this Court.[147]
In sum, respondents Dante U. Santos, Efren U. Santos, Miguel Santos, and Ric U.
Santos revoked the authority to file the Complaint for sum of money on their
behalf. As for the four (4) respondents, there was no pending Complaint for sum of
money when the Complaint for damages was subsequently filed. The trial court,
therefore, erred in dismissing their Complaint for damages on the ground of litis
pendentia.
As for respondent Bebiana San Pedro, the Complaint for sum of money was filed
with her authority. The Complaint for sum of money was pending when the
Complaint for damages was filed. With both Complaints having substantially
identical parties, causes of action, and reliefs sought, litis pendentia was present.
As a ground for filing a motion to dismiss, litis pendentia ripened to res
judicata when the Court of Appeals Decision on the Complaint for sum of money
became final and executory. The trial court did not err in dismissing the Complaint
for damages as to respondent Bebiana San Pedro on the ground of litis pendentia.
II
The trial court and the Court of Appeals differed as to whether the Complaint for
damages should be dismissed. The Complaint for damages was initially dismissed
on the ground of failure to state a cause of action, but the Court of Appeals
reversed and remanded the Complaint to the trial court for further proceedings.
The ground of failure to state a cause of action is based on Rule 16, Section 1(g) of
the Rules of Court:
SECTION 1. Grounds. Within the time for but before filing the answer to the
....
(g) That the pleading asserting the claim states no cause of action[.]
Failure to state a cause of action goes into the sufficiency of the allegation of the
cause of action in the complaint. "When the facts alleged in the complaint show that
the defendant has committed acts constituting a delict or wrong by which he
violates the rights of the plaintiff, causing [the plaintiff] loss or injury, there is
sufficient allegation of a cause of action. Otherwise, there is none." [148]
In this respect, a pleading sufficiently states a cause of action if it "contain[s] in a
methodical and logical form, a plain, concise[,] and direct statement of the ultimate
facts on which the party pleading relies for his [or her] claim[.]" [149] Ultimate facts
are the "important and substantial facts which either directly form the basis of the
primary right and duty, or which directly make up the wrongful acts or omissions of
the defendant."[150] Allegations of evidentiary facts[151] and conclusions of law[152] in a
pleading are omitted for they are unnecessary in determining whether the court has
jurisdiction to take cognizance of the action.
In filing a motion to dismiss on the ground of failure to state a cause of action, a
defendant "hypothetically admits the truth of the facts alleged in the
complaint."[153]Since allegations of evidentiary facts and conclusions of law are
omitted in pleadings, "[t]he hypothetical admission is . . . limited to the relevant
and material facts well pleaded in the complaint and inferences fairly deducible
therefrom."[154] However, it is mandatory[155] that courts "consider other facts within
the range of judicial notice, as well as relevant laws and jurisprudence" [156] in
resolving motions to dismiss.
There are exceptions to the rule on hypothetical admission. In Dabuco v. Court of
Appeals:[157]
There is no hypothetical admission of the veracity of allegations if their falsity is
subject to judicial notice, or if such allegations are legally impossible, or if these
refer to facts which are inadmissible in evidence, or if by the record or document
included in the pleading these allegations appear unfounded. Also, inquiry is not
confined to the complaint if there is evidence which has been presented to the court
by stipulation of the parties, or in the course of hearings related to the case.
[158]
(Citations omitted)
Even assuming the truth of the ultimate facts alleged in the Complaint for damages,
the Complaint states no cause of action. Respondents may have resided in Sitio
Agusuhin, constructed their houses, and planted fruit trees in the area. However,
they failed to allege any circumstance showing that they had occupied Sitio
Agusuhin under claim of ownership for the required number of years. In their
Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss, respondents admitted that they do not own
Sitio Agusuhin.[159] The property belongs to the Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority,
pursuant to Republic Act No. 7227; hence, it is a government property the
possession of which, however long, "never confers title [to] the possessor[.]" [160]
It follows that respondents may not ask compensation equivalent to the value of
the parcels of land they previously occupied in Sitio Agusuhin. The right to demand
compensation for deprivation of property belongs to the owner.[161]
Moreover, respondents may not claim damages equivalent to the value of the
structures they built and the improvements they introduced in Sitio Agusuhin.
Having admitted that they do not own Sitio Agusuhin, they were possessors in bad
faith[162] who lose whatever they built, planted, or sown on the land of another
without right to indemnity.[163]
Specifically with respect to respondents Tomas M. Fredeluces and Ludivico F. Bon,
the allegation that they resided in Sitio Agusuhin prior to the constmction of the
concrete gravity structure may not be hypothetically admitted. Based on the
evidence available during the hearing of the Motion to Dismiss on April 20, 2001,
respondents Tomas M. Fredeluces and Ludivico F. Bon were indeed non-residents of
Sitio Agusuhin prior to the construction of the concrete gravity structure.
Respondents' own evidencethe Report of the Compensation Community Relations
Study Group attached to the Opposition to the Motion to Dismissdeclared
respondent Tomas M. Fredeluces a non-resident of Sitio Agusuhin. [164] Moreover, as
certified by the Punong Barangay of Barangay Cawag, none of the other residents
of Sitio Agusuhin recognized respondent Tomas M. Fredeluces as a fellow resident.
[165]
As for respondent Ludivico F. Bon, the Office of the Punong Barangay of Barangay
Matain, Subic, Zambales certified that he was a resident of Barangay Matain, not of
Sitio Agusuhin.[166] This was corroborated by Hadji, Pilipinas Shell Foundation, Inc.'s
Community Coordinator, in his Affidavit.[167]
These pieces of evidence were never controverted by respondents Tomas M.
Fredeluces and Ludivico F. Bon in their Opposition to or during the hearing of the
Motion to Dismiss. Therefore, respondents Tomas M. Fredeluces and Ludivico F. Bon
should be deemed to have admitted that they never resided in Sitio Agusuhin prior
to the construction of the concrete gravity structure.
Respondents nevertheless argue that they are entitled to damages because of their
unlawful and summary eviction from Sitio Agusuhin. Their own allegations,
however, belie their claim that they were unlawfully and summarily evicted. As
alleged in their Complaint, petitioners "tried to work out an acceptable
compensation package for the [respondents.]"[168] Also alleged in the
Complaint[169] and as evidenced by quitclaims and the Final Report on the
Compensation Claims, some of the respondents received the following amounts as
compensation from petitioners:
Luzviminda B. Andillo
Salvacion A. Bon
Ramiro A. Bon
Elmo Areglo
Rose A. San Pedro
Dante U. Santos, Sr.
Efren U. Santos
Miguel Santos
Ric U. Santos
Simon Marce, Jr.
Joel F. Salinel
Bebiana San Pedro
Marcos B. Corpuz, Jr.
Reynaldo M. Samonte
Ambrocio Villanueva
P17,000.00[170]
150,000.00[171]
100,000.00[172]
270,000.00[173]
103,500.00[174]
200,000.00[175]
270,000.00[176]
150,000.00[177]
35,000.00[178]
100,000.00[179]
125,000.00[180]
140,000.00[181]
200,000.00[182]
100,000.00[183]
150,000.00[184]
In receiving the previously enumerated amounts, respondents declared in their

respective quitclaims that they waived, released, and abandoned any claims thait
they might have had over the parcels of land they occupied in Sitio Agusuhin as
well as the improvements they introduced in the property.
Quitclaims are contracts in the nature of a compromise where parties make
concessions, a lawful device to avoid litigation.[185] That respondents perceived the
amounts they received as "insufficient"[186] does not make the quitclaims invalid.
As for the allegation that respondents were "pressured, coerced[,] or . . . 'sweettalked'"[187] into receiving compensation, this is a conclusion of law that may not be
hypothetically admitted. The circumstances of fraud and mistake must be stated
with particularity.[188] Nothing in the Complaint for damages show how respondents
were particularly "pressured, coerced[,] or . . . 'sweet-talked'" by petitioners into
receiving compensation. As found by the trial court, respondents voluntarily
vacated Sitio Agusuhin.[189]
All told, the Motion to Dismiss was correctly granted on the ground of failure to
state a cause of action.
WHEREFORE, the Petition for Review on Certiorari is GRANTED. The Decision

dated January 25, 2006 and the Resolution dated August 16, 2006 of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 74791 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Complaint
filed before Branch 72 of the Regional Trial Court, Olongapo City, docketed as Civil
Case No. 04-0-2001, is hereby ordered DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.
[1]
Rollo, pp. 14-75.
Id. at 85-98. The Decision was penned by Associate Justice Rebecca De GuiaSalvador and concurred in by Presiding Justice Ruben T. Reyes (subsequently
appointed as Associate Justice of this Court) and Associate Justice Aurora SantiagoLagman of the First Division.
[2]
Id. at 100-101. The Resolution was penned by Associate Justice Rebecca De

Guia-Salvador and concurred in by Presiding Justice Ruben T. Reyes (subsequently
appointed as Associate Justice of this Court) and Associate Justice Aurora SantiagoLagman of the Former First Division.
[3]
Id. at 202-209. The Complaint was entitled Action for Damages with Motion to
Litigate as Paupers.
[4]
[5]
Id. at 97, Court of Appeals Decision.
[6]
Id. at 85-86 and 97.
[7]
Id. at 94-95.
[8]
Exec. Order No. 473 (2005), whereas clause.
[9]
Exec. Order No. 254 (1995), whereas clause.
[10]
Rollo, p. 86.
[11]
Id.
[12]
Id.
[13]
Bases Conversion and Development Act of 1992.
[14]
Rep. Act No. 7227, sec. 12 provides:
Sec. 12. Subic Special Economic Zone. - Subject to the concurrence by resolution of
the Sangguniang Panlungsod of the City of Olongapo and the Sangguniang Bayanof
the Municipalities of Subic, Morong and Hermosa, there is hereby created a Special
Economic and Free-port Zone consisting of . . . the lands occupied by the Subic
Naval Base and its contiguous extensions as embraced, covered, and defme[d] by
the 1947 Military Bases Agreement between the Philippines and United States of
America as amended[.]
[15]
Rollo, pp. 86-87.
[16]
Id. at 87.
[17]
Id.
[18]
Id. at 88.
[19]
Id.
[20]
Id.
[21]
Id. at 202, Complaint for damages.
[22]
Id. at 204.
[23]
Id. at 205.
[24]
Id.
[25]
Id.
[26]
Id.
[27]
Id.
[28]
Id. at 205-206.
[29]
Id. at 206.
[30]
Id.
[31]
Id.
[32]
Id. at 207.
[33]
Id.
[34]
Id. at 103-135.
[35]
Id. at 103-104.
[36]
Id. at 198-201.
[37]
Id. at 112-113, Motion to Dismiss.
[38]
Id. at 199-201, Complaint for sum of money.
[39]
Id. at 112-116, Motion to Dismiss.
[40]
Id. at 124-125.
[41]
Id. at 118-119.
[42]
Id. at 125-132.
[43]
Id.
[44]
Id. at 132-133.
[45]
Id. at 132-134.
[46]
Id. at 224, Opposition.
[47]
Id. at 224-237. The Opposition was entitled Opposition to: Motion to Dismiss.
[48]
Id. at 224-225.
[49]
Id. at 225-228.
[50]
Id. at 234.
[51]
Id.
[52]
Id.
[53]
Id.
[54]
Id.
[55]
Id. at 234-235.
[56]
Id. at 235-236.
[57]
Id. at 236-237.
[58]
Id. at 254, Regional Trial Court Order dated June 7, 2001.
[59]
Id. at 249-254. The Order was issued by Presiding Judge Eliodoro G. Ubiadas.
[60]
Id. at 254.
[61]
Id. at 249-250.
[62]
Id. at 250.
[63]
Id.
[64]
Id. at 251.
[65]
Id.
[66]
Id. at 183-190.
[67]
Id. at 187-188.
[68]
Id. at 254, Regional Trial Court Order dated June 7, 2001.
[69]
Id.
[70]
Id.
[71]
Id. at 261, Fredeluces, et al.'s Appelants' Brief.
Id. at 255-278, Fredeluces, et al.'s Appellants' Brief, and 287-358, Pilipinas Shell
Foundation, Inc., et al.'s Appellees' Brief.
[72]
[73]
Id. at 93-94, Court of Appeals Decision.
[74]
Id. at 96.
[75]
Id.
[76]
Id. at 95.
[77]
Id. at 94-95.
[78]
Id. at 97-98.
[79]
Id. at 31, Petition for Review on Certiorari.
[80]
Id. at 101, Court of Appeals Resolution.
[81]
[82]
Id. at 430-434.
[83]
Id. at 445-456, Reply.
[84]
Id. at 43-47.
[85]
Id. at 366-371, Regional Trial Court Order dated October 3, 2001.
[86]
Id. at 48-49, Petition for Review on Certiorari.
Id. at 373-388. The Decision, dated February 27, 2004 and docketed as CA-G.R.
CV No. 74724, was penned by Associate Justice Portia Alio-Hormachuelos (Chair)
and was concurred in by Associate Justices Perlita J. Tria Tirona and Rosalinda
Asuncion Vicente of the Tenth Division.
[87]
[88]
Id. at 389.
[89]
Id. at 34-39, Petition for Review on Certiorari.
[90]
Id. at 43-47.
[91]
Id. at 41-43.
[92]
Id.
[93]
Id. at 41-42.
[94]
Id. at 42-43 and 68.
[95]
Id. at 47.
[96]
Id. at 47-51.
[97]
Id. at 50.
[98]
Id.
[99]
Id.
[100]
Id. at 51.
[101]
Id. at 51-53.
[102]
Id. at 53-55.
[103]
Id. at 55.
[104]
Article 449. He who builds, plants or sows in bad faith on the land of another, loses
what is built, planted or sown without right to indemnity.
[105]
Rollo, pp. 56-57.
[106]
Id. at 57-63.
[107]
Id. at 63-66.
[108]
Id. at 69-71.
[109]
Id. at 431-433, Fredeluces, et al.'s Compliance and Comment.
[110]
Id. at 431-432.
[111]
Id. at 432-433.
[112]
Id. at 433.
[113]
RULES OF COURT, Rule 2, sec. 3 provides:
RULE 2. Cause of Action

....
SEC. 3. One suit for a single cause of action. A party may not institute more than
one suit for a single cause of action.
Victronics Computers, Inc. v. Regional Trial Court, Branch 63, Makati, G.R. No.
104019, January 25, 1993, 217 SCRA 517, 531 [Per J. Davide, Jr., Third
Division];Arceo v. Oliveros, et al., 219 Phil. 279, 287 (1985) [Per J. Cuevas, Second
Division].
[114]
Feliciano v. Court of Appeals, 350 Phil. 499, 505 (1998) [Per J. Bellosillo, First
Division].
[115]
[116]
Buan v. Lopez, Jr., 229 Phil. 65, 68 (1986) [Per J. Narvasa, First Division].
[117]
Id.
Dasmarias Village Association, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 359 Phil. 944, 951
(1998) [Per J. Romero, Third Division].
[118]
[119]
Id. at 952.
[120]
Id.
[121]
Rollo, p. 238.
Gatmaytan v. Court of Appeals, 335 Phil. 155, 167 (1997) [Per C.J. Narvasa,
Third Division].
[122]
[123]
RULES OF COURT, Rule 2, sec. 2.
The City of Bacolod v. San Miguel Brewery, Inc., 140 Phil. 363, 371 (1969) [Per
J. Barredo, En Banc].
[124]
[125]
Id.
[126]
Id.
[127]
Rollo, pp. 198-199, Complaint for sum of money.
[128]
Id. at 204-205, Complaint for damages.
[129]
Id. at 199, Complaint for sum of money.
[130]
[131]
Id. at 199-200, Complaint for sum of money.
[132]
Id. at 205-206, Complaint for damages.
[133]
Id. at 199, Complaint for sum of money.
[134]
[135]
Id. at 199, Complaint for sum of money, and 206, Complaint for damages.
Philippine National Bank v. Barreto, 52 Phil. 818, 824 (1929) [Per J. Villamor,
En Banc].
[136]
Rollo, pp. 366-371. The Order was penned by Presiding Judge Eliodoro G.
Ubiadas.
[137]
[138]
Id. at 373, Court of Appeals Decision in CA-G.R. CV No. 74724.
[139]
Id. at 370-371, Regional Trial Court Order in Civil Case No. 399-0-2000.
[140]
Id. at 366-367.
[141]
Id. at 368-369.
[142]
Id. at 368.
[143]
[144]
Id. at 389, Entry of Judgment.
See Luzon Development Bank v. Conquilla, 507 Phil. 509 (2005) [Per J.
Panganiban, Third Division].
[145]
[146]
Rollo, p. 361, Regional Trial Court Order dated October 3, 2001.
[147]
U. Baez Electric Light Company (UBELCO) v. Abra Electric Cooperative, Inc.

(ABRECO), et al., 204 Phil. 440, 445 (1982) [Per J. Plana, First Division].
[148]
[149]
Remitere, et al. v. Yulo, et al., 123 Phil. 57, 62 (1966) [Per J. Zaldivar, En
Banc].
[150]
[151]
Viola v. The Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur, 47 Phil. 849, 853 (1925)
[Per J. Villa-Real, En Banc].
[152]

(ABRECO), et al., 204 Phil. 440, 445 (1982) [Per J. Plana, First Division].
[153]
[154]
Id.
[155]
SECTION 1. Judicial notice, when mandatory. - A court shall take judicial notice,
without the introduction of evidence, of the existence and territorial extent of
states, their political history, forms of government and symbols of nationality, the
law of nations, the admiralty and maritime courts of the world and their seals, the
political constitution and history of the Philippines, the official acts of the legislative,
executive and judicial departments of the Philippines, the laws of nature, the
measure of time, and the geographical divisions.
(ABRECO) et al., 204 Phil. 440, 445 (1982) [Per J. Plana, First Division].
[156]
[157]
379 Phil. 939 (2000) [Per J. Kapunan, First Division].
[158]
Id. at 950-951.
[159]
Rollo, p. 234, Tomas M. Fredeluces, et al.'s Opposition to: Motion to Dismiss.
Director of Lands v. Judge Reyes, 160-A Phil. 832, 851 (1975) [Per J. Antonio,
En Banc].
[160]
[161]
Article 435. No person shall be deprived of his property except by competent

authority and for public use and always upon payment of just compensation.
Should this requirement be not first complied with, the courts shall protect and, in a
proper case, restore the owner in his possession.
[162]
Article 526. He is deemed a possessor in good faith who is not aware that there
exists in his title or mode of acquisition any flaw which invalidates it.
He is deemed a possessor in bad faith who possesses in any case contrary to the
foregoing. Mistake upon a doubtful or difficult question of law may be the basis of
good faith.
[163]
[164]
Rollo, p. 253, Regional Trial Court Order dated June 7, 2001.
[165]
Id. at 196, Certification.
[166]
Id. at 195.
[167]
Id. at 183-190.
[168]
[169]
Id.
Id. at 154, Luzviminda B. Andillo's Agreement (with Release, Waiver and

Quitclaim).
[170]
[171]
Id. at 150, Salvacion A. Bon's Agreement (with Release, Waiver and Quitclaim).
[172]
Id. at 152, Ramiro A. Bon's Agreement (with Release, Waiver and Quitclaim).
[173]
Id. at 156, Elmo Areglo's Agreement (with Release, Waiver and Quitclaim).
Id. at 158, Rose A. San Pedro's Agreement (with Release, Waiver and
Quitclaim).
[174]
Id. at 160, Dante U. Santos, Sr.'s Agreement (with Release, Waiver and
Quitclaim).
[175]
[176]
Id. at 164, Efren U. Santos' Agreement (with Release, Waiver and Quitclaim).
[177]
Id. at 162, Miguel Santos' Agreement (with Release, Waiver and Quitclaim).
[178]
Id at 166, Ric U. Santos' Agreement (with Release, Waiver and Quitclaim)
[179]
Id. at 168, Simon Marce, Jr.'s Agreement (with Release, Waiver and Quitclaim).
[180]
Id. at 170, Joel F. Salinel's Agreement (with Release, Waiver and Quitclaim).
Id at 172, Bebiana San Pedro's Agreement (with Release, Waiver and

Quitclaim).
[181]
Id. at 146, Marcos B. Corpuz, Jr.'s Agreement (with Release, Waiver and
Quitclaim).
[182]
Id. at 147, Reynaldo M. Samonte's Agreement (with Release, Waiver and

Quitclaim).
[183]
Id. at 145, Pilipinas Shell Foundation, Inc.'s Final Report on Compensation

Claims.
[184]
[185]
Article 2028. A compromise is a contract whereby the parties, by making reciprocal

concessions, avoid a litigation or put an end to one already commenced.
[186]
Rollo, p. 205, Complaint for damages.
[187]
Id. at 205-206.
[188]
Rule 8. Manner of Making Allegations in Pleadings

....
SEC 5. Fraud, mistake, condition of the mind. In all averments of fraud or
mistake, the circumstances constituting fraud or mistake must be stated with
particularity. Malice, intent, 189 knowledge or other condition of the mind of a
person may be averred generally.
[189]
Rollo, p. 251, Regional Trial Court Order dated June 7, 2001.

G.R.
No.
172593
NAPOLEON S. RONQUILLO, JR., EDNA G. RAA, ROMEO REFRUTO, PONCIANO T. ANTEGRO, ET AL., PETITIONERS, VS.
NATIONAL ELECTRIFICATION ADMINISTRATION, EDITA S. BUENO, MARIANO T. CUENCO, AND DIANA M. SAN LUIS,
RESPONDENTS.
April 20, 2016
SECOND DIVISION
[ G.R. No. 172593, April 20, 2016 ]
NAPOLEON S. RONQUILLO, JR., EDNA G. RAA, ROMEO
REFRUTO, PONCIANO T. ANTEGRO, ET AL., PETITIONERS, VS.
NATIONAL ELECTRIFICATION ADMINISTRATION, EDITA S.
BUENO, MARIANO T. CUENCO, AND DIANA M. SAN LUIS,
RESPONDENTS.
DECISION
LEONEN, J.:
Under Republic Act No. 6758, the Cost of Living Allowance (COLA) has been
integrated into the standardized salary rates of government workers. Its back
payment to the former employees of the National Electrification Administration is,
therefore, unauthorized.
This resolves the Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules
of Civil Procedure.[1] The Petition is an offshoot of the Regional Trial Court's
disposition of Special Civil Action No. Q-04-53967.[2]
To provide the country's total electrification on an area coverage basis, the National
Electrification Administration (NEA) was established as a government agency.[3]NEA
later became a public corporation under Presidential Decree No. 269. [4] Expanded
by succeeding laws,[5] NEA has since sought to bring electrical power to rural and
remote areas, as well as enhance the competence of electric distribution utilities in
a deregulated electricity market.[6]
Petitioners Napoleon S. Ronquillo, Jr., Edna G. Raa, Romeo Refruto, Ponciano T.
Antegro, and 151 others[7] (Ronquillo, Jr., et al.) are former employees of NEA.
Before July 1, 1989, NEA paid its employees their COLA, which was equivalent to
40% of their basic pay,[8] in addition to their basic pay and other allowances.[9]
On July 1, 1989, Republic Act No. 6758,[10] otherwise known as the Compensation
and Position Classification Act of 1989, became the new salary standardization law
applicable to all government officials and employees.[11]
Section 12[12] of Republic Act No. 6758 provides that, as a general rule, all
allowances are already included in the new standardized salary rates. Thus, NEA
discontinued paying the COLA of its employees from July 1, 1989.
Pursuant to Republic Act No. 6758,[13] the Department of Budget and Management
issued Corporate Compensation Circular No. 10 dated February 15, 1989, otherwise
known as Rules and Regulations for the Implementation of the Revised
Compensation and Position Classification Plan in Government-Owned and/or
-Controlled Corporations and Government Financial Institutions (GOCCs/GFIs). [14]
Taking its cue from Section 12 of Republic Act No. 6758, which provides for the
general rule of integration of allowances into the basic salary, Corporate
Compensation Circular No. 10 states that allowances given on top of basic salary
shall be "discontinued] without qualification[.]"[15]
Otherwise, payment of these allowances constitutes an "illegal disbursement of
public funds."[16]
Corporate Compensation Circular No. 10, which took effect on November 1, 1989,
was challenged before this Court.[17] In De Jesus v. Commission on Audit[18] this
Court struck down Corporate Compensation Circular No. 10 because it lacked
publication and the employees were not given the opportunity to be heard. [19] The
Decision was promulgated on August 12, 1998.[20]

After Corporate Compensation Circular No. 10 was ruled as ineffective and
unenforceable, several government agencies began giving back pays to their
employees.[21]The back pay consisted of the allowances that had been discontinued.
[22]
The Department of Budget and Management re-issued and published Corporate

Compensation Circular No. 10, which became effective on March 16, 1999. [23] NEA
paid the COLA of its employees for the period of July 1, 1989 until July 15, 1999. [24]
On November 12, 2001, the Department of Budget and Management issued Budget
Circular 2001-03[25] stating that the COLA, among others, is already deemed
integrated in the basic salary.[26] Payment of the COLA is, therefore, unauthorized.
[27]
The relevant portions of Budget Circular 2001-03 read as follows:

2.0 The [Supreme Court] in [De Jesus v. Commission on Audit and Jamoralin]
declared as ineffective due to non-publication, Corporate Compensation Circular
(CCC) No. 10[,] which contained the rules and regulations for the implementation
of RA No. 6758 insofar as Government-owned or Controlled Corporations and
Government Financial Institutions are concerned.
3.0 In view of such declaration, therefore, the explicit provisions of Section 12 of
RANo. 6758 shall prevail....
xxx
Consequently, only those allowances specifically mentioned in the exceptions under
Section 12 may continue to be granted; all others are deemed integrated in the
standardized salary rates.
4.0 This provision shall apply to all government employees in the employ of NGAs
[national government agencies], LGUs [local government units], GOCCs
[government owned and controlled corporations] and GFIs [government financial
institutions].
5.0 Further, the standardized salaries reflected in the current budgets of NGAs,
LGUs, GOCCs and GFIs are already inclusive of the consolidated allowances.Thus,
providing for a separate grant of said allowances on top of the standardized salary
rates is tantamount to double compensation which is prohibited by the Constitution.
6.0 In view of the foregoing, payments of allowances and compensation, such as
COLA, amelioration allowance and inflation-connected allowances, among others,

which are already integrated in the basic salary, are deemed unauthorized, unless
otherwise provided by law.[28] (Emphasis supplied)
In 2001,[29] Congress passed Republic Act No. 9136,[30] otherwise known as the
Electric Power Industry Reform Act of 2001 (EPIRA), which provides for a
framework to restructure the power industry.[31]
Under Section 63 of the EPIRA, national government employees who would be
displaced or separated from services due to the restructuring of the power industry
are entitled to separation pay. These affected employees would be considered
legally terminated, pursuant to Rule 33, Section 3 (b)(ii) [32] of the EPIRA
Implementing Rules and Regulations.
The reorganization of NEA affected the employment of Ronquillo, Jr., et al. On
November 7, 2003, more than half of them chose early retirement, while the rest
were dismissed from work on December 31, 2003. [33]
Ronquillo, Jr., et al. were given separation pay, the total amount of which excludes
the balance of their COLA,[34] specifically for the period of July 16, 1999 until their
separation from service on November 7 or December 31, 2003. [35] They
demanded[36] that NEA, Administrator Edita S. Bueno (Administrator Bueno),
[37]
Deputy Administrator for Corporate Resources Mariano T. Cuenco,[38] and Human
Resources Management Director Diana M. San Luis [39] (NEA, et al.) give back pay
for their COLA,[40] but this was refused.[41] NEA, et al. informed them that NEA
needed the funds to cover the separation pay of all the affected employees. [42]
On September 8, 2004, Administrator Bueno wrote to the Commission on Audit,
seeking to clarify the legality of paying the COLA as part of the back pay of former
NEA employees.[43]
On October 12, 2004, Edgardo T. Guiriba, Supervising Auditor of the Commission on
Audit, furnished a copy of the 1st Indorsement[44] dated September 22, 2004 to
Administrator Bueno.[45] Prepared by the Commission on Audit's Director of Legal
and Adjudication for the Office of Legal Affairs, the 1st Indorsement affirmed the
position of the Commission on Audit's Director of Cluster III for Public Utilities that
NEA employees were no longer entitled to the payment of the COLA after Corporate
Compensation Circular No. 10 was finally published.[46] the Regional Trial Court.[47]
In its Decision[48] dated December 9, 2005, the Regional Trial Court denied the
Petition for lack of merit. The trial court held:
As correctly raised by the respondents, in order for a petition for mandamus, the
petitioner must show that he has a well defined, clear and certain right for the
grant thereof. Section 3 Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court refers to unlawful
neglect of the performance of an act enjoined by law or which unlawfully excludes
another from the use and enjoyment of a right or office to which such other is
entitled.
In the advent of RA 6758 and DBM CC[C] No. 10, the petition must clearly establish
with certainty the relief sought. Petitioners have failed to cite any provision of law
which unequivocally provides for petitioners' continued entitlement to the COLA
after the reissuance and publication of DBM CC[C] No. 10. There was likewise no
showing of a law that clearly establishes petitioners' legal right to the same which
respondents may be directed to implement. Considering the reissuance and
publication of DBM CC[C] No. 10, a question arises whether the payment of cost of
living allowance would continue. This already creates doubt as to the legal basis of
petitioner's (sic) claim. Clearly, petitioners must first establish a clear legal right to
the act required to be done or the relief sought. A clear legal right derived from a
clear provision of law or jurisprudence and not from mere conjectures or doubtful
interpretation of the law.
WHEREFORE, the petition for Mandamus is DENIED for lack of merit. [49] (Emphasis
supplied)
Ronquillo, Jr., et al. moved for reconsideration,[50] but the Motion was likewise
denied[51] on March 28, 2006. Raising a question of law,[52] they appealed directly
before this Court under Rule 45 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Court. [53]
In the Resolution dated August 30, 2006, this Court required Ronquillo, Jr., et al. to
submit a sufficient verification and certification against forum shopping, as only
Atty. Napoleon S. Ronquillo, Jr. affixed his signature.[54]
By way of compliance,[55] Ronquillo, Jr., et al. appointed Edna G. Raa as attorneyin-fact of other petitioners and authorized her to sign the Verification and
Certification Against Forum Shopping on their behalf.[56] Of the 155 named
petitioners, only 103 signed Edna G. Raa's Special Power of Attorney. Dennis
Abante, Restituto Abellera, and other named petitioners[57] did not.[58]
In their Petition for Review on Certiorari,[59] Ronquillo, Jr., et al. claim that they
"have acquired a vested right over" the payment of the COLA, [60] and that its nonpayment is equivalent to diminution of pay.[61]
In the Resolution dated August 30, 2006, this Court required NEA, Edita S. Bueno,
Mariano T. Cuenco, and Diana M. San Luis (NEA, et al.) to file their Comment on the
Petition. NEA, et al. failed to timely submit their Comment.[62] They gave an
Explanation and Apology,[63] which this Court accepted and noted.[64]
In their Comment dated April 17, 2007, NEA, et al. argued that the publication of
Corporate Compensation Circular No. 10 terminated Ronquillo, Jr., et al.'s
entitlement to COLA.[65] The lack of legal basis for their COLA claims means that
mandamus cannot compel NEA, et al. to release payment for such claims. [66]
Ronquillo, Jr., et al. filed their Reply on April 12, 2007.[67] They argue that the
second sentence of Section 12 of Republic Act No. 6758 serves as the basis for their
entitlement to the COLA. The second sentence reads as follows: "Such other
additional compensation, whether in cash or in kind, being received by incumbents
only as of July 1, 1989 [and are] not integrated into the standardized salary rates[,]
shall continue to be authorized."
Ronquillo, Jr., et al. argue that they are still entitled to the balance of their COLA
benefits from July 16, 1999 up to November 7 or December 31, 2003, the date of
their separation from service.[68] They claim that they had been receiving COLA
benefits before Republic Act No. 6758 became effective, and the COLA was not
integrated into their standardized salary rate.[69] According to them, the nonpayment of their COLA is a diminution of compensation, over which they have a
vested right.[70]
On the other hand, NEA, et al. state that the Regional Trial Court has no jurisdiction
over the subject matter.[71] They allege that the pleading states no cause of action
because petitioners failed to establish a clear legal right for the issuance of a writ of
mandamus.[72] There is neither jurisprudence nor law to support their claim for the
COLA back pay.[73]
Further, NEA, et al. argue that there is no diminution of benefits, and that Ronquillo,
Jr., et al. failed to show that the COLA was not yet integrated into their salaries.
[74]
Even the Commission on Audit affirmed Ronquillo, Jr., et al.'s non-entitlement to
the COLA.[75] NEA, et al. state that if they released funds for the payment of the
COLA, they would be at risk of violating Technical Malversation under Article
217[76] of the Revised Penal Code.[77]
For resolution are the following:
First, whether petitioners Ronquillo, Jr., et al. can appeal the Regional Trial Court's
Decision directly before this Court; and
Second, whether petitioners Ronquillo, Jr., et al. are entitled to the payment of the
COLA after the effectivity of Republic Act No. 6758 and Corporate Compensation
Circular No. 10.

We deny the Petition.
I
We first resolve the procedural matters.

According to respondents, the case is premature as petitioners failed to exhaust
administrative remedies.[78] Respondents are mistaken. The doctrine of exhaustion
of administrative remedies does not apply when the issue deals with a question of
law:
[The case] does not involve an examination of the probative value of the evidence
presented by the parties. There is a question of law when the doubt or difference
arises as to what the law is on a certain state of facts, and not as to the truth or the
falsehood of alleged facts. Said question [of law] at best could be resolved only
tentatively by the administrative authorities. The final decision on the matter rests
not with them but with the courts of justice.Exhaustion of administrative remedies
does not apply, because nothing of an administrative nature is to be or can be
done. The issue does not require technical knowledge and experience but one that
would involve the interpretation and application of law.[79] (Emphasis supplied,
citations omitted)
Issues dealing with the interpretation of law solely involve a question of law. A
question of law exists when the law applicable to a particular set of facts is not
settled, whereas a question of fact arises when the truth or falsehood of alleged
facts is in doubt.[80]
The case involves a question of law, specifically, whether Republic Act No. 6758 and
the re-issuance and publication of the Department of Budget and Management's
Corporate Compensation Circular No. 10 entitle petitioners to the back pay of the
COLA.
II
Republic Act No. 6758 and its implementing rules, Corporate Compensation Circular
No. 10, have already included the COLA in the government worker's standardized
salary rates.
This Court is mindful that the case of Taada v. Hon. Tuvera[81] mandates the
publication of executive issuances as a requirement for its validity.[82] Nevertheless,
inMaritime Industry Authority v. Commission on Audit[82] we have stated that the

non-publication of a Department of Budget and Management circular implementing
Republic Act No. 6758 does not invalidate the non-integration of allowances in the
standardized salary as provided by law.[84] In any case, the subsequent re-issuance
and publication cured any alleged defect of Corporate Compensation Circular No.
10.
Petitioners argue that Corporate Compensation Circular No. 10, as the
implementing measure, cannot produce an effect that is not intended by the law it
seeks to implement.[85] They claim that notwithstanding the re-issuance and
publication of the Corporate Compensation Circular No. 10, the second sentence of
Section 12 of Republic Act No. 6758 provides that "other additional compensation"
shall continue to be granted. This is erroneous.[86]
Section 12 of Republic Act No. 6758 states the general rule on integration. [87] That
is to say, all allowances are generally integrated into the government employee's
standardized salary rates:
Section 12. Consolidation of Allowances and Compensation. - All
allowances, except for representation and transportation allowances; clothing and
laundry allowances; subsistence allowance of marine officers and crew on board
government vessels and hospital personnel; hazard pay; allowances of foreign
service personnel stationed abroad; and such other additional compensation not
otherwise specified herein as may be determined by the DBM, shall be deemed
included in the standardized salary rates herein prescribed. Such other additional
compensation, whether in cash or in kind, being received by incumbents only as of
July 1, 1989 not integrated into the standardized salary rates shall continue to be
authorized. (Emphasis supplied)
By exception, Section 12 provides for seven (7) types of allowances that do not
form part of basic pay, or non-integrated allowances. All other allowances, save for
these items, are deemed included in the government employee's standardized
salary. These are as follows:
(1) representation and transportation allowances (RATA);
(2) clothing and laundry allowances;
(3) subsistence allowance of marine officers and crew on board government
vessels;
(4) subsistence allowance of hospital personnel;
(5) hazard pay;

(6) allowances of foreign service personnel stationed abroad; and
(7) such other additional compensation not otherwise specified in Section 12 as
may be determined by the [Department of Budget and Management]. [88]
In National Tobacco Administration v. Commission on Audit,[89] this Court has held
that these enumerated exceptions "have one thing in commonthey belong to one
category of privilege called allowances which are usually granted to officials and
employees of the government to defray or reimburse the expenses incurred in the
performance of their official functions."[90]
The six (6) non-integrated allowances have clearly omitted the COLA. This is
because the COLA is not an allowance that seeks to reimburse expenses incurred in
the fulfillment of the government worker's official functions. [91] Rather, as this Court
has ruled in Gutierrez, et al. v. Department of Budget and Management, et al.,
[92]
the COLA is meant to cover for the government employee's rising cost of living:
As defined, cost of living refers to "the level of prices relating to a range of
everyday items" or "the cost of purchasing those goods and services which are
included in an accepted standard level of consumption." Based on this premise,
COLA is a benefit intended to cover increases in the cost of living. Thus, it is and
should be integrated into the standardized salary rates.[93] (Emphasis supplied,
citations omitted)
We now determine whether the Department of Budget and Management likewise
excludes the COLA from the exceptions to the general rule on integration, pursuant
to item 7 of Section 12.
In Philippine Ports Authority (PPA) Employees Hired After July 1, 1989 v.
Commission on Audit,[94] this Court has held that Section 12 of Republic Act No.
6758 is self-executing for the first six (6) items, but not for the seventh item.
[95]
The seventh item can only "be deemed legally completed"[96] after the issuance
and publication of the implementing rules and regulations of Republic Act No. 6758.
[97]
Providing for implementing rules and regulations, the Department of Budget and
Management issued Corporate Compensation Circular No. 10. This Circular
establishes guidelines to determine the "other additional compensation[,]" [98] which
are not deemed integrated into the government employee's standardized salary
rates.
These non-integrated allowances are found in Sections 5.4 and 5.5 of Corporate
Compensation Circular No. 10. Section 5.4 of Corporate Compensation Circular No.
10 provides:
5.4 The following allowances/fringe benefits which were authorized to [Government-Owned

and Controlled Corporations/Government Financial Institutions] under the standardized
Position Classification and Compensation Plan . . . are not to be integrated into the basic
salary and allowed to be continued after June 30, 1989 only to incumbents of positions who
are authorized and actually receiving such allowances/benefits as of said date[:]
5.4.1 Representation and Transportation Allowances (RATA)[;]
5.4.2 Uniform and Clothing Allowance;
5.4.3 Hazard Pay as authorized by law;
5.4.4 Honoraria/additional compensation for employees on detail with special projects on
inter-agency undertakings;
5.4.5 Honoraria for services rendered by researchers, experts and specialists who are of
acknowledged authorities in their fields of specialization;
5.4.6 Honoraria for lecturers and resource persons/speakers;
5.4.7 Overtime Pay as authorized by law;
5.4.8 Laundry and subsistence allowances of marine officers and crew on board
GOCCs/GFIs owned vessels and used in their operations, and of hospital personnel
who attend directly to patients and who by nature of their duties are required to wear
uniforms;
5.4.9 Quarters Allowance of officials and employees who are entitled to the same;
5.4.1 Overseas, Living Quarters and other allowances presently authorized for personnel
0
stationed abroad;
5.4.11Night Differential of personnel on night duty;
5.4.1 Per Diems of members of the governing Boards of GOCCs/GFIs at the rate as
2
prescribed in their respective Charters;
5.4.1 Flying Pay of personnel undertaking aerial flights;
3
5.4.1 Per Diems/Allowances of Chairman and Members/Staff of collegial bodies and
4
Committees; and
5.4.1 Per Diems/Allowances of officials and employees on official foreign and local travel
5
outside of their official station.
Section 5.5 of Corporate Compensation Circular No. 10 likewise provides:
5.5 The following allowances/fringe benefits authorized to GOCCs/GFIs ... are not likewise to
be integrated into the basic salary and alldwed to be continued only for incumbents of
positions as of June 30, 1989 who are authorized and actually receiving said
allowances/benefits as of said date, at the same terms and conditions prescribed in said
issuances[:]
5.5.1Rice Subsidy;
5.5.2Sugar Subsidy;
5.5.3Death Benefits other than those granted by the GSIS;
5.5.4Medical/dental/optical allowances/benefits;
5.5.5Children's Allowance;
5.5.6Special Duty Pay/Allowance;
5.5.7Meal Subsidy;
5.5.8Longevity Pay; and
5.5.9Teller's Allowance
The COLA is absent in the list of the Department of Budget and Management's
determined non-integrated allowances.
In Land Bank of the Philippines v. Naval Jr.,[99] we have ruled that without a doubt,
the COLA has "not been expressly excluded from the general rule of
integration[.]"[100] Therefore, based on a clear reading of Section 12 of Republic Act
No. 6758, vis-a-vis Sections 5.4 and 5.5 of Corporate Compensation Circular No.
10, the COLA has already formed part of petitioners' standardized salary rates on
July 1, 1989, the date of effectivity of the Compensation and Position Classification
Act of 1989.
To justify their claim for the COLA back pay, petitioners argue that the second
sentence of Section 12 applies.[101] The second sentence states: "Such other
additional compensation, whether in cash or in kind, being received by incumbents
only as of July 1, 1989 not integrated into the standardized salary rates shall
continue to be authorized."
Petitioners are mistaken.
The second sentence of Section 12 plainly provides that its application is subject to
two (2) conditions: that the recipients must be incumbents when Republic Act No.
6758 took effect,[102] and that the additional compensation must not have been
integrated into their standardized salary rates. The second condition is not true of
the COLA.
The COLA falls under "all allowances" referred to in the first sentence of Section 12:
"All allowances . . . shall be deemed included in the standardized salary rates herein
prescribed." Nothing in the exceptions found in Section 12 mentions the COLA.
This finds further support in Section 4 (Definition of Terms) of Corporate
Compensation Circular No. 10.
Section 4 of Corporate Compensation Circular No. 10 defines the government
employee's present salary as the sum of one's actual basic salary, including the
COLA benefits, among others:
4.0 DEFINITION OF TERMS
4.1 The present salary of an incumbent for purposes of this Circular shall refer to the sum
total of actual basic salary including allowances enumerated hereunder, being received as
of June 30, 1989 and authorized pursuant to [Presidential Decree] No. 985 and other
legislative or administrative issuances:
4.1.1 Cost-of-Living Allowance/Bank Equity Pay (COLA/BEP) equivalent to forty
percent (40%) of basic salary of P300.00 per month, whichever is higher;
....
4.1.3 COLA granted to [Government-Owned and Controlled Corporations/Government
Financial Institutions] covered by the Compensation and Position Classification
Plan for the regular agencies/offices of the National Government and to
GOCCs/GFIs following the Compensation and Position Classification Plan under
[Letter of Implementation] No. 104/CCC No. 1 and [Letter of Implementation] No.
97/CCC No. 2, in the amount of P550.00 per month for those whose monthly basic
salary is PI,501 and above, granted on top of the COLA/BEP mentioned in item
4.1.1 above;
....
4.2. Allowances enumerated above are deemed integrated into the basic salary for the
position effective July 1, 1989.
(Emphasis supplied)
Land Bank of the Philippines settles the controversy: Corporate Compensation
Circular No. 10 specifically includes the COLA granted to employees of governmentowned and controlled corporations as part of their basic salary beginning July 1,
1989.[103] Under Presidential Decree No. 269,[104] NEA is a government-owned and
controlled corporation.
Thus, the applicable laws and jurisprudence establish that the former NEA
employees are not entitled to COLA back pays for two (2) reasons: Republic Act No.
6758 does not mention the COLA as an exception to the general rule on integration;
and Corporate Compensation Circular No. 10 provides that a public corporation such
as NEA has already incorporated the COLA in its employees' basic pay.
III
Petitioners argue that respondents' denial of their claim is violative of the rule
against non-diminution of pay.[105]
There is no diminution of pay when an existing benefit is substituted in exchange
for one of equal or better value. As we have extensively discussed, Republic Act No.
6758 has already included the COLA in the standardized salary rates of government
officers and employees. The rule on non-diminution of benefits is, therefore,
inapplicable.
In Gutierrez, et al.:[106]
[The COLA] is deemed included in the standardized salary rates of government

employees since it falls under the general rule of integration"all allowances."
More importantly, the integration [of the COLA into the standardized salary rates]
was not by mere legal fiction since it was factually integrated into the employees'
salaries. Records show that the government employees were informed by their
respective offices of their new position titles and their corresponding salary grades
when they were furnished with the Notices of Position Allocation and Salary
Adjustment (NPASA). The NPASA provided the breakdown of the employee's gross
monthly salary as of June 30, 1989 and the composition of his standardized pay
under R.A. 6758. Notably, the COLA was considered part of the employees' monthly
income.
In truth, petitioners never really suffered any diminution in pay as a consequence
of the consolidation of COLA into their standardized salary rates. There is thus
nothing in [this case] which can be the subject of a back pay since the amount
corresponding to COLA was never withheld from petitioners in the first place.
[107]
(Emphasis supplied, citations omitted)
Budget Circular 2001-03 dated November 12, 2001 of the Department of Budget
and Management also states:
5.0 ... the standardized salaries reflected in the current budgets of [Government
Owned and Controlled Corporations] are already inclusive of the consolidated
allowances. Thus, providing for a separate grant of said allowances on top of the
standardized salary rates is tantamount to double compensation which is prohibited
by the Constitution.
The back payment of the COLA to petitioners amounts to double compensation.
[108]
Unless otherwise provided by law, government employees cannot be paid an
extra remuneration for the same office that already has a fixed compensation. [109]
In Maritime Industry Authority:[110]
Article VI, Section 29 of the 1987 Constitution provides, "[n]o money shall be paid
out of the Treasury except in pursuance of an appropriation made by law."
. . . [B]efore public funds may be disbursed for salaries and benefits to government
officers and employees, it must be shown that these are commensurate to the
services rendered and necessary or relevant to the functions of the office.
"Additional allowances and benefits must be shown to be necessary or relevant to
the fulfillment of the official duties and functions of the government officers and
employees.[111] (Citation omitted)
Under Article IX(B), Section 8 of the Constitution, "[n]o elective or appointive public
officer or employee shall receive additional, double, or indirect compensation,
unless specifically authorized by law[.]" This provision serves as a constitutional
limitation on the government's spending power. In Peralta v. Auditor General
Mathay:[112]
[A] public office is a public trust. It is expected of a government official or employee
that he [or she] keeps uppermost in mind the demands of public welfare. [One] is
there to render public service. . . . There is then to be an awareness on the part of
an officer or employee of the government that he [or she] is to receive only such
compensation as may be fixed by law. With such a realization, [one] is expected not
to avail himself [or herself] of devious or circuitous means to increase the
remuneration attached to [one's] position.[113]
Respondents assert that the Regional Trial Court did not err in denying the writ of
mandamus sought by petitioners, and that there was no categorical duty on their
part to pay petitioners' claims for the COLA.[114]
No law mandates respondents to give NEA's former employees their COLA back
pays. Expressly forming part of a government employee's salary under Corporate
Compensation Circular No. 10, and not expressly excluded by Republic Act No.
6758, the COLA is considered integrated into the standardized salary rates of
petitioners effective July 1, 1989.[115] Thus, respondents have no legal authority to
give the claimed balance of petitioners' COLA benefits. The payment of allowances
or fringe benefits integrated in the basic salary, whether in cash or in kind, is
considered an "illegal disbursement of public funds."[116]
This Court has ruled in Gutierrez that "until and unless the [Department of Budget
and Management] issues such rules and regulations [pursuant to item 7 of Section
12], the enumerated exclusions in items (1) to (6) remain exclusive. Thus so, not
being an enumerated exclusion, COLA is deemed already incorporated in the
standardized salary rates of government employees under the general rule of
integration."[117]
WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED. The Regional Trial Court Decision dated
December 9, 2005 and Order dated March 28, 2006 in Special Civil Action No. Q04-53967, which denied back payment of the Cost of Living Allowance of petitioners
are AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
[1]
Rollo, pp. 12-34.
[2]
Id. at 16.
Rep. Act No. 6038, An Act Declaring a National Policy Objective for the Total
Electrification of the Philippines on an Area Coverage Service Basis, Providing for
the Organization of the National Electrification Administration, the Organization,
Promotion and Development of Electric Cooperatives to Attain the Objective,
Prescribing Terms and Conditions for their Operation, the Repeal of R.A. No. 2717,
and for Other Purposes (1969). Rep. Act No. 6038 is otherwise known as the
National Electrification Administration Act.
[3]
Pres. Decree No. 269, Creating the "National Electrification Administration" as a

Corporation, Prescribing its Powers and Activities, Appropriating the Necessary
Funds Therefor and Declaring a National Policy Objective for the Total Electrification
of the Philippines on an Area Coverage Service Basis, the Organization, Promotion
and Development of Electric Cooperatives to Attain the Said Objective, Prescribing
Terms and Conditions for their Operations, the Repeal of Republic Act No. 6038, and
for Other Purposes (1973).
[4]
See Pres. Decree No. 1645, Amending Presidential Decree No. 269, Increasing
the Capitalization and Broadening the Lending and Regulatory Powers of the
National Electrification Administration and for Other Purposes (1979); Rep. Act No.
9136, An Act Ordaining Reforms in the Electric Power Industry, Amending for the
Purpose Certain Laws and for Other Purposes (2001); and Rep. Act No. 10531, An
Act Strengthening the National Electrification Administration, Further Amending for
the Purpose Presidential Decree No. 269, As Amended, Otherwise Known as the
"National Electrification Administration Decree" (2012).
[5]
National Electrification Administration, Philosophy, Mandate

http://www.nea.gov.ph/about-us/philosophy (visited April 1, 2016)
[6]
Rollo, pp. 12-15. Dennis Abante, Restitute Abellera, Edna Abiog, Gavino
Abundo, Edilberto M. Aguila, Blesida Aguilar, Francisco A. Aguilar, Fiorina Alipio,
Norberto Aliwalas, Gavino Andal, Emmanuel Angeles, Felipe S. Antolin, Ramon
Aquino, Celia Arugay, Norminda C. Asa, Lolita D. Ayson (Id. at 75), Veronica
Bangha-on, Basilio L. Bartolome Jr. (Id. at 76), Estrella Batalla, Dominador
Baterina, Rebecca Bautista, Illuminado B. Benosa Jr., Marissa Bigornia, Rene
Briones, Lorna Cabalay, Corazon Cabulisan, Roselyn Cachapero, Alfredo Cacuyog,
[7]
Carlos V. Castillo, Gracia Ma. J. Castillo, Maximilian G. Castillo, Ruben P. Catabas,

Efren Cauteverio, Raul Cea, Diosdado M. Celzo, Benedicto Chavez, Yolanda Chenilla,
Benjamin M. Clores, Manuel Cruces Jr., Anabelle P. Cruz, Jessie C. Cruz, Danilo M.
Cruz, Rodolfo P. Cruz, Siony E. Cunanan, Milagros S. Dacumos, Jhonny A. Daiz (Id.
at 76), Inocencio M. David, Marilou B. De Jesus, Gerardo dela Cruz, Maximo dela
Cruz, Jaime C. del Rosario, Lolita C. delos Reyes, Sonny B. delos Santos, Rodolfo C.
Dipalac (Id. at 78), George A. Din, Dwight L. Dolino, Alma S. Encarnacion, Jose A.
Endiola, Ernesto Enriquez Jr., Fausto Estacio, Reynaldo Fabro, Numer Fulleros,
Roger B. Garcia, Luzvimnida L. Gonzales, Rocky P. Gonzales, Gonzalo P. Paulo (Id.
at 78), Alberto Guiang, Armando Hate, Corazon Hernandez, Robertino C. Herrera,
Benjamin C. Ines, Cresencio Javier, Concepcion Lacson, Elena B. Laidan, Mercedes
B. Laig, Raul M. Laig, Agustin Madattu, Roberto Magday, Peterson Mallari, Hendrick
R. Manegdeg, Norma Manaloto, Eduardo Y. Manansala, Eduardo Mangubat, Celia
Manuel, Hermenegildo C. Manzano, Fe S. Marquez, Bienvenido S. Marasigan,
Rodolfo L. Martinez Jr. (Id. at 77), Emerita Mate, Nelson S. Milo, Melba D. Mina,
Rogelio B. Mina (Id. at 75), Pablito A. Modesto (Id. at 77), Marcial L. Montemayor
(Id. at 78), Benita Montilla, Danilo E. Morales, Ma. Lourdes Philinda Noble, Imelda
Nocum, Cecilio B. Nogoy, Victor Noriega, Mila Ocaso, Andrecito Oliver, Belarmino P.
Ombrog Sr. (Id. at 77), Aida Ong, Aristotle Osias, Larry Pallera, Teresita Pecafia,
Rosario D. Palileo (Id. at 79), Bienvenido Pores (Id. at. 79), Jake M. Quintos,
Sinamar I. Raa (Id. at 79), Nabor Raao (Id. at 80), Elpidio A. Regalado, Telesfora
L. Requizo, Eduardo Reyes, Ferdinand V. Reyes, Luis Reyes, Loreto P. Reynoso,
Marceliano B. Rivera Jr., Jose Romero, Merlin Rosales, Myrna Rosales, Justiniano
Rosarito, Rodolfo Sace, Celso Salazar, Carlito Salisi (Id. at 78), Pacifico Salvador Jr.,
Honorio Samia, Melinda Salandanan, Noel Sanchez (Id. at 80), Vilma R. San Diego,
Felimon Santos Jr., Emerlinda C. Senar (Id. at 75), Suzette A. Sese, Maricon M.
Sison, Genoveva SB. Sondia (Id. at 75), Nestor Soriano, Graciano M. Sombillo,
Cresencio S. Soriano, Guillermo Sotto, Victor B. Tenoso (Id. at 78), Jose Timola,
Dante Z. Tiu, Roel Tumanon, Cesar Valdez, Rebecca S. Valeroso, Juanito Velasco,
Dominador Q. Velasquez (Id. at 79), Roger Viola, Stephen Veleria (Id. at 79), and
Quirino Ulit.
[8]
Id. at 35, Regional Trial Court Decision.
[9]
Id.
Rep. Act No. 6758 is entitled An Act Prescribing a Revised Compensation and
Position Classification System in the Government and for Other Purposes.
[10]
[11]
Rep. Act No. 6758(1989), sec. 23.
[12]
Section 12. Consolidation of Allowances and Compensation. - All allowances, except

for representation and transportation allowances; clothing and laundry allowances;
subsistence allowance of marine officers and crew on board government vessels
and hospital personnel; hazard pay; allowances of foreign service personnel
stationed abroad; and such other additional compensation not otherwise specified
herein as may be determined by the DBM, shall be deemed included in the
standardized salary rates herein prescribed. Such other additional compensation,
whether in cash or in kind, being received by incumbents only as of July 1, 1989
not integrated into the standardized salary rates shall continue to be authorized.
Existing additional compensation of any national government official or employee
paid from local funds of a local government unit shall be absorbed into the basic
salary of said official or employee and shall be paid by the National Government.
[13]
Section 23. Effectivity. - ... The [Department of Budget and Managements] shall,
within sixty (60) days after its approval, allocate all positions in their appropriate
position titles and salary grades and prepare and issue the necessary guidelines
needed to implement the same.
[14]
Rollo, p. 35.
De Jesus v. Commission on Audit, 355 Phil. 584, 587 (1998) [Per J. Purisima, En
Banc].
[15]
[16]
DBM Corporate Compensation Circular No. 10 (1999), sec. 5.6.
[17]
Rollo, p. 35.
[18]
355 Phil. 584 (1998) [Per J. Purisima, En Banc].
[19]
Id. at 590-591.
[20]
Id. at 584.
[21]
[22]
Id.
[23]
Id. at 35.
[24]
Id. at 36.
Clarification on the Consolidation of Allowances, Including Cost of Living

Allowance (COLA). Cited in DepEd Memorandum No. 166 (2005), Dissemination of
Budget Circular No. 2001-03
http://www.deped.gov.ph/sites/default/files/memo/2005/DM_s2005_166.pdf
(visited April 1, 2016).
[25]
[26]
DBM Budget Circular 2001-03 (2001), par. 7.0.
DBM Budget Circular 2001-03 (2001), par. 6.0; DBM Corporate Compensation
Circular No. 10 (1999), sec. 5.6.
[27]
Cited in DepEd Memorandum No. 166, s. 2005, Dissemination of Budget Circular

No. 2001-03
http://www.deped.gov.ph/sites/default/files/memo/2005/DM_s2005_166.pdf
(visited April 1, 2016)
[28]
[29]
Rep. Act No. 9136 (2001) provides:
This Act which is a consolidation of House Bill No. 8457 and Senate Bills No. 1712,
1621, 1943 and 2000 was finally passed by the House of Representatives and the
Senate on May 31, 2001 and June 4, 2001, respectively.
Rep. Act No. 9136 is entitled An Act Ordaining Reforms in the Electric Power
Industry, Amending for the Purpose Certain Laws and for Other Purposes.
[30]
[31]
Rep. Act No. 9136(2001), sec. 3.
Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. 9136, Rule 33, sec.
3(b)(ii) provides: Rule 33. Separation Benefits
....
Section 3. Separation and Other Benefits.
....
(b) The following shall govern the application of Section 3(a) of this Rule:
....
(ii) With respect to NEA officials and employees, they shall be considered legally
terminated and shall be entitled to the benefits or separation pay provided in
Section 3 (a) herein when a restructuring of NEA is implemented pursuant to a law
enacted by Congress or pursuant to Section 5(a)(5) of Presidential Decree No. 269.
[32]
[32]
Ronquillo Jr., et al. filed a Special Civil Action for Mandamus before
[33]
Rollo, p. 94, NEA's et al.'s Comment.
[34]
[35]
Id. at 20, Ronquillo, et al.'s Petition.
[36]
Id. at 21.
[37]
Id. at 17.
[38]
Id.
[39]
Id.
[40]
Id. at 36.
[41]
Id.
[42]
Id.
Id. at 113, Memorandum for the Assistant Commissioner Raquel R. Habitan,

General Counsel, Legal and Adjudication Office.
[43]
Id. at 112, Re: Request of Ms. EDITHA S. BUENO, Administrator, National

Electrification Administration (NEA), for clarification on the legality of paying the
Cost of Living Allowance (COLA) of the former NEA personnel covering the period
August 1999 to November 7, 2003. The 1st Indorsement was signed by Salvador P.
Isiderio, Director IV of Commission on Audit Office of Legal Affairs.
[44]
Id. at 111, Memorandum for the NEA Administrator from the Commission on
Audit Supervising Auditor.
[45]
[46]
Id.
[47]
Id. at 35.
[48]
Id. at 35-37.
[49]
Id. at 36-37.
[50]
Id. at 38-46.
[51]
Id. at 47-48. The Order was issued by Presiding Judge Samuel H. Gaerlan
[52]
Id. at 94.
[53]
Id. at 17.
[54]
Id. at 56.
[55]
Id. at 58.
[56]
Id. at 57-58.
Dennis Abante, Restituto Abellera, Edna Abiog, Ramon Aquino, Norminda C. Asa,
Estrella Batalla, Dominador Baterina, Marissa Bigornia, Lorna Cabalay, Roselyn
Cachapero, Carlos V. Castillo, Efren Cauteverio, Manuel Cruces, Anabelle P. Cruz,
Jessie C. Cruz, Marilou B. De Jesus, George A. Din, Fausto Estacio, Rocky P.
Gonzales, Corazon Hernandez, Benjamin C. Ines, Concepcion Lacson, Mercedes B.
Laig, Raul M. Laig, Norma Manaloto, Hermenegildo C. Manzano, Emerita Mate,
Nelson S. Milo, Danilo E. Morales, Imelda Nocum, Cecilio B. Nogoy, Victor Noriega,
Mila Ocaso, Andrecito Oliver, Aida Ong, Aristotle Osias, Larry Pallera, Jake M.
Quintos, Elpidio A. Regalado, Telesfora L. Requizo, Marceliano B. Rivera Jr., Jose
Romero, Merlin Rosales, Myrna Rosales, Rodolfo Sace, Honorio Samia, Melinda
Salandanan, Maricon M. Sison, Graciano M. Sombillo, Jose Timola, Roger Viola, and
Quirino Ulit
[57]
Rollo, pp. 75-80. There were also others who signed but are not named
petitioners.
[58]
[59]
Id. at 12-34.
[60]
Id. at 23.
[61]
Id. at 24.
[62]
Id. at 56.
Id. at 88-91. In their Explanation and Apology (to Show Cause Order dated
February 19, 2007), NEA, et al., through their counsel, stated that the Office of
Legal Services was understaffed because of the resignation of five lawyers,
including the lawyer in charge of the case. Only three lawyers were attending to the
cases and legal problems of NEA and 119 electric cooperatives nationwide.
[63]
[64]
Id. at 123-124, Resolution dated July 23, 2007.
[65]
Id. at 92.
[66]
Id. at 94.
[67]
Id. at 126.
[68]
Id. at 24.
[69]
Id. at 25.
[70]
Id. at 23.
[71]
Id. at 36.
[72]
Id.
[73]
Id.
[74]
Id. at 97.
[75]
Id. at 96.
REV. PEN. CODE, art. 217, as amended by Rep. Act No. 1060 (1954), sec. 1
provides:
[76]
ART. 217. Malversation of public funds or propertyPresumption of malversation.

Any public officer who, by reason of the duties of his office, is accountable for public
funds or property, shall appropriate the same, or shall take or misappropriate or
shall consent, or through abandonment or negligence, shall permit any other
person to take such public funds or property, wholly or partially, or shall otherwise
be guilty of the misappropriation or malversation of such funds or property ...
The failure of a public officer to have duly forthcoming any public funds or property
with which he is chargeable, upon demand by any duly authorized officer, shall be
prima facie evidence that he has put such missing funds or property to personal
uses.
[77]
Rollo, p. 96.
[78]
Id. at 36.
Republic v. Lacap, 546 Phil. 87, 98 (2007) [Per J. Austria-Martinez, Third

Division].
[79]
Republic v. Malabanan, et al, 646 Phil. 631,637-638 (2010) [Per J. Villarama Jr.,
Third Division].
[80]
[81]
230 Phil. 528 (1986) [Per J. Cruz, En Banc].
[82]
Id. at 535-538.
G.R. No. 185812, January 13, 2015

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?
file=/jurisprudence/2015/january2015/185812.pdf [Per J. Leonen, En Banc].
[83]
[84]
Id. at 15-16.
[85]
Rollo, p. 25.
[86]
Id.
Land Bank of the Philippines v. Naval Jr., G.R. No. 195687, April 7, 2014, 720
SCRA 796, 812-813 and 820-821 [Per J. Velasco Jr., Third Division].
[87]
National Tobacco Administration v. Commission on Audit, 370 Phil. 793, 805

(1999) [Per J. Purisima, En Bane].
[88]
[89]
370 Phil. 793 (1999) [Per J. Purisima, En Banc].
[90]
Id. at 805.
SCRA 796, 813 [Per J. Velasco Jr., Third Division].
[91]
[92]
630 Phil. 1 (2010) [Per J. Abad, En Banc].
[93]
Id. at 17.
[94]
506 Phil. 382 (2005) [Per Acting C.J. Panganiban, En Banc].
[95]
Id. at 391.
[96]
Id.
[97]
Id.
[98]
Rep. Act No. 6758 (1989), sec. 12.
G.R. No. 195687, April 7, 2014, 720 SCRA 796 [Per J. Velasco Jr., Third
Division].
[99]
[100]
Id. at 812,
[101]
Rollo, p.25.
National Tobacco Administration v. Commission on Audit, 370 Phil. 793, 808809 (1999) [Per J. Purisima, En Banc].
[102]
SCRA 796, 812-813 [Per J. Velasco Jr., Third Division].
[103]
Pres. Dec. No. 269 (1973), otherwise known as Creating the "National
Electrification Administration" as a Corporation, Prescribing its Powers and
Activities, Appropriating the Necessary Funds Therefor and Declaring a National
Policy Objective for the Total Electrification of the Philippines on an Area Coverage
Service Basis, the Organization, Promotion and Development of Electric
Cooperatives to Attain the Said Objective, Prescribing Terms and Conditions for
their Operations, the Repeal of Republic Act No. 6038, and for Other Purposes.
[104]
[105]
Rollo, p. 24.
Gutierrez, et al. v. Department of Budget and Management, et al., 630 Phil. 1,

21-22 (2010) [Per J. Abad, En Banc], citing NAPOCOR Employees Consolidation
Union (NECU) v. National Power Corporation (NPC), 519 Phil. 372, 384-385 and 389
(2006) [Per J, Garcia, En Banc].
[106]
Maritime Industry Authority v. Commission on Audit, G.R. No. 185812, January

13, 2015 http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?
file=/jurisprudence/2015/january2015/185812.pdf 26-27 [Per J. Leonen, En Banc].
[108]
[109]
Id.
[110]
Id. at 25.
[111]
Id.
[112]
148 Phil. 261 (1971) [Per J. Fernando, En Banc].
[113]
Id. at 265-266.
[114]
Rollo, pp. 97-98.
[115]
DBM Corporate Compensation Circular No. 10 (1999), sec. 4.1.1.
[116]
DBM Corporate Compensation Circular No. 10 (1999), sec. 5.6.
Gutierrez, et al. v. Department of Budget and Management, et al, 630 Phil. 1,

16 (2010) [Per J. Abad En Banc].
[117]

A.C.
TERESITA
No.
P.
FAJARDO,
COMPLAINANT,
VS.
ATTY.
9018
NICANOR
C.
ALVAREZ,
RESPONDENT.
April 20, 2016
SECOND DIVISION
[ A.C. No. 9018, April 20, 2016 ]
TERESITA P. FAJARDO, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. NICANOR
C. ALVAREZ, RESPONDENT.
DECISION
LEONEN, J.:
This administrative case involves the determination of whether a lawyer working in
the Legal Section of the National Center for Mental Health under the Department of
Health is authorized to privately practice law, and consequently, whether the
amount charged by respondent for attorney's fees is reasonable under the principle
ofquantum meruit.
Complainant Teresita P. Fajardo (Teresita) was the Municipal Treasurer of San
Leonardo, Nueva Ecija. She hired respondent Atty. Nicanor C. Alvarez (Atty.
Alvarez) to defend her in criminal and administrative cases before the Office of the
Ombudsman.
The parties have differing versions of the facts as summarized by the Investigating
Commissioner of the Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines. Teresita's version of the facts is as follows:
Around 2009, Teresita hired Atty. Alvarez to handle several cases filed against her
before the Office of the Ombudsman.[1] Atty. Alvarez was then working in the Legal
Section of the National Center for Mental Health.[2] He asked for P1,400,000.00 as
acceptance fee.[3] However, Atty. Alvarez did not enter his appearance before the
Office of the Ombudsman nor sign any pleadings.[4]
Atty. Alvarez assured Teresita that he had friends connected with the Office of the
Ombudsman who could help with dismissing her case for a certain fee. [5] Atty.
Alvarez said that he needed to pay the amount of P500,000.00 to his friends and
acquaintances working at the Office of the Ombudsman to have the cases against
Teresita dismissed.[6]
However, just two (2) weeks after Teresita and Atty. Alvarez talked, the Office of
the Ombudsman issued a resolution and decision recommending the filing of a
criminal complaint against Teresita, and her dismissal from service, respectively.[7]
Teresita then demanded that Atty. Alvarez return at least a portion of the amount
she gave.[8] Atty. Alvarez promised to return the amount to Teresita; however, he
failed to fulfill this promise.[9] Teresita sent a demand letter to Atty. Alvarez, which
he failed to heed.[10]
On the other hand, Atty. Alvarez claims the following:
Atty. Alvarez is Legal Officer III of the National Center for Mental Health under the
Department of Health.[11] He has authority to engage in private practice of the
profession.[12] He represented Teresita in several cases before the Office of the
Ombudsman.[13]
Atty. Alvarez and Teresita had an arrangement that Teresita would consult Atty.
Alvarez whenever a case was filed against her.[14] Atty. Alvarez would then advise
Teresita to send him a copy of the complaint and its attachments through courier.
[15]
Afterwards, Atty. Alvarez would evaluate the case and call Teresita to discuss his
fees in accepting and handling the case.[16] A 50% downpayment would be

deposited to Atty. Alvarez's or his secretary's bank account. [17] The balance would
then be paid in installments.[18] The success fee was voluntary on Teresita's part. [19]
On July 10, 2009, Atty. Alvarez received a call from Teresita regarding a meeting at
Shangri-La Mall to discuss the decision and resolution she received from the Office
of the Ombudsman dismissing her from service for dishonesty and indicting her for
violation of Section 3 of Republic Act No. 3019, respectively.[20] Atty. Alvarez
accepted the case and asked for P500,000.00 as acceptance fee. [21] According to
Atty. Alvarez, he arrived at the amount after considering the difficulty of the case
and the workload that would be involved, which would include appeals before the
Court of Appeals and this Court.[22] However, the fee is exclusive of filing fees,
appearance fees, and other miscellaneous fees such as costs for photocopying and
mailing.[23]
Atty. Alvarez claimed that he prepared several pleadings in connection with
Teresita's case:
(1) motion for reconsideration filed on July 23, 2009 in connection with the administrative case;
(2) motion for reconsideration filed on July 23, 2009 in connection with the criminal case;
(3) petition for injunction filed on October 15, 2009 before the Regional Trial Court of Gapan
City; and
(4) petition for preliminary injunction with prayer for a temporary restraining order filed before
the Court of Appeals on November 18, 2009, and the amended petition on November 26,
2009.[24]
Atty. Alvarez also said that he prepared several letters to different government
officials and agencies.[25]
Atty. Alvarez alleged that Teresita made staggered payments for the amounts they
agreed on.[26] Teresita only paid the balance of the agreed acceptance fee equivalent
to P450,000.00 on February 11, 2010. [27] While Teresita paid P60,000.00 for the
miscellaneous expenses, she did not pay the expenses for other legal work
performed and advanced by Atty. Alvarez.[28]
On the last day for filing of the petition for review of the Office of the Ombudsman's
Decision, Teresita informed Atty. Alvarez that she was no longer interested in
retaining Atty. Alvarez's services as she had hired Atty. Tyrone Contado from Nueva
Ecija, who was Atty. Alvarez's co-counsel in the cases against Teresita. [29]
On June 1, 2011, Teresita filed before the Office of the Bar Confidant a Verified
Complaint praying for the disbarment of Atty. Alvarez.[30] This Court required Atty.
Alvarez to file his comment on the complaint within 10 days from notice. [31]
On December 7, 2011, the case was referred to the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines for investigation, report, and recommendation. [32]
In his Report and Recommendation[33] dated November 12, 2012, Investigating
Commissioner Honesto A. Villamayor found Atty. Alvarez guilty of violating the Code
of Professional Responsibility and recommended Atty. Alvarez's suspension from the
practice of law for one (1) year.[34] Atty. Alvarez was also ordered to return the
amount of P700,000.00 to Teresita with legal interest from the time of demand until
its full payment.[35] The dispositive portion of the Investigating Commissioner's
Report and Recommendation reads:
WHEREFORE, finding Respondent guilty of committing unlawful, immoral and
deceitful acts of the Canon of Professional Responsibility, [it] is recommended that
he be suspended for one (1) year in the practice of law and he be ordered to return
the amount of P700,000.00 to the Complainant within two (2) months from receipt
of this order with legal interest from the time of demand, until fully paid, with a
warning that repetition of [a] similar offense in the future will be dealt with more
severely.[36]
On the unauthorized practice of law, the Investigating Commissioner found that
while Atty. Alvarez claimed that he was authorized by his superior to privately
practice law, the pleadings he allegedly prepared and filed did not bear his name
and signature.[37] Hence, the Investigating Commissioner stated that:
The time that Respondent spent in following up the case of Complainant in the
Office of the Ombudsman is a time lost to the government which could have been
used in the service of many taxpayers[.][38]
In any case, granting that Atty. Alvarez was authorized by his superior to practice
his profession, the Investigating Commissioner stated that Atty. Alvarez was
prohibited to handle cases involving malversation of funds by government officials
such as a municipal treasurer.[39]
Moreover, the Investigating Commissioner found that the attorney's fees Atty.
Alvarez asked for were unreasonable:
From all indication, Complainant was forced to give to the Respondent the amount
of P1,400,000.00 because of the words of Respondent that he has friends in the
Office of the Ombudsman who can help with a fee. That because of that guarantee,
Complainant was obligated to shell out every now and then money for the
satisfaction of the allege[d] friend of the Respondent[.]
Complainant is an ordinary Municipal Treasurer of a 4th or 5th class municipality and
the amount of attorney's fees demanded by the Respondent is very much
excessive. . . . The exorbitant amount that he demanded from complainant is too
much for a lowly local government employee. What the Respondent did is not only
illegal, immoral and dishonest but also taking advantage of a defenseless victim.
....
While a lawyer should charge only fair and reasonable fees, no hard and fast rule
may be set in the determination of what a reasonable fee is, or what is not. That
must be established from the facts of each case[.]
....
The fees claimed and received by the Respondent for the alleged cases he handled
despite the fact that the records and evidence does not show that he ever signed
pleadings filed, the amount of P700,000.00 is reasonable, thus, fairness and equity
dictate, he has to return the excess amount of P700,000.00 to the complainant[.] [40]
In Notice of Resolution No. XX-2013-778[41] dated June 21, 2013, the Integrated Bar
of the Philippines Board of Governors adopted the findings and recommendations of
the Investigating Commissioner:
RESOLVED to ADOPT AND APPROVE, as it is hereby unanimously ADOPTED AND
APPROVED, the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner in
the above-entitled case, herein made part of this Resolution as Annex "A", and
finding the recommendation fully supported by the evidence on record and the
applicable laws and rules and considering that complaint [sic] is guilty of unlawful,
immoral and deceitful acts, Atty. Nicanor C. Alvarez is hereby SUSPENDED from
the practice of law for one (1) year with [a] Warning that repetition of the
same acts shall be dealt with more sever[ejly. Further, he is Ordered to Return the
amount of P700,000.00 to complainant with legal interest from the time of demand.
[42]
(Emphasis in the original)
Atty. Alvarez moved for reconsideration of the Resolution,[43] but the Motion was
denied by the Board of Governors in Notice of Resolution No. XXI-2014286[44] dated May 3, 2014. The Resolution reads:
RESOLVED to DENY Respondent's Motion for Reconsideration, there being no
cogent reason to reverse the findings of the Commission and the resolution subject
of the motion, it being a mere reiteration of the matters which had already been
threshed out and taken into consideration. Thus, Resolution No. XX-2013-778
dated June 21, 2013 is hereby AFFIRMED.[45] (Emphasis in the original)
We resolve the following issues:
First, whether respondent Atty. Nicanor C. Alvarez, as a lawyer working in the Legal
Section of the National Center for Mental Health under the Department of Health, is
authorized to engage in the private practice of law; and
Second, whether the amount charged by respondent for attorney's fees is
reasonable under the principle of quantum meruit.
The Investigating Commissioner did not make a categorical declaration that

respondent is guilty of unauthorized practice of his profession. The Investigating
Commissioner merely alluded to respondent's unauthorized practice of law.
We find that respondent committed unauthorized practice of his profession.
Respondent claims that he is authorized to practice his profession [46] as shown in
the letter dated August 1, 2001 of National Center for Mental Health Chief
Bernardino A. Vicente.[47] The letter reads:
TO
:
ATTY. NICANOR C. ALVAREZ
Legal Officer III
This Center
Subject
Authority to engage in private practice of profession
This refers to your request for permission to engage in private practice of your
profession.
In accordance with Administrative Order No. 21, s. 1999 of the Department of
Health, which vested in the undersigned the authority to grant permission for the
exercise of profession or engage in the practice of profession, you are hereby
authorized to teach or engage in the practice of your profession provided it will not
run in conflict with the interest of the Center and the Philippine government as a
whole. In the exigency of the service however, or when public interest so requires,
this authority may be revoked anytime.
Please be guided accordingly.
[sgd.]
BERNARDINO A. VICENTE, MD, FFPPA, MHA, CESO IV
Medical Center Chief II[48] (Emphasis supplied)
Respondent practiced law even if he did not sign any pleading. In the context of this
case, his surreptitious actuations reveal illicit intent. Not only did he do
unauthorized practice, his acts also show badges of offering to peddle influence in
the Office of the Ombudsman.
In Cayetano v. Monsod,[49] the modern concept of the term "practice of law"
includes the more traditional concept of litigation or appearance before courts:
The practice of law is not limited to the conduct of cases in court. A person is also
considered to be in the practice of law when he:
"x x x for valuable consideration engages in the business of advising person, firms,
associations or corporations as to their rights under the law, or appears in a
representative capacity as an advocate in proceedings pending or prospective,
before any court, commissioner, referee, board, body, committee, or commission

constituted by law or authorized to settle controversies and there, in such
representative capacity performs any act or acts for the purpose of obtaining or
defending the rights of their clients under the law. Otherwise stated, one who, in a
representative capacity, engages in the business of advising clients as to their rights
under the law, or while so engaged performs any act or acts either in court or
outside of court for that purpose, is engaged in the practice of law."
....
The University of the Philippines Law Center in conducting orientation briefing for
new lawyers (1974-1975) listed the dimensions of the practice of law in even
broader terms as advocacy, counseling and public service.
"One may be a practicing attorney in following any line of employment in the
profession. If what he does exacts knowledge of the law and is of a kind usual for
attorneys engaging in the active practice of their profession, and he follows some
one or more lines of employment such as this he is a practicing attorney at law
within the meaning of the statute."
Practice of law means any activity, in or out of court, which requires the application
of law, legal procedure, knowledge, training and experience. "To engage in the
practice of law is to perform those acts which are characteristics of the profession.
Generally, to practice law is to give notice or render any kind of service, which
device or service requires the use in any degree of legal knowledge or skill."
....
Interpreted in the light of the various definitions of the term "practice of law,"
particularly the modern concept of law practice, and taking into consideration the
liberal construction intended by the framers of the Constitution, Arty. Monsod's past
work experiences as a lawyer-economist, a lawyer-manager, a lawyer-entrepreneur
of industry, a lawyer-negotiator of contracts, and a lawyer-legislator of both the rich
and the poorverily more than satisfy the constitutional requirementthat he has
been engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years. [50] (Emphasis supplied)
Cayetano was reiterated in Lingan v. Calubaquib:[51]
Practice of law is "any activity, in or out of court, which requires the application of
law, legal procedure, knowledge, training and experience." It includes "[performing]
acts which are characteristics of the [legal] profession" or "[rendering any kind of]
service [which] requires the use in any degree of legal knowledge or skill."
Work in government that requires the use of legal knowledge is considered practice
of law. In Cayetano v. Monsod, this court cited the deliberations of the 1986
Constitutional Commission and agreed that work rendered by lawyers in the
Commission on Audit requiring "[the use of] legal knowledge or legal talent" is
practice of law.[52] (Citations omitted)
By preparing the pleadings of and giving legal advice to complainant, respondent

practiced law.
Under Section 7(b)(2) of Republic Act No. 6713, otherwise known as the Code of
Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees, and
Memorandum Circular No. 17, series of 1986,[53] government officials or employees
are prohibited from engaging in private practice of their profession unless
authorized by their department heads. More importantly, if authorized, the practice
of profession must not conflict nor tend to conflict with the official functions of the
government official or employee:
Republic Act No. 6713:
Section 7. Prohibited Acts and Transactions. - In addition to acts and omissions of
public officials and employees now prescribed in the Constitution and existing laws,
the following shall constitute prohibited acts and transactions of any public official
and employee and are hereby declared to be unlawful:
....
(b) Outside employment and other activities related thereto. - Public officials and
employees during their incumbency shall not:
....
(2) Engage in the private practice of their profession unless authorized by the
Constitution or law, provided, that such practice will not conflict or tend to conflict
with their official functions[.]
....
Memorandum Circular No. 17:
The authority to grant permission to any official or employee shall be granted by
the head of the ministry or agency in accordance with Section 12, Rule XVIII of the
Revised Civil Service Rules, which provides:
"Sec. 12. No officer or employee shall engage directly in any private business,
vocation, or profession or be connected with any commercial, credit, agricultural, or
industrial undertaking without a written permission from the head of
Department; Provided, That this prohibition will be absolute in the case of those
officers and employees whose duties and responsibilities require that their entire
time be at the disposal of the Government: Provided, further, That if an employee is
granted permission to engage in outside activities, the time so devoted outside of
office hours should be fixed by the chief of the agency to the end that it will not
impair in any way the efficiency of the other officer or employee: And provided,
finally, That no permission is necessary in the case of investments, made by an
officer or employee, which do not involve any real or apparent conflict between his
private interests and public duties, or in any way influence him in the discharge of
his duties, and he shall not take part in the management of the enterprise or
become an officer or member of the board of directors",
subject to any additional conditions which the head of the office deems necessary in
each particular case in the interest of the service, as expressed in the various
issuances of the Civil Service Commission.
In Abella v. Cruzabra,[54] the respondent was a Deputy Register of Deeds of General
Santos City. While serving as an incumbent government employee, the respondent
"filed a petition for commission as a notary public and was commissioned . . .
without obtaining prior authority from the Secretary of the Department of
Justice."[55] According to the complainant, the respondent had notarized around
3,000 documents.[56] This Court found the respondent guilty of engaging in notarial
practice without written authority from the Secretary of Justice. Thus:
It is clear that when respondent filed her petition for commission as a notary public,
she did not obtain a written permission from the Secretary of the D[epartment] [of]
J[ustice]. Respondent's superior, the Register of Deeds, cannot issue any
authorization because he is not the head of the Department. And even assuming
that the Register of Deeds authorized her, respondent failed to present any proof of
that written permission. Respondent cannot feign ignorance or good faith because
respondent filed her petition for commission as a notary public after Memorandum
Circular No. 17 was issued in 1986.[57]
In this case, respondent was given written permission by the Head of the National
Center for Mental Health, whose authority was designated under Department of
Health Administrative Order No. 21, series of 1999.[58]
However, by assisting and representing complainant in a suit against the
Ombudsman and against government in general, respondent put himself in a
situation of conflict of interest.
Respondent's practice of profession was expressly and impliedly conditioned on the
requirement that his practice will not be "in conflict with the interest of the Center
and the Philippine government as a whole."[59]
In Javellana v. Department of Interior and Local Government,[60] the petitioner was
an incumbent City Councilor or member of the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Bago
City. He was a lawyer by profession and had continuously engaged in the practice of
law without securing authority from the Regional Director of the Department of
Local Government.[61] In 1989, the petitioner acted as counsel for Antonio Javiero
and Rolando Catapang and filed a case for Illegal Dismissal and Reinstatement with
Damages against Engr. Ernesto C. Divinagracia, City Engineer of Bago City.[62]
Engr. Ernesto C. Divinagracia filed an administrative case before the Department of
Local Government for violation of Section 7(b)(2) of Republic Act No. 6713 and
relevant Department of Local Government memorandum circulars on unauthorized
practice of profession, as well as for oppression, misconduct, and abuse of
authority.[63] While the case was pending before Department of Local Government,
the petitioner was able to secure a written authority to practice his profession from
the Secretary of Interior and Local Government, "provided that such practice will
not conflict or tend to conflict with his official functions."[64]
This Court in Javellana observed that the petitioner practiced his profession in
conflict with his functions as City Councilor and against the interests of
government:
In the first place, complaints against public officers and employees relating or
incidental to the performance of their duties are necessarily impressed with public
interest for by express constitutional mandate, a public office is a public trust. The
complaint for illegal dismissal filed by Javiero and Catapang against City Engineer
Divinagracia is in effect a complaint against the City Government of Bago City, their
real employer, of which petitioner Javellana is a councilman. Hence, judgment
against City Engineer Divinagracia would actually be a judgment against the City
Government. By serving as counsel for the complaining employees and assisting
them to prosecute their claims against City Engineer Divinagracia, the petitioner
violated Memorandum Circular No. 74-58 (in relation to Section 7[b-2] of R[epublic]
A[ct] [No.] 6713) prohibiting a government official from engaging in the private
practice of his profession, if such practice would represent interests adverse to the
government.
Petitioner's contention that Section 90 of the Local Government Code of 1991 and
DLG Memorandum Circular No. 90-81 violate Article VIII, Section 5 of the
Constitution is completely off tangent. Neither the statute nor the circular trenches
upon the Supreme Court's power and authority to prescribe rules on the practice of
law. The Local Government Code and DLG Memorandum Circular No. 90-81 simply
prescribe rules of conduct for public officials to avoid conflicts of interest between
the discharge of their public duties and the private practice of their profession, in
those instances where the law allows it.[65]
There is basic conflict of interest here. Respondent is a public officer, an employee
of government. The Office of the Ombudsman is part of government. By appearing
against the Office of the Ombudsman, respondent is going against the same
employer he swore to serve.
In addition, the government has a serious interest in the prosecution of erring
employees and their corrupt acts. Under the Constitution, "[p]ublic office is a public
trust."[66] The Office of the Ombudsman, as "protectors of the [P]eople," [67] is
mandated to "investigate and prosecute . . . any act or omission of any public
officer or employee, office or agency, when such act or omission appears to be
illegal, unjust, improper or inefficient."[68]
Thus, a conflict of interest exists when an incumbent government employee
represents another government employee or public officer in a case pending before
the Office of the Ombudsman. The incumbent officer ultimately goes against
government's mandate under the Constitution to prosecute public officers or
employees who have committed acts or omissions that appear to be illegal, unjust,
improper, or inefficient.[69] Furthermore, this is consistent with the constitutional
directive that "[p]ublic officers and employees must, at all times, be accountable to
the [P]eople, serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and
efficiency; act with patriotism and justice, and lead modest lives." [70]
The objective in disciplinary cases is not to punish the erring officer or employee
but to continue to uplift the People's trust in government and to ensure excellent
public service:
[W]hen an officer or employee is disciplined, the object sought is not the
punishment of that officer or employee, but the improvement of the public service
and the preservation of the public's faith and confidence in the government. . . .
These constitutionally-enshrined principles, oft-repeated in our case law, are not
mere rhetorical flourishes or idealistic sentiments. They should be taken as working
standards by all in the public service.[71]
Having determined that respondent illicitly practiced law, we find that there is now
no need to determine whether the fees he charged were reasonable.
In disbarment or disciplinary cases pending before this Court, the complainant must
prove his or her allegations through substantial evidence. [72] In Advincula v.
Macabata,[73] this Court dismissed a complaint for disbarment due to the lack of
evidence in proving the complainant's allegations:
As a basic rule in evidence, the burden of proof lies on the party who makes the
allegationsei incumbit probation, qui decit, non qui negat; cum per rerum
naturam factum negantis probation nulla sit. In the case at bar, complainant
miserably failed to comply with the burden of proof required of her. A mere charge
or allegation of wrongdoing does not suffice. Accusation is not synonymous with
guilt.[74] (Emphasis in the original, citations omitted)
Moreover, lawyers should not be hastily disciplined or penalized unless it is shown
that they committed a transgression of their oath or their duties, which reflects on
their fitness to enjoy continued status as a member of the bar:
The power to disbar or suspend ought always to be exercised on the preservative
and not on the vindictive principle, with great caution and only for the most weighty
reasons and only on clear cases of misconduct which seriously affect the standing
and character of the lawyer as an officer of the court and member of the Bar. Only
those acts which cause loss of moral character should merit disbarment or
suspension, while those acts which neither affect nor erode the moral character of
the lawyer should only justify a lesser sanction unless they are of such nature and
to such extent as to clearly show the lawyer's unfltness to continue in the practice
of law. The dubious character of the act charged as well as the motivation which
induced the lawyer to commit it must be clearly demonstrated before suspension or
disbarment is meted out. The mitigating or aggravating circumstances that
attended the commission of the offense should also be considered. [75]
Likewise, we find that respondent violated the Lawyer's Oath and the Code of
Professional Responsibility when he communicated to or, at the very least, made it
appear to complainant that he knew people from the Office of the Ombudsman who
could help them get a favorable decision in complainant's case.
Lawyers are mandated to uphold, at all times, integrity and dignity in the practice
of their profession.[76] Respondent violated the oath he took when he proposed to
gain a favorable outcome for complainant's case by resorting to his influence
among staff in the Office where the case was pending.[77]
Thus, respondent violated the Code of Professional Responsibility. Canon 1, Rules
1.01, and 1.02[78] prohibit lawyers from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral,
or deceitful conduct.[79] Respondent's act of ensuring that the case will be dismissed
because of his personal relationships with officers or employees in the Office of the
Ombudsman is unlawful and dishonest. Canon 7[80] of the Code of Professional
Responsibility requires lawyers to always "uphold the integrity and dignity of the
legal profession."
In relation, Canon 13[81] mandates that lawyers "shall rely upon the merits of his [or
her] cause and refrain from any impropriety which tends to influence, or gives the
appearance of influencing the court."
A lawyer that approaches a judge to try to gain influence and receive a favorable
outcome for his or her client violates Canon 13 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.[82] This act of influence peddling is highly immoral and has no place
in the legal profession:
The highly immoral implication of a lawyer approaching a judgeor a judge
evincing a willingnessto discuss, in private, a matter related to a case pending in
that judge's sala cannot be over-emphasized. The fact that Atty. Singson did talk on
different occasions to Judge Reyes, initially through a mutual friend, Atty. Sevilla,
leads us to conclude that Atty. Singson was indeed trying to influence the judge to
rule in his client's favor. This conduct is not acceptable in the legal profession. [83]
In Jimenez v. Verano, Jr.,[84] we disciplined the respondent for preparing a release

order for his clients using the letterhead of the Department of Justice and the
stationery of the Secretary:
The way respondent conducted himself manifested a clear intent to gain special
treatment and consideration from a government agency. This is precisely the type
of improper behavior sought to be regulated by the codified norms for the bar.
Respondent is duty-bound to actively avoid any act that tends to influence, or may
be seen to influence, the outcome of an ongoing case, lest the people's faith in the
judicial process is diluted.
The primary duty of lawyers is not to their clients but to the administration of
justice. To that end, their clients' success is wholly subordinate. The conduct of a
member of the bar ought to and must always be scrupulously observant of the law
and ethics. Any means, not honorable, fair and honest which is resorted to by the
lawyer, even in the pursuit of his devotion to his client's cause, is condemnable and
unethical.
....
Zeal and persistence in advancing a client's cause must always be within the
bounds of the law. A self-respecting independence in the exercise of the profession
is expected if an attorney is to remain a member of the bar. In the present case, we
find that respondent fell short of these exacting standards. Given the import of the
case, a warning is a mere slap on the wrist that would not serve as commensurate
penalty for the offense.[85]
Similar to the present case, in Bueno v. Raeses,[86] we disbarred a lawyer who
solicited bribe money from his client in violation of Canon 13 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility:
Rather than merely suspend Atty. Raeses as had been done in Bildner, the Court
believes that Atty. Raeses merits the ultimate administrative penalty of disbarment
because of the multi-layered impact and implications of what he did; by his acts he
proved himself to be what a lawyer should not be, in a lawyer's relations to the
client, to the court and to the Integrated Bar.
First, he extracted money from his client for a purpose that is both false and
fraudulent. It is false because no bribery apparently took place as Atty. Raeses in
fact lost the case. It is fraudulent because the professed purpose of the exaction
was the crime of bribery. Beyond these, he maligned the judge and the Judiciary by
giving the impression that court cases are won, not on the merits, but through
deceitful meansa decidedly black mark against the Judiciary. Last but not the
least, Atty. Raeses grossly disrespected the IBP by his cavalier attitude towards its
disciplinary proceedings.
From these perspectives, Atty. Raeses wronged his client, the judge allegedly on
the "take," the Judiciary as an institution, and the IBP of which he is a member. The
Court cannot and should not allow offenses such as these to pass unredressed. Let
this be a signal to one and allto all lawyers, their clients and the general public
that the Court will not hesitate to act decisively and with no quarters given to
defend the interest of the public, of our judicial system and the institutions
composing it, and to ensure that these are not compromised by unscrupulous or
misguided members of the Bar.[87] (Emphasis supplied)
In the interest of ridding itself of corrupt personnel who encourage influence
peddling, and in the interest of maintaining the high ethical standards of employees
in the judiciary, this Court did not hesitate in dismissing its own employee from
government service when she peddled influence in the Court of Appeals: [88]
What brings our judicial system into disrepute are often the actuations of a few
erring court personnel peddling influence to party-litigants, creating the impression
that decisions can be bought and sold, ultimately resulting in the disillusionment of
the public. This Court has never wavered in its vigilance in eradicating the so-called
"bad eggs" in the judiciary. And whenever warranted by the gravity of the offense,
the supreme penalty of dismissal in an administrative case is meted to erring
personnel.[89]
The Investigating Commissioner found that complainant was "forced to give . . .
Respondent the amount of P1,400,000.00 because of the words of Respondent that
he ha[d] friends in the Office of the Ombudsman who c[ould] help with a fee." [90] It
is because of respondent's assurances to complainant that she sent him money
over the course of several months.[91] These assurances are seen from the text
messages that respondent sent complainant:
FROM: Atty. Alvarez <+639063630224>
SUBJECT:
Cnbi ko dun sa kontak dati na magbibigay tayo na pera sa allowance lang muna
later na ang bayad pag labas ng reso at kaliwaan pero sbi nya mas maganda kung
isasabay na ang pera pagbgay ng letter mo sa omb.. Parang dun tayo nagkamali
pero ang solusyon ay sana ibalik nila ang pera . . in d meantime hindi dapat
apektado ang kaso at kailangan an Appeal sa CA at may deadline yun
DATE: 31-05-2010
TIME: 5:24 pm
TYPE: Text Message
....

SUBJECT:
Gud pm pnro, naLBC n b ang Reso? Kung Jan un pnrmahn ...
DATE: 21-05-2010
TIME: 5:13 pm
TYPE: Text Message
....
SUBJECT:
Pnro sbi ng Dep Omb la png cnabi sa knya ng Omb. Ang CA Reso pnaiwan n Orly @
studyohn nya (txt kontal)
DATE: 15-04-2010
TIME: 6:07 pm
TYPE: Text Message
....
SUBJECT:
Yung blessing pala ni gutierez ang hnhntay ng overall dep omb si orly at dun din
siya subok kuha letter pero nasbhan na si gutierez ng dep omb for Luzon sbi ko
pwwde b nila gawin total alam na ni gutierez. . . Maya tawag ko sayo update
DATE: 15-04-2010
TIME: 12:44 pm
TYPE: Text Message
....
SUBJECT:
Gud mrng Tess hindi na svmagot kahapon tnxt ko pero minsan hndi tlga sumasagot
yun nag ttxt lang pagkatapos kaya lang d mo pala naiintindihan ang txt nya bisaya
"istudyahun" ibig sabihn kausapin pa so nasbi na nya sa omb yung letter at
istudzahan pa
DATE: 31-03-2010
TIME: 8:25 am
TYPE: Text Message
....
SUBJECT:
Ok panero update ko na lang client pero nag txt tlga kailangan daw nya letter
habang wala pa omb reso., Txt mo lang ko panero, have a nice holidays., (sagot ko
yan tess)
DATE: 03-03-2010
TIME: 5:03 pm
TYPE: Text Message
....
SUBJECT:
Sa dep omb for Luzon na nya follow up ang MR at saka overall dep omb si orly dun
nya kukunin letter
DATE: 30-03-2010
TIME: 5:00 pm
TYPE: Text Message
....
SUBJECT:
Gud pm pnro. Ang Dep. Omb. My closd dor mtng pro pnkta s knya ang note q at
sabi rw bumalik aq aftr Holy wk. C Orly nman ay ngsabi n es2dyuhn p rw nya.
DATE: 30-03-2010
TIME: 4:52 pm
TYPE: Text Message
....
SUBJECT:
Binigay ko na pera kahapon at kinausap ko para sa letter magkikita pa kami
marnaya las 2 at kukunin nya copy letter natin kay sales at CA reso
DATE: 15-04-2010
TIME: 12:32 pm
TYPE: Text Message
....
SUBJECT:
Tess ndpst mo na? Kakausapin ko kasi na qc na lang kami kita at malapit ako dun
maya at hindi na sa crsng. Tnx
DATE: 14-04-2010
TIME: 1:29 pm
TYPE: Text Message
....
SUBJECT:
Gud pm pnro. Ok ba ang 15k rep maya 6pm? Thnx (txt ng kontak tess kausapin ko
mbuti sa letter)
DATE: 14-04-2010
TIME: 10:25 am
TYPE: Text Message
....
SUBJECT:
Pnro ung rep alo n bngay mo 1st Mar 24 ay ok Ing pra s 2 falo-ups q Mar 25 @ Mar
30. As usual, magkita tau Apr 14 @ kunin q 20th para sa falo-up Apr 15 thnx
DATE: 08-04-2010
TIME: 10:58 am
TYPE: Text Message
....
SUBJECT:
Ok panero kailangan malinaw din ang presentation lp sa client panero at ang

impression nya yun na ang hningi natin... so april 15 panero an balik mo sa MR at
yung letter form omb to dof bhala ka na sa diskarte panero pag nakakuha tayo
nakahanda na 150k dun
DATE: 08-04-2010
TIME: 10:56 am
TYPE: Text Message
....
SUBJECT:
Pnero dapat maalala mo n ung purpose ng 400th hindi directly delivery ng Reso
granting d MR pro ung delivery by the Dep Omb ng letr of appeal 2 d Omb at
pgpaliwang nya sa Omb. Re sa hnhngi ng rspondnt n modfcation ng Dcsion. Nung
1st mtng ntn Mar 24, ngin4m q sau n ngawa n i2 ng Dep Omb pro kausapn p ng
Omb c Orly. Itong huli ang nabtn p, pro yon ay dscrtion n ng Omb@ wing control d2
and Dep. Omb.
DATE: 08-04-2010
TIME: 10:55 am
TYPE: Text Message
....
SUBJECT:
Tess gud mrng, wag mo kalimutan mgdpst 25k today 6pm mtng naming omb tnx.
DATE: 24-03-2010
TIME: 10:23 am
TYPE: Text Message
....
SUBJECT:
Gud pm uli pnro. Kung subukan q n lkrn ky Orly ung cnabi mong letr adrsd 2 DOF
Sec @ synd n Orly ang letr, pktanong s rspndnt kung ok b s knya nab yarn nya aq
ng Atty's fee n 75thou upfront @ another 75thou upon receipt of a DOF ordr holdng
n abyans implmntation of hr dsmsal due 2 Orly's letr? thnx
DATE: 11-03-2010
TIME: 7:03 pm
TYPE: Text Message[92]
In response to his alleged text messages, respondent claims that complainant must
have confused him with her other contacts.[93] Respondent found it "mesmerizing"
that complainant was able to save all those alleged text messages from two (2)
years ago.[94] Moreover, assuming these messages were "true, still they [were] not
legally admissible as they [were] covered by the lawyer-client privileged
communication as those supposed texts '[had been] made for the purpose and in
the course of employment, [were] regarded as privileged and the rule of exclusion
[was] strictly enforced.'"[95]
In cases involving influence peddling or bribery, "[t]he transaction is always done in
secret and often only between the two parties concerned."[96] Nevertheless, as
found by the Investigating Commissioner and as shown by the records, we rule that
there is enough proof to hold respondent guilty of influence peddling.
We agree with the penalty recommended by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
Board of Governors. We find respondent's acts of influence peddling, coupled with
unauthorized practice of law, merit the penalty of suspension of one (1) year from
the practice of law. To be so bold as to peddle influence before the very institution
that is tasked to prosecute corruption speaks much about respondent's character
and his attitude towards the courts and the bar.
Lawyers who offer no skill other than their acquaintances or relationships with
regulators, investigators, judges, or Justices pervert the system, weaken the rule of
law, and debase themselves even as they claim to be members of a noble
profession. Practicing law should not degenerate to one's ability to have illicit
access. Rather, it should be about making an honest appraisal of the client's
situation as seen through the evidence fairly and fully gathered. It should be about
making a discerning and diligent reading of the applicable law. It is foremost about
attaining justice in a fair manner. Law exists to temper, with its own power, illicit
power and unfair advantage. It should not be conceded as a tool only for those who
cheat by unduly influencing people or public officials.
It is time that we unequivocally underscore that to even imply to a client that a
lawyer knows who will make a decision is an act worthy of the utmost
condemnation. If we are to preserve the nobility of this profession, its members
must live within its ethical parameters. There is never an excuse for influence
peddling.
While this Court is not a collection agency for faltering debtors, [97] this Court has
ordered restitution of amounts to complainants due to the erroneous actions of
lawyers.[98] Respondent is, therefore, required to return to complainant the amount
of P500,000.00the amount that respondent allegedly gave his friends connected
with the Office of the Ombudsman.
WHEREFORE, Respondent Arty. Nicanor C. Alvarez is guilty of violating the Code of
Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees, the Lawyer's
Oath, and the Code of Professional Responsibility. He is SUSPENDED from the
practice of law for one (1) year with a WARNING that a repetition of the same or
similar acts shall be dealt with more severely. Respondent is ORDERED to return
the amount of P500,000.00 with legal interest to complainant Teresita P. Fajardo.
Let copies of this Decision be furnished to the Office of the Bar Confidant, to be
appended to respondent's personal record as attorney. Likewise, copies shall be
furnished to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and all courts in the country for
their information and guidance.
SO ORDERED.
Rollo, p. 1, Integrated Bar of the Philippines Commission on Bar Discipline Report

and Recommendation dated November 14, 2012.
[1]
[2]
Id.
[3]
Id.
[4]
Id.
[5]
Id. at 2.
[6]
Id.
[7]
Id.
[8]
Id.
[9]
Id.
[10]
Id.
[11]
Id. at 9, Comment.
[12]
Id.
[13]
Id. at 10-11.
[14]
Id. at 12.
[15]
Id.
[16]
Id.
[17]
Id.
[18]
Id.
[19]
Id.
Id. at 12-13. The Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon promulgated the
Decision dated February 19, 2008 finding Teresita guilty of serious dishonesty and
ordered her dismissal from service (OMB-L-A-04-0254-D[OMB-L-C-04-0376-D] For:
Dishonesty). In the Resolution dated February 19, 2008, the same Office issued the
Resolution recommending the indictment of Teresita for violation of Rep. Act No.
3019, sec. 3(e) (OMB-L-C-04-0376-D [OMB-L-A-04-0254-D] For: Violation of
Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019).
[20]
[21]
Id.
[22]
Id.
[23]
Id. at 14.
[24]
Id. at 13-14.
[25]
Id. at 419, Report and Recommendation.
[26]
Id.
[27]
Id.
[28]
Id.
[29]
Id. at 419-420.
[30]
Id. at 1-3.
[31]
Id. at 8, Resolution dated July 25, 2011.
[32]
Id. at 282.
[33]
Id. at 416-423.
[34]
Id. at 422.
[35]
Id. at 423.
[36]
Id. at 422-423.
[37]
Id. at 429.
[38]
Id. at 421.
[39]
Id. at 422.
[40]
Id. at 421-422.
[41]
Id. at 415.
[42]
Id.
[43]
Id. at 424-433.
[44]
Id. at 444.
[45]
Id.
[46]
Id. at 21.
[47]
Id.
[48]
Id.
[49]
278 Phil. 235 (1991) [Per J. Paras, En Banc].
Id. at 241-256, citing Land Title Abstract and Trust Co. v. Dworken, 129 Ohio St.
23, 193 N.E. 650; State ex. rel. Mckittrick v. C.S. Dudley and Co., 102 S.W. 2d 895,
340 Mo. 852; Barr D. Cardell 155 NW 312; and 111 ALR 23.
[50]
[51]
A.C. No. 5377, June 30, 2014, 727 SCRA 341 [Per J. Leonen, Third Division]
[52]
Id. at 355.
Issued by the Office of the President, entitled Revoking Memorandum Circular

No. 1025 Dated November 25, 1977.
[53]
[54]
606 Phil. 200 (2009) [Per J. Carpio, First Division].
[55]
Id. at 202.
[56]
Id.
Id. at 206-207. Respondent was reprimanded and "warned that a repetition of

the same or similar act in the future shall merit a more severe sanction" (Id. at
208).
[57]
[58]
Rollo, p. 21.
[59]
Id.
G.R. No. 102549, August 10, 1992, 212 SCRA 475 [Per J. Grio-Aquino, En
Banc].
[60]
[61]
Id. at 476.
[62]
Id.
[63]
Id.
[64]
Id.
[65]
Id. at 482.
[66]
CONST., art. XI, sec. 1.
[67]
Rep. Act No. 6770, sec. 15(1). See CONST., art. XI, secs. 12 and 13, which
provide:
[68]
Section 12. The Ombudsman and his Deputies, as protectors of the people, shall act
promptly on complaints filed in any form or manner against public officials or
employees of the Government, or any subdivision, agency or instrumentality
thereof, including government-owned or controlled corporations, and shall, in
appropriate cases, notify the complainants of the action taken and the result
thereof.
Section 13. The Office of the Ombudsman shall have the following powers,
functions, and duties:
(1) Investigate on its own, or on complaint by any person, any act or omission of
any public official, employee, office or agency, when such act or omission appears
to be illegal, unjust, improper, or inefficient.
(2) Direct, upon complaint or at its own instance, any public official or employee of
the Government, or any subdivision, agency or instrumentality thereof, as well as of
any government-owned or controlled corporation with original charter, to perform
and expedite any act or duty required by law, or to stop, prevent, and correct any
abuse or impropriety in the performance of duties.
(3) Direct the officer concerned to take appropriate action against a public official or
employee at fault, and recommend his removal, suspension, demotion, fine,
censure, or prosecution, and ensure compliance therewith.
(4) Direct the officer concerned, in any appropriate case, and subject to such
limitations as may be provided by law, to furnish it with copies of documents
relating to contracts or transactions entered into by his office involving the
disbursement or use of public funds or properties, and report any irregularity to the
Commission on Audit for appropriate action,
(5) Request any government agency for assistance and information necessary in
the discharge of its responsibilities, and to examine, if necessary, pertinent records
and documents.
(6) Publicize matters covered by its investigation when circumstances so warrant
and with due prudence.
(7) Determine the causes of inefficiency, red tape, mismanagement, fraud, and
corruption in the Government and make recommendations for their elimination and
the observance of high standards of ethics and efficiency.
(8) Promulgate its rules of procedure and exercise such other powers or perform
such functions or duties as may be provided by law.
This must be differentiated, however, from the rule governing former
government lawyers acting as counsel for private parties after leaving the
service. See Presidential Commission on Good Government v. Sandiganbayan, 495
Phil. 485 (2005) [Per J. Puno, En Banc] and Code of Professional Responsibility,
Canon 6, rule 6.03.
[69]
[70]
Government Service Insurance System v. Mayordomo, 665 Phil. 131, 151-152

(2011) [Per J. Mendoza, En Banc], citing Civil Service Commission v. Cortez, 474
Phil. 670, 690 (2004) [Per Curiam, En Banc]; and Bautista v. Negado, 108 Phil.
283, 289 (1960) [Per J. Gutierrez David, En Banc].
[71]
See Spouses Boyboy v. Yabut, Jr., A.C. No. 5225, April 29, 2003, 401 SCRA 622
[Per J. Bellosillo, Second Division].
[72]
[73]
546 Phil. 431 (2007) [Per J. Chico-Nazario, Third Division].
[74]
Id. at 446.
[75]
Id. at 447-448.
See Heirs of Alilano v. Examen, A.C. No. 10132, March 24, 2015
<http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?
file=/jurisprudence/2015/march2015/10132.pdf> [Per J. Villarama, Jr., En
Banc]; Sipin-Nabor v. Baterina y Figueras, All Phil. 419, 424 (2001) [Per J. Pardo,
En Banc]; Vitriolo v. Dasig, 448 Phil. 199, 209 (2003) [Per Curiam, En Banc].
[76]
[77]
Lawyer's Oath I, _____, do solemnly swear that I will maintain allegiance to
the Republic of the Philippines; I will support its Constitution and obey the laws as
well as the legal orders of the duly constituted authorities therein; I will do no
falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court; I will not wittingly or willingly
promote or sue any groundless, false or unlawful suit, nor give aid nor consent to
the same; I will delay no man for money or malice, and will conduct myself as a
lawyer according to the best of my knowledge and discretion with all good fidelity
as well to the courts as to my clients; and I impose upon myself this voluntary
obligation without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion. So help me God.
[78]
Code of Professional Responsibility, Canon 1, rules 1.01 and 1.02 provide:
CANON 1 - A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land and
promote respect for law and for legal processes.
RULE 1.01 A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful
conduct.
RULE 1.02 A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance of the law
or at lessening confidence in the legal system[.]
See Phil. Association of Court Employees v. Alibutdan-Diaz, A.C. No. 10134,
November 26, 2014 <http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?
file=/jurisprudence/2014/november2014/10134.pdf> [Per J. Mendoza, Second
Division].
[79]
[80]
Code of Professional Responsibility, Canon 7 provides:
CANON 7 - A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal
profession and support the activities of the integrated bar.
[81]
Code of Professional Responsibility, Canon 13 provides:
CANON 13 - A lawyer shall rely upon the merits of his cause and refrain from any
impropriety which tends to influence, or gives the appearance of influencing the
court.
[82]
Bildner v. Ilusorio, 606 Phil. 369 (2009) [Per J. Velasco, Jr., Second Division].
[83]
Id. at 389.
[84]
A.C. No. 8108, July 15, 2014, 730 SCRA 53 [Per C.J. Sereno, En Banc].
[85]
Id. at 61-62.
[86]
700 Phil. 817 (2012) [Per Curiam, En Banc].
[87]
Id. at 827.
Nuez v. Cruz-Apao, 495 Phil. 270 (2005) [Per Curiam, En Banc], citing Mendoza
v. Tiongson, 333 Phil. 508 (1996) [Per Curiam, En Banc].
[88]
[89]
Id. at 272.
Rollo, p. 421, Integrated Bar of the Philippines Commission on Bar Discipline

Report and Recommendation dated November 14, 2012.
[90]
[91]
Id.
[92]
Id. at 339-344.
Id. at 382, Respondent's Position Paper dated September 28, 2012, paragraph
64. Integrated Bar of the Philippines Records.
[93]
[94]
Id.
[95]
Id. at 382-383, citation omitted.
Bildner v. Ilusorio, 606 Phil. 369, 390 (2009) [Per J. Velasco, Jr., Second
Division].
[96]
See In re: Complaint for Failure to Pay Just Debts Against Esther T. Andres, 493
Phil. 1 (2005) [Per J. Chico-Nazario, En Banc].
[97]
See Adrimisin v. Javier, 532 Phil. 639 (2006) [Per J. Carpio, En Banc]; Rollon v.
Naraval, 493 Phil. 24 (2005) [Per J. Panganiban, En Banc]; Ramos v. Imbang, 557
Phil. 507 (2007) [Per Curiam, En Banc].
[98]

G.R.
No.
210540
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. HOMER AND MA. SUSANA DAGONDON, RESPONDENTS.
April 19, 2016
FIRST DIVISION
[ G.R. No. 210540, April 19, 2016 ]
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. HOMER
AND MA. SUSANA DAGONDON, RESPONDENTS.
DECISION
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:
Assailed in this petition for review on certiorari[1] is the Decision[2] dated November
29, 2013 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV. No. 02428, which affirmed the
Decision[3] dated July 23, 2010 of the Regional Trial Court of Mambajao, Camiguin,
Branch 28 (RTC) in Misc. Case No. 80, on the sole ground that it had already
achieved finality and, hence, immutable.
The Facts
The instant case arose from a Petition[4] filed before the RTC on March 10, 2009 by
respondents Homer and Ma. Susana Dagondon (respondents), as attorneys-in-fact
of Jover P. Dagondon (Jover),[5] praying for the reconstitution of the Original
Certificate of Title (OCT) of a 5,185-square meter parcel of land located at Bonbon,
Catarman, Camiguin, denominated as Lot No. 84 of the Catarman Cadastre (Lot
84). In the petition, respondents alleged that: (a) Jover is the registered owner of
Lot 84, having purchased the same from a certain Lourdes Borromeo Cordero,
[6]
and consequently, registered it under his name for taxation purposes under Tax
Declaration No. 013775; [7] (b) on October 23, 2008, they obtained two (2)
separate certifications from the Land Registration Authority (LRA), one stating that
Decree No. 466085 was issued in relation to Lot 84,[8] and the other stating that it
did not have a copy of Decree No. 466085 on file, and that the same was presumed
lost or destroyed as a consequence of the last world war; [9] (c) on February 13,
2009, they secured another certification, this time from the Register of Deeds (RD)
of Mambajao, Camiguin, declaring that the subject property had no existing
OCT and that it was probably destroyed or dilapidated during the eruption of HibocHiboc Volcano[10] or World War II;[11] and (d) they were filing the petition for
reconstitution on the basis of Decree No. 466085. [12]
In opposition,[13] petitioner Republic of the Philippines, as represented by the Office
of the Solicitor General (petitioner), prayed for the dismissal of the petition for
insufficiency in form and substance, considering that respondents, among others,
failed to establish the existence of the very Torrens Title which they sought to
reconstitute.[14]
The RTC Proceedings
After complying with the jurisdictional requirements, respondents presented
Sebastiana Dagatan, Land Registration Examiner, from the Office of the Register of
Deeds (RD) of Mambajao, Camiguin. After identifying the certification issued by her
office, she testified that while the subject property had already been issued a
decree, there is, however, no existing title in their files covering Lot 84. [15]
In a Decision[16] dated July 23, 2010 (RTC Decision), the RTC granted the petition
for reconstitution and, accordingly, ordered the RD of Mambajao, Camiguin to
reconstitute the OCT of Lot 84. In ruling for respondents, the RTC ratiocinated that
neither the government nor any interested party would be prejudiced if it resolved
to grant the petition.[17]
Asserting that it was notified of the adverse ruling on August 6, 2010, [18] petitioner
moved for reconsideration on August 23, 2010.[19] However, in a
Resolution[20]dated January 28, 2011, the RTC denied the said motion for having
been filed out of time. Contrary to petitioner's assertion, the RTC found that based
on the registry return card, petitioner received the July 23, 2010 Decision on
August 5, 2010; and counting fifteen (15) days therefrom, it only had until August
20, 2010 to file the same. Resultantly, the motion for reconsideration should be
disregarded for being a mere scrap of paper.[21]
The foregoing dismissal on procedural grounds notwithstanding, the RTC still opted
to rule on the merits of the aforesaid motion. It held that despite the non-existence
of the OCT for Lot 84, it could still be validly reconstituted on the strength alone of
Decree No. 466085. In this regard, the RTC opined that the decree itself was
sufficient and proper basis for the reconstitution of the lost or destroyed certificate
of title.[22]
Undeterred, petitioner appealed to the CA.[23]
The CA Ruling
In a Decision[24] dated November 29, 2013, the CA dismissed petitioner's appeal. It
held that the RTC Decision had already attained finality due to petitioner's failure to
move for its reconsideration within the fifteen (15)-day reglementary period
provided by law. As such, the RTC Decision could no longer be assailed pursuant to
the doctrine of finality and immutability of judgments. The CA further noted that
petitioner failed to proffer compelling reasons to justify the belated filing of its
motion, and worse, even concealed the date it received the RTC Decision which was
consequently belied by the date indicated in the registry return card. [25]
Notably, the CA no longer delved into the issue of the propriety of the order of
reconstitution of the OCT covering Lot 84.
Hence, the instant petition.
The Issues Before the Court
The essential issues for the Court's resolution are: (a) whether or not the RTC
Decision could no longer be assailed pursuant to the doctrine of finality and
immutability of judgments; and (b) whether or not the RTC correctly ordered the
reconstitution of the OCT of Lot 84.
The Court's Ruling
The petition is meritorious.

I.
At the outset, it bears reiterating that the CA did not assess the substantive merits
of the RTC Decision - which ordered the reconstitution of the OCT of Lot 84 - on the
pretense that it had already attained finality which rendered it beyond the scope of
judicial review.
Under the doctrine of finality and immutability of judgments, a decision that has
acquired finality becomes immutable and unalterable and may no longer be
modified in any respect, even if the modification is meant to correct erroneous
conclusions of fact or law, and whether it will be made by the court that rendered it
or by the highest court of the land. Upon finality of the judgment, the Court loses
its jurisdiction to amend, modify or alter the same.[26]
The mandatory character, however, of the rule on immutability of final judgments
was not designed to be an inflexible tool to excuse and overlook prejudicial

circumstances. Hence, the doctrine must yield to practicality, logic, fairness, and
substantial justice.[27] In Sumbilla v. Matrix Finance Corporation,[28] the Court had
the occasion to name certain circumstances which necessitate a relaxation of the
rule on the immutability of final judgments, to wit:
Consequently[,] final and executory judgments were reversed when the
interest of substantial justice is at stake and where special and compelling
reasons called for such actions. In Barnes v. Judge Padilla, we declared as
follows:
x x x a final and executory judgment can no longer be attacked by any of the
parties or be modified, directly or indirectly, even by the highest court of the land.
However, this Court has relaxed this rule in order to serve substantial
justice considering (a) matters of life, liberty, honor[,] orproperty, (b) the
existence of special or compelling circumstances, (c) the merits of the
case, (d) a cause not entirely attributable to the fault or negligence of the party
favored by the suspension of the rules, (e) a lack of any showing that the review
sought is merely frivolous and dilatory, and (f) the other party will not be unjustly
prejudiced thereby.
Invariably, rules of procedure should be viewed as mere tools designed to facilitate
the attainment of justice. Their strict and rigid application, which would
result in technicalities that tend to frustrate rather than promote
substantial justice, must always be eschewed. Even the Rules of Court reflects
this principle. The power to suspend or even disregard rules can be so pervasive
and compelling as to alter even that which this Court itself had already declared to
be final.[29] (Emphases and underscoring supplied)
As will be discussed, a departure from the doctrine is warranted since its strict
application would, in effect, circumvent and undermine the stability of the Torrens
System of land registration adopted in this jurisdiction. Relatedly, it bears stressing
that the subject matter of the instant controversy, i.e., Lot 84, is a sizeable parcel
of real property. More importantly, petitioner had adequately presented a strong
and meritorious case.
Thus, in view of the aforesaid circumstances, the Court deems it apt to exercise its
prerogative to suspend procedural rules and to resolve the present controversy
according to its merits.
II.
Republic Act No. (RA) 26[30] governs the process by which a judicial reconstitution of
Torrens Certificates of Title may be done. Specifically, Section 2 of the said law
enumerates in the following order the competent and exclusive sources from which
reconstitution of an OCT may be based, viz.:
Section 2. Original certificates of title shall be reconstituted from such of
the sources hereunder enumerated as may be available, in the following
order:
(a) The owner's duplicate of the certificate of title;
(b) The co-owner's, mortgagee's, or lessee's duplicate of the certificate of title;
(c) A certified copy of the certificate of title, previously issued by the register of
deeds or by a legal custodian thereof;
(d) An authenticated copy of the decree of registration or patent, as the case may
be, pursuant to which the original certificate of title was issued;
(e) A document, on file in the registry of deeds, by which the property, the
description of which is given in said document, is mortgaged, leased or
encumbered, or an authenticated copy of said document showing that its original
had been registered; and
(f) Any other document which, in the judgment of the court, is sufficient and
proper basis for reconstituting the lost or destroyed certificate of title. (Emphasis
and underscoring supplied)
Verily, case law provides that "[t]he reconstitution of a certificate of title denotes
restoration in the original form and condition of a lost or destroyed instrument
attesting the title of a person to a piece of land. The purpose of the reconstitution
of title is to have, after observing the procedures prescribed by law, the title
reproduced in exactly the same way it has been when the loss or destruction
occurred. RA 26 presupposes that the property whose title is sought to be
reconstituted has already been brought under the provisions of the Torrens
System."[31] Hence, under the aforesaid law, the following must be present for an
order for reconstitution to issue: (a) that the certificate of title had been lost or
destroyed; (b) that the documents presented by petitioner are sufficient and proper
to warrant reconstitution of the lost or destroyed certificate of title; (c) that the
petitioner is the registered owner of the property or had an interest therein; (d)
that the certificate of title was in force at the time it was lost and destroyed; and
(e) that the description, area and boundaries of the property are substantially the
same as those contained in the lost or destroyed certificate of title. [32] Thus,
petitioner correctly pointed out that the applicability of RA 26 in this case is
contingent on the existence of a previously issued OCT which has been lost or
destroyed.
In the case at bar, respondents miserably failed to adduce clear and convincing
proof that an OCT covering Lot 84 had previously been issued by virtue of
Decree No. 466085. Accordingly, there is no title pertaining to Lot 84 which could
be "reconstituted," re-issued, or restored. Guided by the foregoing, judicial
reconstitution of title under Section 2 of RA 26 is clearly improper in this case; and
hence, the RTC erred in ordering the same.
For another, and even assuming that RA 26 applies, respondents could not
predicate their petition for reconstitution on the basis of Decree No. 466085 alone
because as mentioned by petitioner, a copy of the same was not even presented as
evidence before the trial court; hence, its contents remain unknown. [33] Neither
could the certification[34] issued by the LRA stating that Decree No. 466085 was
issued to Lot 84 be given any probative weight, considering that an ambiguous LRA
certification without describing the nature of the decree and the claimant in such
case, practically means nothing and could not be considered as a sufficient and
proper basis for reconstituting a lost or destroyed certificate of title. The
pronouncement in the case of Republic v. Heirs of Ramos[35] is highly instructive on
the matter, viz.:
Moreover, the Certification issued by the LRA stating that Decree No. 190622 was
issued for Lot 54 means nothing. The Land Registration Act expressly
recognizes two classes of decrees in land registration proceedings, namely,
(i) decrees dismissing the application and (ii) decrees of confirmation and
registration. In the case at bench, we cannot ascertain from said
Certification whether the decree alluded to by the respondents granted or
denied Julio Ramos' claim. Moreover, the LRA's Certification did not state
to whom Lot 54 was decreed. Thus, assuming that Decree No. 190622 is a
decree of confirmation, it would be too presumptuous to further assume that the
same was issued in the name and in favor of Julio Ramos. Furthermore, said
Certification did not indicate the number of the original certificate of title
and the date said title was issued. InTahanan Development Corporation v.
Court of Appeals[(203 Phil. 652 [1982])], we held that the absence of any
document, private or official, mentioning the number of the certificate of title and
date when the certificate of title was issued, does not warrant the granting of such
petition. (Emphases and underscoring supplied)[36]
In sum, the failure of respondents to satisfactorily prove that Lot 84 had been
registered under the Torrens System rendered judicial reconstitution under RA 26
inapplicable.
At any rate, it must be stressed that this decision does not operate to completely
divest respondents of their interest, if any, in Lot 84. Rather, it simply underscored
the wrong procedural remedy availed of. If they remain insistent to have the title of
the subject property issued under their names, they can institute the appropriate
proceedings in accordance with law and jurisprudence. [37]
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated November 29, 2013 of
the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV. No. 02428 is hereby REVERSED and SET
ASIDE. Accordingly, the Petition for Reconstitution filed by respondents Homer and
Ma. Susana Dagondon before the Regional Trial Court of Mambajao, Camiguin,
Branch 28, and docketed as Misc. Case No. 80, is DISMISSED for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.
Sereno, C.J., (Chairperson), Leonardo-De Castro, Bersamin, and Caguioa, JJ.,
concur.
[1]
Rollo, pp. 10-20.
Id. at 23-31. Penned by Associate Justice Romulo V. Borja with Associate Justices
Renato C. Francisco and Oscar V. Badelles concurring.
[2]
[3]
Id. at 43-47. Penned by Executive Judge Rustico D. Paderanga.
[4]
Records, pp. 1-3.
[5]
See Special Power of Attorney dated September 10, 2008; id. at 5.
[6]
See Deed of Absolute Sale dated April 12, 2005; id. at 4.
[7]
Id. at 1.
[8]
See Certification dated October 23, 2008; id. at 7.
[9]
See Certification dated October 23, 2008; id. at 8.
[10]
Sometimes referred to as "Hibok-Hibok Volcano" in the records.
[11]
See Certification dated February 13, 2009; records, p. 9.
[12]
Id. at 2.
[13]
Id. at 49-53.
[14]
Id. at 50.
[15]
Rollo, p. 46.
[16]
Id. at 43-47.
[17]
Id. at 47.
[18]
Records, p. 120.
[19]
Id. at 120-128.
[20]
Rollo, pp. 48-53.
[21]
Id. at 53.
[22]
Id. at 52.
[23]
See Notice of Appeal dated February 24, 2011; id. at 78-79.
[24]
Id. at 23-31.
[25]
[26]
Id. at 28-29.
See Sumbilla v. Matrix Finance Corp., G.R. No. 197582, June 29, 2015.
Phil. Woman's Christian Temperance Union, Inc. v. Yangco, G.R. No. 199595,
April 2, 2014, 720 SCRA 522, 533.
[27]
[28]
[29]
See Supra note 26.

See id.; citations omitted.
Entitled "AN ACT PROVIDING A SPECIAL PROCEDURE FOR THE

RECONSTITUTION OF TORRENS CERTIFICATES OF TITLE LOST OR DESTROYED,"
approved on September 25, 1946.
[30]
Republic v. Tuastumban, 604 Phil. 491, 504-505 (2009); citations omitted,

emphasis and underscoring supplied.
[31]
[32]
See id. at 504.
[33]
See rollo, pp. 15-16.
[34]
Records, p. 104.
[35]
627 Phil. 123(2010).
[36]
Id. at 138-139; citations omitted.
"If the respondents still insist on the reconstitution of OCT No. 45361, the
proper procedure is to file a petition for the cancellation and re-issuance of Decree
No. 418121 following the opinion of then LRA Administrator Benedicto B. Ulep. x x x
[37]
1. Under the premises, the correct proceeding is a petition for cancellation of the
old decree, reissuance of decree and for issuance of OCT pursuant to that reissued
decree.
xxxx
2. [RA] 26 for reconstitution of lost OCT will not lie.
xxxx
3. For as long as a decree has not yet been transcribed (entered in [the]
registration book of the RD), the court which adjudicated and ordered for the
issuance of such decree continues to be clothed with jurisdiction.
xxxx
4. The heirs of the original adjudicate may file the petition in representation of the
decedent and the reissued decree shall still be under the name of the original
adjudicate.
x x x x" (See Republic v. Heirs of Sanchez, G.R. No. 212388, December 10, 2014,
744 SCRA 700, 707-711.)

A.C.
No.
11139
PHILCOMSAT* HOLDINGS CORPORATION, DULY REPRESENTED BY ERLINDA I. BILDNER, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. LUIS
K.
LOKIN,
JR.
AND
ATTY.
SIKINI
C.
LABASTILLA,
RESPONDENTS.
April 19, 2016
EN BANC
[ A.C. No. 11139, April 19, 2016 ]
PHILCOMSAT* HOLDINGS CORPORATION, DULY
REPRESENTED BY ERLINDA I. BILDNER, COMPLAINANT, VS.
ATTY. LUIS K. LOKIN, JR. AND ATTY. SIKINI C. LABASTILLA,
RESPONDENTS.
DECISION
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:
For the Court's resolution is a Complaint [1] dated August 20, 2009 filed by
complainant PHILCOMSAT Holdings Corporation, represented by Erlinda I. Bildner [2]
(complainant), against respondents Atty. Luis K. Lokin, Jr. (Atty. Lokin, Jr.) and Atty.
Sikini C. Labastilla (Atty. Labastilla; collectively, respondents) before the
Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), praying
for the disbarment of respondents for insinuating that the Sandiganbayan received
the amount of P2,000,000.00 in exchange for the issuance of a temporary
restraining order (TRO).
The Facts
The Complaint alleged that sometime in June 2007, the Senate, through its
Committee on Government Corporations and Public Enterprises, conducted an
investigation concerning the anomalies that plagued the PHILCOMSAT group of
companies, which includes complainant, particularly in its huge disbursements of
monies and/or assets. In the course of the said investigation, the Senate examined
various financial records and documents of the company, which at that time, were
under the control and management of Atty. Lokin, Jr. and his co-directors. Among
the records examined by the Senate was an entry in complainant's checkbook stub
which reads "Cash for Sandiganbayan, tro, potc-philcomsat case P2,000,000"[3] (subject checkbook entry). It was then discovered that the check
was issued in connection with complainant's injunction case against Philippine
Overseas Telecommunications Corporation (POTC) before the Sandiganbayan, which
was filed by Atty. Lokin, Jr.'s group, as its representatives, with Atty. Labastilla as
its external counsel (POTC case). As the investigation was publicized by the media,
the Sandiganbayan learned about the subject checkbook entry and,
accordingly, motu proprio initiated indirect contempt proceedings against
respondents, along several others, which was docketed as Case No. SB-07-SCA005[4] (indirect contempt case).[5]
After due proceedings, the Sandiganbayan promulgated a Resolution [6] dated May 7,
2009, finding respondents guilty beyond reasonable doubt of indirect contempt and,
accordingly, sentenced each of them to pay a fine in the amount of P30,000.00 and
to suffer imprisonment for a period of six (6) months. [7] In finding respondents
guilty, the Sandiganbayan opined that: (a) any person reading the subject
checkbook entry would come to the conclusion that a check in the amount of
P2,000,000.00 was issued to the Sandiganbayan in exchange for the latter's
issuance of a TRO, thereby degrading its integrity and honor; (b) Atty. Lokin, Jr.
caused the creation of the said entry in complainant's checkbook which as testified
upon by complainant's bookkeeper, Desideria D. Casas, was the proximate cause
thereof;[8] and (c) circumstantial evidence showed that Atty. Labastilla conspired
with Atty. Lokin, Jr. in causing such contemptuous entry, considering, inter alia, that
the former was the counsel who applied for a TRO and that he admitted receipt of
the proceeds of the check, although allegedly for legal fees [9] and that Sheriffs
Manuel Gregorio Mendoza Torio and Romulo C. Barrozo of the Sandiganbayan
similarly testified that such TRO was only effected/served upon payment of the
corresponding fees.[10]
Following the promulgation of the Sandiganbayan's May 7, 2009 Resolution, the
complainant instituted the instant complaint.
In his defense, Atty. Lokin, Jr. maintained that he did not perform acts violative of
the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR), insisting that the Sandiganbayan's
findings in the indirect contempt case were erroneous and contrary to the pertinent
evidence and records. He likewise pointed out that the Sandiganbayan ruling was
appealed - albeit not by him but by Atty. Labastilla - to the Court, i.e., G.R. No.
187699,[11] which appeal remains unresolved. Therefore, it cannot be the basis for
his administrative liability.[12]
For his part, Atty. Labastilla harped on the fact that an appeal questioning the
Sandiganbayan ruling is still pending before the Court; thus, it was premature to
file an administrative complaint against him. He further maintained that he had no
participation in the creation of the subject checkbook entry and, even if he had any
such participation, there was nothing contemptuous about it. [13]
The IBP's Report and Recommendation
In a Report and Recommendation[14] dated January 23, 2013, the IBP Investigating
Commissioner found Atty. Lokin, Jr. administratively liable and, accordingly,
recommended that he be meted the penalty of suspension from the practice of law
for a period of one (1) year. However, Atty. Labastilla was absolved from any
administrative liability.[15]
Similar to the Sandiganbayan, the IBP Investigating Commissioner found Atty.
Lokin, Jr. responsible for the creation of the subject checkbook entry. In this
relation, it was pointed out that while Atty. Lokin, Jr. offered an explanation
regarding the said entry, such explanation was more in the nature of an avoidance
and confession posturing, and therefore, was not helpful to his cause as it only
served to further implicate him in the making of the aforesaid entry.[16]
On the other hand, the IBP Investigating Commissioner found no evidence showing
that Atty. Labastilla had any participation in the making of the subject checkbook
entry, and as such, could not be reasonably implicated therein. In absolving Atty.
Labastilla, the IBP Investigating Commissioner stressed that the instant
administrative case's concern was only with the actual making of the subject
checkbook entry, and not as to whether Atty. Labastilla actually participated in the
disbursement of the proceeds of the check and/or in the attempt to bribe any
officials and employees of the Sandiganbayan to obtain a TRO.[17]
In a Resolution[18] dated March 21, 2013, the IBP Board of Governors adopted and
approved the aforesaid report and recommendation. Atty. Lokin, Jr. moved for
reconsideration,[19] but the same was denied in a Resolution[20] dated June 6, 2015
with modification increasing the recommended period of suspension from the
practice of law to three (3) years.
The Issue Before the Court
The essential issue in this case is whether or not respondents should be held
administratively liable.
The Court's Ruling
As will be explained hereunder, the Court: (a) concurs with the IBP's findings as to
Atty. Lokin, Jr.'s administrative liability; and (b) disagrees with the IBP's
recommendation to absolve Atty. Labastilla from administrative liability.
At the outset, the Court notes that the indirect contempt case originally filed before
the Sandiganbayan is in the nature of a criminal contempt.[21] "[C]riminal contempt
is conduct that is directed against the dignity and authority of the court or a judge
acting judicially; it is an act obstructing the administration of justice which tends to
bring the court into disrespute or disrespect." [22] "[C]riminal contempt, being
directed against the dignity and authority of the court, is an offense against
organized society and, in addition, is also held to be an offense against public
justice which raises an issue between the public and the accused, and the
proceedings to punish it are punitive."[23]
Since the indirect contempt case is criminal in nature, respondents cannot insist
that the filing of an administrative case against them on the basis of the
Sandiganbayan's ruling in the aforesaid case is premature on the premise that their
conviction has not attained finality. It is well-settled that a disbarment proceeding is
separate and distinct from a criminal action filed against a lawyer despite being
involved in the same set of facts. Case law instructs that a finding of guilt in the
criminal case will not necessarily result in a finding of liability in the administrative
case. Conversely, the lawyer's acquittal does not necessarily exculpate them
administratively.[24] In Spouses Saunders v. Pagano-Calde:[25]
[A]dministrative cases against lawyers belong to a class of their own. They
are distinct from and they may proceed independently of criminal cases. A
criminal prosecution will not constitute a prejudicial question even if the
same facts and circumstances are attendant in the administrative
proceedings. Besides, it is not sound judicial policy to await the final resolution of
a criminal case before a complaint against a lawyer may be acted upon; otherwise,
this Court will be rendered helpless to apply the rules on admission to, and
continuing membership in, the legal profession during the whole period that the
criminal case is pending final disposition, when the objectives of the two
proceedings are vastly disparate. Disciplinary proceedings involve no private
interest and afford no redress for private grievance. They are undertaken
and prosecuted solely for the public welfare and for preserving courts of
justice from the official ministration of persons unfit to practice law. The
attorney is called to answer to the court for his conduct as an officer of the court.
[26]
(Emphases and underscoring supplied)
To note, while it is undisputed that Atty. Labastilla indeed filed a petition before the
Court questioning the Sandiganbayan ruling, i.e., G.R.. No. 187699, records are
bereft of any showing that Atty. Lokin, Jr. joined Atty. Labastilla in said petition or
that he separately filed an appeal on his own. Thus, the Sandiganbayan ruling had
long become deemed final and executory as to him. Moreover, Atty. Labastilla's
appeal before the Court was already resolved through a Minute Resolution [27] dated
August 3, 2009 denying the same for failure to sufficiently show that the
Sandiganbayan committed any reversible error in issuing the challenged ruling.
Atty. Labastilla twice moved for reconsideration, but were denied with finality in
Resolutions dated February 1, 2010[28] and August 11, 2010.[29] In light of the
foregoing, the Sandiganbayan's ruling that respondents committed contumacious
acts which tend to undermine and/or denigrate the integrity of such court has
become final and executory and, thus, conclusive as to them, at least in the indirect
contempt case.[30]
In this administrative case, the Court, after a thorough assessment of the merits of
the case, finds itself in agreement with the IBP's finding that the subject checkbook
entry contained a contumacious imputation against the Sandiganbayan, i.e., that a
check in the amount of P2,000,000.00 was issued and given to the Sandiganbayan
in order to secure a favorable TRO in the POTC case. As the records show, Atty.
Lokin, Jr. was the one who caused the making of the subject checkbook entry,
considering that: (a) during the time the said entry was made, complainant's
financial records and documents were under his and his co-directors' control and
management; (b) the complainant's bookkeeper, Desideria D. Casas, categorically
testified that it was Atty. Lokin, Jr. who requested for the issuance and
disbursement of the check in the amount of P2,000,000.00, and that he was also
the one who instructed her to write the subject checkbook entry in the
complainant's checkbook;[31] (c) Atty. Lokin, Jr. never denied participation and
knowledge of the issuance of the check and the consequent creation of the subject
checkbook entry;[32] and (c) when asked to explain during the Senate investigation,
Atty. Lokin, Jr. failed to give a credible justification for the making of such entry,
and instead, resorted to avoidance and confession posturing. [33] Thus, the IBP
correctly concluded that Atty. Lokin, Jr. caused the making of the subject checkbook
entry in complainant's financial records.
However, the Court does not agree with the IBP's finding that Atty. Labastilla could
not reasonably be implicated in the making of the subject checkbook entry. The
Court is more inclined to concur with the Sandiganbayan's findings in the indirect
contempt case that Atty. Labastilla also had a hand, direct or indirect, in the
creation of the subject checkbook entry in light of the following circumstances: (a)
he was complainant's external counsel who applied for the TRO in the POTC case;
(b) he admitted receipt of the proceeds of the check in the amount of
P2,000,000.00, although allegedly for legal fees but with no supporting evidence
therefor;[34] (c) the TRO was only effected/served upon payment of the
corresponding fees per the testimonies of Sheriffs Manuel Gregorio Mendoza Torio
and Romulo C. Barrozo of the Sandiganbayan;[35] and (d) the TRO and the aforesaid
check were both dated September 23, 2005, thereby establishing an unmistakeable
connection between the TRO and the check. [36] Moreover, and as correctly pointed
out by complainant, while Atty. Labastilla claims that he received the amount of
P2,000,000.00 as payment for his legal fees, he failed to properly account the
aforesaid amount.[37] In addition, complainant's summary of legal fees paid to Atty.
Labastilla did not reflect the P2,000,000.00 check which he purportedly received as
legal fees.[38] Therefore, Atty. Labastilla should also be held administratively liable
for his complicity in the making of the subject checkbook entry.
As members of the Bar, respondents should not perform acts that would tend to
undermine and/or denigrate the integrity of the courts, such as the subject
checkbook entry which contumaciously imputed corruption against the
Sandiganbayan. It is their sworn duty as lawyers and officers of the court to uphold
the dignity and authority of the courts. Respect for the courts guarantees the
stability of the judicial institution; without this guarantee, the institution would be
resting on very shaky foundations.[39] This is the very thrust of Canon 11 of the
CPR, which provides that "[a] lawyer shall observe and maintain the respect due to
the courts and to judicial officers and should insist on similar conduct by others."
Hence, lawyers who are remiss in performing such sworn duty violate the aforesaid
Canon 11, and as such, should be held administratively liable and penalized
accordingly, as in this case.
Furthermore, Canon 7 of the CPR commands every lawyer to "at all times uphold
the integrity and dignity of the legal profession" for the strength of the legal
profession lies in the dignity and integrity of its members. It is every lawyer's duty
to maintain the high regard to the profession by staying true to his oath and
keeping his actions beyond reproach.[40] It must be reiterated that as an officer of
the court, it is a lawyer's sworn and moral duty to help build and not destroy
unnecessarily that high esteem and regard towards the courts so essential to the
proper administration of justice; as acts and/or omissions emanating from lawyers
which tend to undermine the judicial edifice is disastrous to the continuity of the
government and to the attainment of the liberties of the people. Thus, all lawyers
should be bound not only to safeguard the good name of the legal profession, but
also to keep inviolable the honor, prestige, and reputation of the judiciary.[41] In this
case, respondents compromised the integrity of the judiciary by maliciously
imputing corrupt motives against the Sandiganbayan through the subject
checkbook entry. Clearly, respondents also violated Canon 7 of the CPR and, thus,
should be held administratively liable therefor.
Anent the proper penalty to be meted to respondents, jurisprudence provides that
in similar cases where lawyers perform acts which tend to erode the public
confidence in the courts, put the courts in a bad light, and bring the justice system
into disrepute, the Court imposed upon them the penalty of suspension from the
practice of law. In Baculi v. Battung,[42] the Court meted the aforesaid penalty to a
lawyer for his disrespect to the courts, to the point of being scandalous and
offensive to the integrity of the judicial system itself. Under the foregoing
circumstances, the Court imposes upon Atty. Labastilla the penalty of suspension
from the practice of law for a period of one (1) year for his complicity in the making
of the subject checkbook entry. On the other hand, since Atty. Lokin, Jr. was the
one directly responsible for the making of the subject checkbook entry, the Court
deems it appropriate to impose upon him the graver penalty of suspension from the
practice of law for a period of three (3) years, as recommended by the IBP.
WHEREFORE, respondents Atty. Luis K. Lokin, Jr. and Atty. Sikini C. Labastilla are
found GUILTY of violating Canons 7 and 11 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. Accordingly, Atty. Luis K. Lokin, Jr. is hereby SUSPENDED from the
practice of law for a period of three (3) years, while Atty. Sikini C. Labastilla is
hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of one (1) year, effective
upon the receipt of this Decision, with a stern warning that a repetition of the same
or similar acts will be dealt with more severely.
Let copies of this Decision be attached to respondents' personal record as members
of the Bar. Likewise, let copies of the same be served on the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines and on the Office of the Court Administrator for circulation to all courts
in the country for their information and guidance.
SO ORDERED.
Sereno, C. J., Brion, Bersamin, Del Castillo, Perez, Mendoza, Reyes, Leonen,
and Jardeleza, JJ., concur.
Carpio, J., no part due to prior inhibition Antonio T. Carpio.
Velasco, Jr., J., no part due to relationship to a party.
Leonardo-De Castro, J., no part due to prior participation in a related case.
Peralta, J., no part due to prior participation in a related case in Sandiganbayan.
Caguioa, J., no part due to relationship to a party.
NOTICE OF JUDGMENT
Sirs/Mesdames:
Please take notice that on April 19, 2016 a Decision/Resolution, copy attached
herewith, was rendered by the Supreme Court in the above-entitled case, the
original of which was received by this Office on June 27, 2016 at 2:15 p.m.
Very truly yours,

(SGD)FELIPA G. BORLONGAN-ANAMA
Clerk of Court
"PHILCOMSAT" stands for "Philippine Communications Satellite Corporation."
[1]
Rollo, Vol. I, pp. 374-385. (NB: page numbers are apparently misarranged.)
Erlinda I. Bildner is presently the director and treasurer of PHILCOMSAT Holdings

Corporation (see id. at 376).
[2]
[3]
Id.
Entitled "In Re: Contempt Proceedings against Johnny Tan, Manuel Nieto, Philip
Brodett, Atty. Luis K. Lokin, Jr., Enrique/Henry Locsin, Atty. Sikini Labastilla and
Virgilio Santos." See id at 387 and 745.
[4]
[5]
Id. at 376-377.
Id. at 745-756. Penned by Associate Justice Rodolfo A. Ponferrada with Associate

Justices Norberto Y. Geraldez and Efren N. De La Cruz concurring.
[6]
[7]
Id. at 755A-756.
[8]
Id. at 723 and 750.
[9]
Id. at 753-755-A.
[10]
Id. at 751-752.
[11]
Entitled "Atty. Sikini C. Labastilla v. Hon. Sandiganbayan (First Division)."
See Answer dated December 9, 2009; rollo, Vol. I, pp. 483-503. See also rollo,
Vol. II, pp. 142-144.
[12]
See Answer dated January 8, 2010; rollo, Vol. I, pp. 540-566. See also rollo.
Vol. II, pp. 144-145.
[13]
[14]
Rollo, Vol. II, pp. 135-155. Penned by Commissioner Mario V. Andres.
[15]
Id. at 155.
[16]
Id. at 146-148.
[17]
Id. at 148.
See Notice of Resolution No. XX-2013-333 signed by National Secretary Nasser

A. Marohomsalic; id. at 133-134.
[18]
See Motion for Reconsideration (Re: Resolution No. XX-2013-333) dated July 5,
2013; id. at 156-174.
[19]
[20]
See Notice of Resolution No. XXI-2015-416; id. at 348-349.
[21]
See rollo, Vol. I, pp. 753-754.
Fortun v. Quinsayas, G.R. No. 194578, February 13, 2013, 690 SCRA 623, 637,
citing People v. Godoy, 312 Phil. 977, 999 (1995).
[22]
[23]
Id.
See Bengco v. Bernardo, A.C. No, 6368, June 13, 2012, 672 SCRA 8, 19,
citing Gatchalian Promotions Talents Pools, Inc. v. Naldoza, 374 Phil. 1, 10 (1999).
[24]
[25]
See A.C. No. 8708, August 12, 2015.
[26]
Id., citing Yu v. Palaa, 580 Phil. 19, 26 (2008).
[27]
Rollo, Vol. 1, p. 627.
See Third Division Minute Resolution dated February 1, 2010 in G.R. No.
187699.
[28]
See Second Division Minute Resolution dated August 11, 2010 in G.R. No.
187699.
[29]
"In In Re: Disbarment of Rodolfo Pajo [(203 Phil. 79, 83 (1983)], the Court held
that in disbarment cases, it is no longer called upon to review the judgment of
conviction which has become final. The review of the conviction no longer rests
upon this Court." (Re: SC Decision Dated May 20, 2008 in G.R. No. 161455 under
Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court v. Pactolin, A.C. No. 7940, April 24, 2012 670
SCRA 366, 370.)
[30]
[31]
See rollo, Vol. I, pp. 723 and 750.
[32]
See rollo. Vol. II, p. 148.
[33]
See rollo. Vol. II, p. 148; see rollo. Vol. I, pp. 713-714.
"A party alleging a critical fact must support his allegation with substantial
evidence for any decision based on unsubstantiated allegation cannot stand as it
will offend due process." (General Milling Corporation v. Casio, 629 Phil. 12, 33
(2010), citing Great Southern Maritime Services Corporation v. Acua, 492 Phil.
518, 530-531 (2005).
[34]
[35]
See rollo, Vol. I, pp. 751 -752.
[36]
See id. at 755-755A.
[37]
See id. at 735-736.
See Recap of Sikini C. Labastilla's Legal &Professional Fees Paid by PHC

[(PHILCOMSAT)]; id. at 767.
[38]
See Baculi v. Battung, 674 Phil. 1, 8-9 (2011), citing Roxas v. De Zuzuarregui,
Jr., 554 Phil. 323, 341-342 (2007).
[39]
[40]
See Francia v. Abdon, A.C. No. 10031, July 23, 2014, 730 SCRA 341, 354.
[41]
See id. at 354-355.
[42]
Supra note 39.

A.M.
No.
15-09-314-RTC
RE: EVALUATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE LIABILITY OF HON. ANTONIO C. LUBAO, BRANCH 22, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT,
GENERAL SANTOS CITY, WHO COMPULSORILY RETIRED ON JANUARY 13, 2015, IN CONNECTION WITH THE CASES
SUBJECT OF THE JUDICIAL AUDIT CONDUCTED THEREAT FROM MAY 19-22, 2014, AND OTHER RELEVANT DIRECTIVES
ISSUED
BY
THE
OFFICE
OF
THE
COURT
ADMINISTRATOR.
April 19, 2016
EN BANC
[ A.M. No. 15-09-314-RTC, April 19, 2016 ]
RE: EVALUATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE LIABILITY OF HON.
ANTONIO C. LUBAO, BRANCH 22, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT,
GENERAL SANTOS CITY, WHO COMPULSORILY RETIRED ON
JANUARY 13, 2015, IN CONNECTION WITH THE CASES
SUBJECT OF THE JUDICIAL AUDIT CONDUCTED THEREAT
FROM MAY 19-22, 2014, AND OTHER RELEVANT DIRECTIVES
ISSUED BY THE OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR.
DECISION
BRION, J.:
For this Court's consideration is the Memorandum[1] dated September 11, 2015
from the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) on the administrative liability of
Hon. Antonio C. Lubao (Judge Lubao) of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 22,
General Santos City, in connection with the cases subject of the judicial audit and
physical inventory conducted by the OCA on his court from May 19 to 22, 2014. The
judicial audit was conducted in anticipation of Judge Lubao's compulsory retirement
on January 13, 2015.
From the audit and inventory conducted by the OCA, the number of pending cases
and matters discovered were: sixty-eight (68) cases submitted for decision, sixtyone (61) cases already beyond the reglementary period to decide, forty-one (41)
cases with pending incidents, twenty-nine (29) cases already beyond the prescribed
period to resolve, forty-one (41) cases have yet to be acted upon (composed of
seven [7] newly-filed cases and cases with no initial action taken, thirty-two [32]
cases with no further action, and two [2] cases with no further setting), one
hundred fifty-one (151) court processes (six [6] in civil cases and one hundred
forty-five [145] in criminal cases) which returns have yet to be received by the
court, with most cases already due for archiving.[2]

In a July 21, 2014 Memorandum, the OCA asked Judge Lubao to take appropriate
action on the cases subject of the audit, including the observations made by the
Audit Team in their report, and to submit his compliance within sixty (60) days from
notice. Also, the OCA required Judge Lubao to submit an explanation within fifteen
(15) days from notice for his omissions. The OCA reiterated its directives in a
November 11, 2014 Memorandum to Judge Lubao, who failed to comply with the
OCA's earlier memorandum.
On December 9, 2014, Clerk of Court Atty. Marivic E. Fillalan of RTC Branch 22,
General Santos City submitted to the OCA copies of the decisions and orders in
some of the cases subject of the audit, in partial compliance to the OCA's July 21,
2014 Memorandum. She mentioned in her submission that Judge Lubao's
explanation will soon follow, but the OCA never received the promised explanation.
In a January 27, 2015 Memorandum, the OCA directed Clerk of Court Atty. Fillalan
to submit a supplemental status report on the case left pending by Judge Lubao
after his retirement on January 13, 2015. The OCA received Atty. Fillalan's
compliance on March 24, 2015.
Judge Lubao submitted his compliance only in August 2015, in what he described as
a "Post Retirement Explanation for My Failure to Comment on Your Several
Memoranda regarding My Failure to Resolve Pending Incidents and to Decide Cases
Submitted for Decision within the Reglementary Period with Request to Refer this
Comment to the Supreme Court Doctors and Psychologist."
Based on the submissions of Atty. Fillalan and Judge Lubao, the actions (or
inaction) taken by Judge Lubao on the OCA's directives are summarized in the table
below:
DIRECTIVE
COMPLIANCE
(a) SUBMIT, within fifteen (15) days from
NO EXPLANATION SUBMITTED
notice, a comment on the findings, if any,
and/or EXPLAIN, your failure to decide/resolve
the cases submitted for decision or cases with
pending incidents, which already fall beyond
the reglementary period;
(b) DECIDE/RESOLVE the same with
There were 60 cases decided beyond the
dispatch; x x x
reglementary period(civil cases - 31 on Table
1.1, 1 on Table 1.2, and 2 on Table 14; and
criminal cases - 24 on Table 2.1, and 5 on
Table 2.2), to wit: Sp. Civil 685, Sp. Civil 691,
Sp. Civil 698, SP 1708, SP 1890, SP 1906,
4277, 5283, 5426, 5503, 5638, 5801, 5910,

5921, 5954, 6016, 6021, 6367, 6542, 6761,
6818, 6989, 7403, 7533, 7757, 7795, 7813,
7899, 7924, 7933, 8162, SP 1879, 7970, and
8063; and Criminal Cases Nos. 4926, 10863,
11995, 12621-23, 12918, 13035, 13149,
13831, 14187, 15143, 15724, 16075, 16494,
16839, 17528, 18023, 18030, 19074, 2003940, 20041, 22879, 13335-36, and 15100-103.
There were also 35 cases with pending
incidents resolved beyond the reglementary
period (civil cases-8 on Table 3.1, and 2 on
Table 3.2; and criminal cases-18 on Table 4.1,
(c) TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION on the
There were 47 cases which have not
cases which have not advanced or progressed as progressed as of audit date, which were
of audit date, within fifteen (15) days from
belatedly acted upon (civil cases - 6 on Table
notice;
5, 21 on Table 7, 2 on Table 9; and criminal
cases - 1 on Table 1, 11on Table 8, 6 on Table
10), to wit: Civil Cases Nos. 8399, 8400, 8405,
Misc. Case No. 3668, SP 2020, SP 2021, SP
1339, 483, Sp. Civil 668, SP 1024, SP 1702,
SP 1897, SP 1992, 6786, 8107, 8172, 8175,
8176, 8180, 8252, 8262, 8276, 8289, 8297,
8309, 8318, 8349, 8251, and SP 1974; and
Criminal Cases Nos. 7403, 16695, 17437,
20714-15, 22761-63, 23415, 23972, 24888,
24944, 7460, 8256, 8278, 8359, 8368, and
8379.
Left unacted upon were 7 cases, to wit:
Criminal Cases Nos. 15397, 18374, and 22629
- no directive for the SPMC to periodically

submit results of examination although per 129-14 letter of Atty. Fillalan, SPMC undertook
to henceforth furnish the court with the exam
results (see Table 8), and 5 cases which
(d) EXPLAIN why the court does not act on the NO EXPLANATION SUBMITTED
failure of the public prosecutor/other officers of
concerned government institutions to comply
with the orders of the court, despite a showing
of total disregard thereof by the said
officers/government entities, and which appears
to largely contribute to the delay in the speedy
disposition of cases;
(e) Henceforth ENSURE that cases awaiting
Not complied with - no action taken after the
compliance are PROPERLY MONITORED so lapse of the period given to prosecutor to
that the court may act accordingly immediately submit collusion report in the following cases:
after the lapse of the period given to the parties Civil Cases Nos. 8399 (see Table 5); 8252 and
and/or other government institutions concerned; 8318 (see Table 7); 8242, 8303, 8342, and
8350 (see Table 12)
(f) SUBMIT, within sixty (60) days from notice, Late submission
copies of the decisions and certifications of
promulgation, orders, or other court processes
issued as proof of compliance with the above
directives;
As regards the observations mentioned in Table I, Annex "A" hereof, you are further directed to:
(g) (a) Work with the Branch Clerk of Court to NO REPORT SUBMITTED ON THE
DEVISE A SYSTEM so that the observations
ACTIONS TAKEN; NO AMENDED
mentioned therein are properly addressed; and REPORTS SUBMITTED
(b) SUBMIT, within fifteen (15) days from
notice: (i) a REPORT on the action taken
thereon; (ii) AMENDED REPORTS with
respect to the inaccurate Monthly Report of
Cases for the months affected by the dates
subject of Item 13 of Table I, and the July to
December 2013 Docket Inventory Report
relative to the unreported cases mentioned in
Item 14 of the same Table; (iii) COPIES OF
THE DECISIONS/ ORDERS in the cases
enumerated in Item 15 of the same Table; and
(iv) a RESPONSE to the clarifications sought

The OCA noted that Judge Lubao had also failed to comply with several memoranda
issued prior to the conduct of the subject judicial audit, namely: (a)Memorandum
dated January 15, 2014 directing Judge Lubao to strictly comply with
Administrative Circular Nos. 4-2004 and 81-2012, and to explain his failure to
decide on forty-three (43) cases within the reglementary period and to decide on
these cases within sixty (60) days from notice; (b) Memorandum dated April 23,
2015 reiterating the directives of the January 15, 2014 Memorandum; and
(c) Memorandum dated May 7, 2014 enjoining all judges of General Santos City,
including Judge Lubao, to comply with Court's issuances on the timely submission
of their Monthly Report of Cases.
Judge Lubao's Explanation
In his "Post Retirement Explanation" letter[3] dated August 11, 2015, Judge Lubao
admitted to his failure to resolve many incidents and to decide cases submitted for
decision within the reglementary period. He expounded on his medical history and
attached several medical certificates showing that he has minimal cognitive
impairment caused by a stroke he had in 2012, coronary artery disease, arthritis,
gastroesophageal or laryngopharyngeal reflux aggravated by stress, and had
underwent major surgical operations such as resection of the prostrate, brain
surgery, and removal of gallstone; and that he was hospitalized on numerous
occasions due to stress and hypertension, acute hemorrhagic cystitis and benign
prostatic hyperplasia, acute gastroenteritis with hypokalemia, pneumonia, moderate
risk hypertensive cardiovascular disease, and ischemic heart disease. He explained
that his health condition and frequent hospitalizations prevented him from deciding
cases submitted for decision, resolving incidents within the reglementary period,
and submitting an explanation to the memoranda issued by the OCA.
He mentioned that he intentionally opted not to make any comment on the
memoranda issued to him because of the unbearable stress caused to him by the
preparation of such comment/explanation; that, due to the stress, he experiences
loss of appetite, sleepless nights, feeling of an empty chest, weakening of the
knees, elevation of blood pressure and prostrate bleeding; and that the fact that he
was always late in filing comments to the administrative complaints filed against
him would confirm his condition.
Judge Lubao concluded his letter by requesting: (i) to have his case referred to the
Court's doctors and psychologist for assistance in the technical evaluation of the
merits of his case, and (ii) to have his retirement check be prepared and authorized
as soon as possible because he would be needing money for a stent operation for
two (2) cardio arterial blockages and another operation on his lower spine.
The OCA's Recommendation
In its September 11, 2015 Memorandum, the OCA found Judge Lubao to have
committed the following offenses:
1. repeated failure to comply with the directives of this Office, to wit
Memorandum dated January 15, 2014; Memorandum dated April 23, 2014;
Memorandum dated May 7, 2014; Memorandum dated July 21, 2014; and
Memorandum dated November 11, 2014;
2. violation of the following Supreme Court rules, directives, and circulars:
Administrative Circular No. 4-2004; Administrative Circular No. 81-2012; and
OCA Circular No. 81-2012;
3. undue delay in rendering decisions or orders, among others: 60 cases
decided beyond the reglementary period; 35 cases with pending incidents
resolved beyond the reglementary period; and 47 cases which have not
progressed as of audit date, and failure to resolve 3 cases with pending
incidents and act upon 7 cases; and
4. undue delay in the submission of Monthly Reports of Cases from January to
December, 2014.[4]
In view of these offenses, the OCA recommended that: (i) Judge Lubao's August
11, 2015 letter be noted, (ii) Judge Lubao's request to have his letter referred to
the doctors of the Supreme Court be denied considering that the medical findings
were not disputed in the course of the proceedings, (iii) its September 11, 2015
Memorandum/Report be re-docketed as a regular administrative matter against
Judge Lubao, and (iv) Judge Lubao be fined the amount of P100,000.00.[5]
On October 22, 2015, the OCA received a motion [6] from Judge Lubao for the urgent
approval of his application for retirement. Judge Lubao, who retired in January 13,
2015, prayed that the Court approve his retirement application and order the
immediate payment of his retirement benefits as he needed the money for a stent
operation and capital to start a small business; also, that he was scheduled to leave
for the United States on October 28, 2015 for a medical check-up sponsored by his
niece. He manifested that he was willing to have the amount of P100,000.00, or
any amount that the Court may deem sufficient, withheld from his retirement
benefits for the payment of whatever fine that the Court may impo.se upon him in
the present administrative matter.
In a resolution[7] dated November 10, 2015, the Court favorably granted Judge
Lubao's urgent motion and approved his application for retirement benefits but
ordered the Financial Management Office to set aside the amount of P100,000.00 to
ensure full satisfaction of any fine that may be imposed on Judge Lubao.
OUR RULING
We concur with the OCA's findings and recommendations.
We reiterate and affirm the OCA's findings that Judge Lubao had committed the
following offenses:
1. Repeated failure to comply with the directives of the Office of the Court
Administrator in Memorandum dated January 15, 2014, Memorandum dated
April 23, 2014, Memorandum dated May 7, 2014, Memorandum dated July
21, 2014, and Memorandum dated November 11, 2014;
2. Violation of Supreme Court Administrative Circular Nos. 4-2004 and 81-2012,
and OCA Circular No. 81-2012;
3. Undue delay in rendering decisions or orders, having sixty (60) cases decided
beyond the reglementary period, thirty-five (35) cases with pending incidents
resolved beyond the reglementary period, forty-seven (47) cases which have
not progressed as of audit date, three (3) unresolved cases with pending
incidents, and seven (7) cases not acted upon; and
4. Undue delay in the submission of Monthly Reports of Cases from January to
December, 2014.
We note that the OCA, in its September 11, 2015 Memorandum, concluded its
findings, stating that:
In the instant case, Judge Lubao was able to decide/resolve all the cases submitted
for decision/resolution and majority of the cases with pending incidents/for
appropriate action before he retires. However, this Office has to underscore his
gross inefficiency considering that among the cases he neglected were cases that
were already due as early as year 2004 (cases submitted for decision) and 2001
(case [sic] with pending incidents) the period of delay in the bulk of the cases
submitted for decision ranges from 4 to 10 years. As to cases with pending
incidents for resolution, the delay ranged from 2 to 13 years. To compound his
omissions, he belatedly submitted his compliance with the numerous directives of
this Office, and repeatedly ignored the show-cause orders sent to him, which, to
reiterate, constitute misconduct and insubordination.[8]
Judge Lubao does not dispute the results of the inventory and judicial audit
conducted by the Audit Team. Instead, he cites his poor health condition as the
cause of his failure to timely decide on cases and resolve incidents, and to file his
comments to the memoranda issued to him by the OCA. He stated in his letterexplanation that:
The foregoing shows that I am very susceptible to stress that triggers dangerous
bouts of hypertension, bleeding of my prostate, swelling of my finger joints, profuse
coughing due to acid reflux. In fact it has been an ordinary occurrence for me to be
confined for several hours at the emergency room of St. Elizabeth for stress and
hypertension and for placing of catheter for my bleeding prostate. x x x Simply put
my health had prevented me from deciding cases submitted for decision
and resolving incidents submitted for resolution seasonably and the same
also prohibited me in making any explanation for the said delay mentioned
in your memoranda.[9] (Emphasis and underscoring in the original)
As the OCA did, we find Judge Lubao's reasons to be inadequate. Usually, we
consider the poor health condition of a judge as a mitigating circumstance in
determining the imposable administrative penalty. However, in this case, Judge
Lubao knew from the start of his career in the Judiciary that he is afflicted with the
illnesses mentioned in his letter-explanation but never bothered to inform this Court
early on about his condition. Aware of his condition, Judge Lubao could have simply
asked this Court for a reasonable extension of time to dispose of his cases. The
Court, cognizant of the heavy case load of some of our judges and mindful of the
difficulties they encounter in the disposition of their cases, is almost always
disposed to grant such requests on meritorious grounds. [10]
Because of his silence, the litigants before Judge Lubao's court have long suffered
from the delays in his disposition and resolution of cases and incidents and, thus,
ultimately tainted the image of the Judiciary. We have stressed that "delay in case
disposition is a major culprit in the erosion of public faith and confidence in the
judiciary and the lowering of its standards."[11] For this reason, we cannot apply as
mitigating circumstance the poor state of Judge Lubao's health in the resolution of
the present administrative matter.
We then proceed to determine the proper penalties to be imposed against Judge
Lubao for his offenses.
Judge Lubao's deliberate and repeated failure to comply with several memoranda
from the OCA constitutes Gross Misconduct, [12] which is a serious offense under
Section 8, Rule 140[13] of the Rules of Court. In Re: Audit Report in Attendance of
Court Personnel of Regional Trial Court, Branch 32, Manila,[14] we held that:
It is gross misconduct, even outright disrespect for the Court, for respondent judge
to exhibit indifference to the resolution requiring him to comment on the
accusations in the complaint thoroughly and substantially. After all, a resolution of
the Supreme Court should not be construed as a mere request, and should be
complied with promptly and completely. Such failure to comply accordingly betrays
not only a recalcitrant streak in character, but also disrespect for the Court's lawful
order and directive.[15]
And we held, in Alonto-Frayna v. Astih,[16] that a judge who deliberately and
continuously fails and refuses to comply with the.resolution of this Court is guilty of
gross misconduct and insubordination.
Section 11 (A) of Rule 140 provides that if the respondent is guilty of a serious
charge, any of the following may be imposed: (i) Dismissal from the service, (ii)
Suspension from office without salary and other benefits for more than three (3)
but not exceeding six (6) months, or (iii) a Fine of more than P20,000.00 but
not exceeding P40,000.00.
Under Section 9 of Rule 140, 'Violation of Supreme Court rules, directives, and
circulars,' and 'Undue delay in rendering a decision or order' constitute less
seriousoffenses.
Section 11(B) of Rule 140 provides that if the respondent is guilty of a less serious
charge, any of the following may be imposed: (i) Suspension from office without
salary and other benefits for not less than one (1) nor more than three (3) months,
or (ii) a Fine of more than P10,000.00 but not exceeding P20,000.00.
Under Section 10 of the same Rule 140, 'Undue delay in the submission of monthly
reports' is considered a light offense.
Section 11(C) of Rule 140 provides that if the respondent is guilty of a light charge,
any of the following may be imposed: (i) a Fine of not less than P1,000.00 but
not exceeding P10,000.00; and/or (ii) Censure, (iii) Reprimand, (iv) Admonition
with warning.
Since Judge Lubao has already retired from the service and was even paid his
retirement benefits (except for the P100,000.00 ordered withheld by the
Court), the only alternative for us is to impose upon him the penalty of a
fine in the medium amounts, in the absence of proven mitigating and
aggravating circumstances.
WHEREFORE, the Court adjudges former Judge Antonio C. Lubao of the Regional
Trial Court, Branch 22, General Santos City GUILTY of the following offenses:
1. GROSS MISCONDUCT, a serious offense, for his repeated failure to comply
with several memoranda from the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA),
namely: Memorandum dated January 15, 2014, Memorandum dated April 23,
2014, Memorandum dated May 7, 2014, Memorandum dated July 21, 2014,
and Memorandum dated November 11, 2014. For this offense, Judge Lubao
is imposed the penalty of fine in the amount of thirty thousand pesos
(P30,000.00);
2. VIOLATION OF SUPREME COURT RULES, DIRECTIVES, AND
CIRCULARS, a less serious offense, for violating Administrative Circular Nos.
4-2004 and 81-2012, and OCA Circular No. 81-2012. For this offense, Judge
Lubao is imposed the penalty of fine in the amount of fifteen thousand pesos
(P15,000.00);
3. UNDUE DELAY IN RENDERING A DECISION OR ORDER, a less serious
offense, due to his (i) failure to decide sixty (60) cases beyond the
reglementary period, thirty-five (35) cases with pending incidents resolved
beyond the reglementary period, and forty-seven (47) cases which have not
progressed as of audit date, and (ii) failure to resolve three (3) cases with
pending incidents and to act on seven (7) cases. For this offense, Judge
Lubao is imposed the penalty of fine in the amount of fifteen thousand pesos
(P15,000.00); and
4. UNDUE DELAY IN THE SUBMISSION OF MONTHLY REPORTS, a light
offense, for his failure to submit on time Monthly Reports of Cases from
January to December, 2014. For this offense, Judge Lubao is imposed the
penalty of fine in the amount of five thousand pesos (P5,000.00).
Judge Lubao is hereby meted the penalty of a FINE in the total amount of SIXTYFIVE THOUSAND PESOS (P65,000.00). Considering that the Court has already
withheld the amount of one hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00) from Judge
Lubao's retirement benefits, we shall declare the amount of sixty-five thousand
pesos (P65,000.00) forfeited as payment for the fine imposed herein and the
amount of thirty-five thousand pesos (P35,000.00) returned to Judge Lubao.
SO ORDERED.
Sereno, C. J., Carpio, Leonardo-De Castro, Peralta, Bersamin, Del Castillo, Perez,
Mendoza, Reyes, Perlas-Bernabe, Leonen, Jardeleza, and Caguioa, JJ., concur.
Velasco, J., no part.
NOTICE OF JUDGMENT
Sirs/Mesdames:
herewith, was rendered by the Supreme Court in the above-entitled administrative
matter, the original of which was received by this Office on May 3, 2016 at 1:44
p.m.
Very truly yours,

Clerk of Court
[1]
Rollo, pp. 1-10.
[2]
Id. at 1.
[3]
Id. at 12-17.
[4]
Id. at 7.
[5]
Id. at 10.
[6]
Id. at 160-161.
[7]
Id. at 164.
[8]
Id. at 10.
[9]
Id. at 16.
Gonzalez-Decano v. Siapno, A.M. No. MTJ-00-1279, March 1, 2001, 353 SCRA

269, 278.
[10]
Re: Report of Deputy Court Administrator Bernardo T. Ponferada Re: Judicial

Audit Conducted in the RTC, Branch 26, Argao, Cebu, A.M. No. 00-4-09-SC,
February 23, 2005, 452 SCRA 125, 133.
[11]
[12]
Soria, et al. v. Judge Villegas, 461 Phil. 665, 670 (2003).
[13]
As amended by A.M. No. 01-8-10-SC, effective October 1, 2001.
[14]
A.M.No. P-04-1838, August 31, 2006, 500 SCRA 351.
Id., citing Imbang v. Del Rosario, A.M. No. 03-1515-MTJ, November 19, 2004,
443 SCRA 79, 83.
[15]
[16]
360 Phil. 385 (1998).

G.R.
No.
195728
PARAMOUNT LIFE & GENERAL INSURANCE CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. CHERRY T. CASTRO AND GLENN ANTHONY
T. CASTRO, RESPONDENTS. [G.R. No. 211329] CHERRY T. CASTRO AND GLENN ANTHONY T. CASTRO, PETITIONERS,
VS.
PARAMOUNT
LIFE
&
GENERAL
INSURANCE
CORPORATION,
RESPONDENT.
April 19, 2016
FIRST DIVISION
[ G.R. No. 195728, April 19, 2016 ]
PARAMOUNT LIFE & GENERAL INSURANCE CORPORATION,
PETITIONER, VS. CHERRY T. CASTRO AND GLENN ANTHONY
T. CASTRO, RESPONDENTS.
[G.R. No. 211329]
CHERRY T. CASTRO AND GLENN ANTHONY T. CASTRO,
PETITIONERS, VS. PARAMOUNT LIFE & GENERAL INSURANCE
CORPORATION, RESPONDENT.
DECISION
SERENO, C.J.:
These Petitions for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court
originate from a Complaint[1] for Declaration of Nullity of Individual Insurance
Contract (Civil Case No. 09-599[2]). The Complaint was instituted by Paramount Life
& General Insurance Corporation (Paramount) against Cherry T. Castro and Glenn
Anthony T. Castro (Castros) and filed before the Regional Trial Court, Makati City,
Branch 61 (RTC), on 2 July 2009.
The Petition[3] docketed as G.R. No. 195728 assails the Court of Appeals (CA)
Decision[4] dated 4 October 2010 and Resolution[5] dated 21 February 2011 in CAG.R. SP No. 113972. The CA remanded the case to the RTC for the admission of the
Castros' Third-Party Complaint against the Philippine Postal Savings Bank,
Incorporated (PPSBI).[6]
On the other hand, the Petition[7] docketed as G.R. No. 211329 assails the
Resolution[8] of the RTC in Civil Case No. 09-599 dated 11 February 2014. The trial
court ordered that the Motion to Dismiss filed by the defendants (the Castros) be
deemed expunged from the records, as they had previously been declared to be in
default. Nonetheless, due to the protracted nature of the proceedings, the RTC
allowed the plaintiff no more than two settings for the presentation of evidence. [9]
These Petitions have been consolidated as they involve the same parties, arise from
an identical set of facts, and raise interrelated issues.[10] The Court resolves to
dispose of these cases jointly.
Facts of the Case
In 2004, the PPSBI applied for and obtained insurance from Paramount, [11] which
accordingly issued Group Master Policy No. G-086[12] effective 1 September 2004.
Under Section 20, Article IV of the said policy, "all death benefits shall be payable to
the creditor, PPSBI, as its interest may appeal."[13]
Meanwhile, Virgilio J. Castro (Virgilio) - Cherry's husband and Glenn's father obtained a housing loan from the PPSBI in the amount of P1.5 million. [14] PPSBI
required Virgilio to apply for a mortgage redemption insurance (MRI) from
Paramount to cover the loan.[15] In his application for the said insurance policy,
Virgilio named Cherry and Glenn as beneficiaries. [16] Paramount issued Certificate
No. 041913 effective 12 March 2008 in his favor, subject to the terms and
conditions of Group Master Policy No. G-086.[17]
On 26 February 2009, Virgilio died of septic shock. [18] Consequently, a claim was
filed for death benefits under the individual insurance coverage issued under the
group policy.[19] Paramount however denied the claim, on the ground of the failure
of Virgilio to disclose material information, or material concealment or
misrepresentation.[20] It said that when Virgilio submitted his insurance application
on 12 March 2008, he made some material misrepresentations by answering "no"
to questions on whether he had any adverse health history and whether he had
sought medical advice or consultation concerning it. Paramount learned that in
2005, Virgilio had sought consultation in a private hospital after complaining of a
dull pain in his lumbosacral area.[21] Because of the alleged material concealment or
misrepresentation, it declared Virgilio's individual insurance certificate (No. 041913)
rescinded, null, and absolutely void from the very beginning. [22]
On 2 July 2009, Paramount filed a Complaint[23] with the RTC docketed as Civil Case
No. 09-599. It prayed that Application and Insurance Certificate No. 041913
covering the individual insurance of Virgilio be declared null and void by reason of
material concealment and misrepresentation. It also prayed for attorney's fees and
exemplary damages.[24]
In their Answer with Counterclaim,[25] the Castros argued that Virgilio had not made
any material misrepresentation. They contended that he had submitted the
necessary evidence of insurability to the satisfaction of Paramount. They further
argued that by approving Virgilio's application, Paramount was estopped from
raising the supposed misrepresentations. [26] The Castros made a counterclaim for
actual and exemplary damages, as well as attorney's fees, for the alleged breach of
contract by Paramount arising from its refusal to honor its obligation as insurer of
the P1.5 million loan.[27]
Statement of the Cases
G.R. No. 195728
On 29 October 2009, the Castros filed a motion [28] to include the PPSBI as an
indispensable party-defendant. The RTC thereafter denied the motion, reasoning
that Paramount's Complaint could be fully resolved without the PPSBT's
participation.[29]
Consequently, the Castros filed a Motion for Leave to File a Third Party-Complaint
and to Admit Attached Third-Party Complain.[30] They argued that due to the death
of Virgilio, and by virtue of Group Policy No. G-086 in relation to Certificate No.
041913, PPSBI stepped into the shoes of Cherry and Glen under the principle of
"indemnity, subrogation, or any other reliefs" found in Section 22, Rule 6 of the
Rules of Court.[31] This motion was likewise denied, on the ground that "what the
defendants herein want is the introduction of a controversy that is entirely foreign
and distinct from the main cause."[32] The Castros' Motion for Reconsideration was
again denied in a Resolution[33] dated 19 April 2010.

On 13 May 2010, the Castros assailed the RTC Resolutions through a Petition for
Certiorari filed with the CA.[34] They likewise subsequently filed a Motion for Leave of
Court to File and to Admit Attached Supplemental Petition for Review.[35]
In its Decision[36] dated 4 October 2010, the CA partially granted the Petition by
allowing a third-party complaint to be filed against the PPSBI. It ruled that the
Castros were freed from the obligation to pay the bank by virtue of subrogation, as
the latter would collect the loan amount pursuant to the MRI issued by Paramount
in Virgilio's favor.[37] Paramount moved for reconsideration, but the CA denied the
motion through a Resolution[38] dated 21 February 2011.
On 11 April 2011, Paramount filed a Petition for Review under Rule 45, arguing that
the case could be fully appreciated and resolved without involving the PPSBI as a
third-party defendant in Civil Case No. 09-599.[39]
G.R. No. 211329
Meanwhile, on 7 January 2014, the Castros filed a Motion to Dismiss [40] the
Complaint on the ground of failure to prosecute for an unreasonable length of time
without justifiable cause and to present evidence ex parte pursuant to a court order.
In a Resolution[41] dated 11 February 2014, the RTC denied the motion. Owing to its
previous Order dated 26 May 2010, which declared the Castros as in default for
failure to attend the pretrial, the RTC treated the Motion to Dismiss as a mere scrap
of paper and expunged it from the records.
The Castros come straight to this Court via a Petition for Review [42] under Rule 45,
assailing the RTC Resolution dated 11 February 2014.
The Issues
1. Whether the CA erred in remanding the case to the RTC for the
admission of the Third-Party Complaint against PPSBI
2. Whether the RTC erred in denying the Motion to Dismiss filed by the
Castros
The Court's Ruling
G.R. No. 195728
The Castros sought to implead the PPSBI as a third-party defendant in the
nullification case instituted by Paramount. They theorized that by virtue of the

death of Virgilio and the mandate of the group insurance policy in relation to his
individual insurance policy, the PPSBI stepped into the shoes of Cherry and Glenn.
According to the Castros, upon Virgilio's death, the obligation to pay the third-party
defendant (PPSBI) passed on to Paramount by virtue of the Mortgage Redemption
Insurance,[43] and not to them as Virgilio's heirs.
In Great Pacific Life Assurance Corp. v. Court of Appeals,[44] we defined mortgage
redemption insurance as a device for the protection of both the mortgagee and the
mortgagor:
On the part of the mortgagee, it has to enter into such form of contract so that in
the event of the unexpected demise of the mortgagor during the subsistence of the
mortgage contract, the proceeds from such insurance will be applied to the
payment of the mortgage debt, thereby relieving the heirs of the mortgagor from
paying the obligation. In a similar vein, ample protection is given to the mortgagor
under such a concept so that in the event of death, the mortgage obligation will be
extinguished by the application of the insurance proceeds to the mortgage
indebtedness.[45]
In this case, the PPSBI, as the mortgagee-bank, required Virgilio to obtain an MRI
from Paramount to cover his housing loan. The issuance of the MRI, as evidenced
by the Individual Insurance Certificate in Virgilio's favor, was derived from the
group insurance policy issued by Paramount in favor of the PPSBI. Paramount
undertook to pay the PPSBI "the benefits in accordance with the Insurance
Schedule, upon receipt and approval of due proof that the member has incurred a
loss for which benefits are payable."[46]
Paramount, in opposing the PPSBl's inclusion as a third-party defendant, reasons
that it is only seeking the nullification of Virgilio's individual insurance certificate,
and not the group insurance policy forged between it and the PPSBI. It concludes
that the nullification action it filed has nothing to do with the PPSBI.
We disagree.
Should Paramount succeed in having the individual insurance certificate nullified,
the PPSBI shall then proceed against the Castros. This would contradict the
provisions of the group insurance policy that ensure the direct payment by the
insurer to the bank:
Notwithstanding the provision on Section 22 "No Assignment" of Article IV Benefit
Provisions, and in accordance with provisions of Section 6 "Amendment of this
Policy" under Article II General Provisions of the Group Policy, it is hereby agreed
that all death benefits shall be payable to the Creditor, Philippine Postal
Savings Bank as its interest may appeal.[47] (Emphasis supplied.)
In allowing the inclusion of the PPSBI as a third-party defendant, the Court

recognizes the inseparable interest of the bank (as policyholder of the group policy)
in the validity of the individual insurance certificates issued by Paramount. The
PPSBI need not institute a separate case, considering that its cause of action is
intimately related to that of Paramount as against the Castros. The soundness of
admitting a third-party complaint hinges on causal connection between the claim of
the plaintiff in his complaint and a claim for contribution, indemnity or other relief
of the defendant against the third-party defendant. [48] In this case, the Castros
stand to incur a bad debt to the PPSBI - the exact event that is insured against by
Group Master Policy No. G-086 - in the event that Paramount succeeds in nullifying
Virgilio's Individual Insurance Certificate.
Paramount further argues that the propriety of a third-party complaint rests on
whether the possible third-party defendant (in this case PPSBI) can raise the same
defenses that the third-party plaintiffs (the Castros) have against the plaintiff.
However, the Rules do not limit the third-party defendant's options to such a
condition. Thus:
Section 13. Answer to third (fourth, etc.)-party complaint. A third (fourth, etc.)party defendant may allege in his answer his defenses, counterclaims or crossclaims, including such defenses that the third (fourth, etc.)-party plaintiff may have
against the original plaintiffs claim. In proper cases, he may also assert a
counterclaim against the original plaintiff in respect of the latter's claim against the
third-party plaintiff.[49]
As seen above, the same defenses the third-party plaintiff has against the original
plaintiff are just some of the allegations a third-party defendant may raise in its
answer. Section 13 even gives the third-party defendant the prerogative to raise a
counterclaim against the original plaintiff in respect of the latter's original claim
against the defendant/third-party plaintiff.
In Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. of the Phil v. Tempongko,[50] We ruled that a
defendant is permitted to bring in a third-party defendant to litigate a separate
cause of action in respect of the plaintiffs claim against a third party in the original
and principal case. The objective is to avoid circuitry of action and unnecessary
proliferation of lawsuits, as well as to expeditiously dispose of the entire subject
matter arising from one particular set of facts, in one litigation.
The CA correctly ruled that to admit the Castros' Third-Party Complaint, in which
they can assert against the PPSBI an independent claim they would otherwise
assert in another action, would prevent multiplicity of suits. [51]
Considering also that the original case from which these present Petitions arose has
not yet been resolved, the Court deems it proper to have all the parties air all their
possible grievances in the original case still pending with the RTC.
Finally, the Court resolves the legal issues allegedly ignored by the CA, to wit: 1)
whether legal grounds exist for the inhibition of Judge Ruiz (the presiding judge);
and 2) whether the defendants were properly declared as in default for failure to
appear at pretrial.
The first issue is unmeritorious. Counsel for the Castros postulates that since six
rulings of the judge are being assailed for grave abuse of discretion, the judge
should inhibit himself.[52] According to counsel, no judge shall sit in any case if the
latter's ruling is subject to review. The Court reminds counsel that the rule
contemplates a scenario in which judges are tasked to review their own decisions
on appeal, not when their decisions are being appealed to another tribunal.
With regard to the second issue, counsel apparently confuses a declaration of
default under Section 3[53] of Rule 9 with the effect of failure to appear under
Section 5[54] of Rule 18. Failure to file a responsive pleading within the reglementary
period is the sole ground for an order of default under Rule 9. [55] On the other hand,
under Rule 18, failure of the defendant to appear at the pre-trial conference results
in the plaintiff being allowed to present evidence ex parte. The difference is that a
declaration of default under Rule 9 allows the Court to proceed to render judgment
granting the claimant such relief as his pleading may warrant; while the effect of
default under Rule 18 allows the plaintiff to present evidence ex parte and for the
Court to render judgment on the basis thereof. The lower court may have declared
defendants therein as in default; however, it did not issue an order of default,
rather, it ordered the plaintiff to present evidence ex parte in accordance with the
Rules. In any case, the Castros could have availed themselves of appropriate legal
remedies when the CA failed to resolve the issue, but they did not. They cannot
now resurrect the issue through a Comment before this Court.
G.R. No. 211329
As regards G.R. No. 211329, this Court finds that outright denial of the Petition is
warranted, pursuant to our ruling in Rayos v. City of Manila.[56] In that case, We
ruled that an order denying a motion to dismiss is interlocutory and, hence, not
appealable.[57] That ruling was based on Section 1(b), Rule 41 of the Rules of Court,
as amended, which provides:
SECTION 1. Subject of appeal. - An appeal may be taken from a judgment or final
order that completely disposes of the case, or of a particular matter therein when
declared by these Rules to be appealable.
No appeal may be taken from: x x x x (b) An interlocutory order;
xxxx
In all the above instances where the judgment or final order is not appealable, the
aggrieved party may file an appropriate special civil action under Rule 65.
In the present case, the RTC's denial of the Motion to Dismiss was an interlocutory
order, as it did not finally dispose of the case. On the contrary; the denial paved
way for the case to proceed until final adjudication by the trial court.
Upon denial of their Motion to Dismiss, the Castros were not left without any
recourse. In such a situation, the aggrieved party's remedy is to file a special civil
action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. However, the aggrieved
parties herein resorted to filing a Petition for Review under Rule 45 before this
Court. Even if the present Petition is treated as one for certiorari under Rule 65, it
must still be dismissed for violation of the principle of hierarchy of courts. This wellsettled principle dictates that petitioners should have filed the Petition for Certiorari
with the CA, and not directly with this Court.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petitions in G.R. Nos. 195728 and 211329
are DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
Leonardo-De Castro, Bersamin, Perlas-Bernabe, and Caguioa, JJ., concur.
[1]
Rollo (G.R. No. 195728), pp. 35-44.
In the Complaint, the case was denominated as "Civil Case No. 09-598," but was
later referred to as "Civil Case No. 09-599" in subsequent pleadings of the parties
and issuances of the trial and the appellate courts.
[2]
[3]
Rollo (G.R. No. 195728), pp. 12-34.
Id. at 113-126; Penned by Associate Justice Juan Q. Enriquez, Jr., and concurred
in by Associate Justices Ramon M. Bato, Jr. and Florito S. Macalino.
[4]
[5]
Id. at 128-129.
[6]
Id. at 125.
[7]
Rollo (G.R. No. 211329), pp. 3-24.
[8]
Id. at 52-53; Penned by Assisting Judge Maria Amifaith S. Fider-Reyes.
[9]
Id. at 53.
[10]
Id. at 117; Pursuant to the Court's Resolution dated 23 April 2014.
[11]
Rollo (G.R. No. 195728), p. 15.
[12]
Id. at 45-55.
[13]
Id. at 51.
[14]
Id. at 62-63.
[15]
Id. at 63.
[16]
Id. at 56.
[17]
Id. at 56-57.
[18]
Id. at 58.
[19]
Id. at 59.
[20]
Id. at 60.
[21]
Id. at 59-60.
[22]
Id. at 60.
[23]
Id. at 35-42.
[24]
Id. at 41.
[25]
Id. at 61-73.
[26]
Id. at 65.
[27]
Id. at 67-69.
[28]
Id. at 77-80.
[29]
Id. at 85-86.
[30]
Id. at 87-97.
[31]
Id. at 95.
[32]
Id. at 105.
[33]
Id. at 111.
[34]
Id. at 152.
[35]
Id. at 152-172.
[36]
Id. at 113-126.
[37]
Id. at 125.
[38]
Id. at 128-129.
[39]
Id. at 12-29.
[40]
Rollo (G.R. No. 211329), pp. 54-61.
[41]
Id. at 52-53.
[42]
Id. at 3-24.
[43]
Id.
[44]
375 Phil. 142 (1999).
[45]
Id. at 148.
[46]
Rollo (G.R. No. 195728), p. 45.
[47]
Group Policy, Article IV, Section 20. See id. at 51.
[48]
Asian Construction and Development Corp. v. CA, 498 Phil. 36 (2005).
[49]
Rule 6, Section 13, Revised Rules of Court.
[50]
137 Phil. 239 (1969).
[51]
Rollo (G.R. No. 195728), p. 125.
[52]
Id. at 146.
Section 3. Default; declaration of. If the defending party fails to answer within
the time allowed therefor, the court shall, upon motion of the claiming party with
notice to the defending party, and proof of such failure, declare the defending party
in default. Thereupon, the court shall proceed to render judgment granting the
claimant such relief as his pleading may warrant, unless the court in its discretion
requires the claimant to submit evidence. Such reception of evidence may be
delegated to the clerk of court. x x x x
[53]
Section 5. Effect of failure to appear. The failure of the plaintiff to appear

when so required pursuant to the next preceding section shall be cause for
dismissal of the action. The dismissal shall be with prejudice, unless otherwise
ordered by the court. A similar failure on the part of the defendant shall be cause to
allow the plaintiff to present his evidence ex pane and the court to render judgment
on the basis thereof.
[54]
[55]
Valentina Rosario v. Alonzo, 118 Phil. 404 (1963).
[56]
G.R. No. 196063, 14 December 2011, 662 SCRA 684.
Fil-Eslate Golf and Development, Inc. v. Navarro, 553 Phil. 48 (2007), citing Lu
Ym v Nabua 492 Phil. 397 (2005).
[57]

G.R.
No.
216572
FELICIANO LEGASPI, PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ALFREDO D. GERMAR, AND ROGELIO P. SANTOS,
JR.,
April 19, 2016
RESPONDENTS.
EN BANC
[ G.R. No. 216572, April 19, 2016 ]
FELICIANO LEGASPI, PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSION ON
ELECTIONS, ALFREDO D. GERMAR, AND ROGELIO P. SANTOS,
JR., RESPONDENTS.
RESOLUTION
VELASCO JR., J.:
The opportunities for the Court to revisit its ruling in Mendoza vs.
COMELEC[1] (Mendoza) are sparse. It is a rarity for us to be presented a case
assailing the COMELECen banc's reversal of its division's ruling notwithstanding the
former's failure to muster the four (4) votes required under our Constitution to do
so. In fact, the September 1, 2015 Decision in the case at bench is only second to
the seminal case of Mendoza to have resolved such an issue. The Court must,
therefore, take advantage of this rare opportunity, on reconsideration, to modify
the Mendoza doctrine before it further takes root, deeply entrenched in our
jurisprudence.
The facts of this case are simple and undisputed.
To recapitulate, petitioner Feliciano Legaspi (Legaspi) and private respondent
Alfredo D. Germar (Germar) both ran as mayoralty candidates in Norzagaray,
Bulacan while private respondent Rogelio Santos (Santos) was a candidate for
councilor in the May 13, 2013 elections. [2] On May 14, 2013 Legaspi filed a Petition
for Disqualification against private respondents, docketed as SPA No. 13-353 (DC).
There, petitioner averred that from May 11, 2013 until election day, private
respondents engaged in massive vote-buying, using their political leaders as
conduits. As per witness accounts, said political leaders, while camped inside the
North Hills Village Homeowners Association Office in Brgy. Bitungol, Norzagaray,
Bulacan, were distributing to voters envelopes containing Php 500.00 each and a
sample ballot bearing the names of private respondents. Through military efforts,
the vote-buying was foiled and the office, which served as the venue for
distribution, padlocked. The newly-minted Chief of Police, P/Supt. Dale Soliba, and
his subordinates then attempted to force open the office and retrieve from inside
four (4) boxes containing the remaining undistributed envelopes with an estimated
aggregate amount of Php800,000.00, but a group of concerned citizens were able
to thwart their plan in flagrante delicto and intercept the said evidence of votebuying.[3]
In answer, private respondents denied the allegations and raised the alibi that from
3:00 o'clock to 11:00 o'clock in the evening of May 11, 2013, they attended the
Liberal Party's meeting de avance at the San Andres Parish church grounds, and
that they did not go to nor visit the office of the Homeowner's Association of North
Hills Village at the time the election offenses were allegedly committed. [4]
Giving due credence and consideration to the evidence adduced by petitioner,[5] the
COMELEC Special First Division, by a 2-1 vote on October 3, 2013, disqualified
private respondents from the 2013 electoral race. The dispositive portion of the
COMELEC resolution[6] reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Commission RESOLVED as it hereby
RESOLVES to:
(1) DISQUALIFY Respondents Alfredo M. Gesmar (sic) and Rogelio C. Santos, Jr.
for the positions of Mayor and Councilor of Norzagaray, Bulacan;
(2) REFER the criminal aspect of this case against Germar (sic), Roberto Esquivel,
Rogelio Santos, Jr., Dale Soliba, Dominador Rayo, Marivic Nunez, Adelaida Auza,
Amelia Cruz, and Leonardo Ignacio to the Law Department for preliminary
investigation; and
(3) ORDER the Regional Election Director of COMELEC Region III to implement this
Resolution, following the rules on succession as provided in R.A. 7160.
SO ORDERED.
Thereafter, private respondents moved for reconsideration before the COMELEC en
banc but the latter, through its July 10, 2014 Resolution, [7] resolved to deny private
respondents' motion thusly:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Commission RESOLVED, as it
hereby RESOLVES to DENY this Motion for Reconsideration for LACK OF MERIT.
Consequently, the October 3, 2013 Resolution of the Special First Division (1)
disqualifying respondents Alfredo M. Germar and Rogelio C. Santos, Jr. for the
positions of Mayor and Councilor of Norzagaray, Bulacan; (2) referring the criminal
aspect of this case against Alfredo M. Germar, Roberto Esquivel, Rogelio Santos, Jr.,
Dale Soliba, Dominador Rayo, Marivic Nunez, Adelaida Auza, Amelia Cruz and
Leonardo Ignacio to the Law Department for preliminary investigation and (3)
ordering the Regional Election Director of COMELEC Region III to implement this
Resolution, following the Rules on Succession as provided under R.A. 7160 is
hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
The adverted Resolution had a vote of 3-2-1-1, as follows: three (3)

commissioners, namely Chairman Sixto S. Brillantes, Jr. and commissioners
Lucenito N. Tagle and Elias R. Yusoph, voted for the denial of the motion, while two
(2) commissioners, Christian Robert S. Lim and Luie Tito F. Guia, dissented.
Commissioner Al A. Parreno took no part in the deliberations and Commissioner
Maria Grace Cielo M. Padaca did not vote as her ad interim appointment had
already expired, vacating a seat in the electoral tribunal.[8]
Since the Resolution was not concurred in by four (4) votes or a majority of all the
members of the COMELEC, a re-deliberation of the administrative aspect of the case
was conducted pursuant to Sec. 6, Rule 18 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure. The
re-deliberation resulted in the issuance of the assailed Order[9] dated January 28,
2015 with a 3-2-2 vote: the previously voting commissioners maintained their
respective positions while then newly-appointed commissioner Arthur D. Lim took
no part in the deliberations and abstained from voting. [10] Citing the same
procedural rule, the COMELEC en banc dismissed the original Petition for
Disqualification filed by Legaspi in the following wise:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Commission RESOLVED, as it
hereby RESOLVES to DISMISS the administrative aspect of this Petition for
Disqualification for FAILURE TO OBTAIN THE NECESSARY MAJORITY VOTES
AFTER RE-DELIBERATION/REHEARING by the members of the Commission en
banc.
SO ORDERED.
Perplexed as to how he who prevailed before the COMELEC Special First Division
can face defeat before the COMELEC en banc when three (3) commissioners voted
to deny private respondents' motion for reconsideration and only two (2)
commissioners voted to reverse the judgment in his favor, Legaspi launched a Rule
64 petition assailing the January 28, 2015 COMELEC en banc Order before this
Court. Regrettably, the Court, on September 1, 2015, voted to dismiss the petition.
From the September 1, 2015 Decision, petitioner Legaspi interposed the instant
motion for reconsideration. Hence, the Court is faced once again with the issue on
how to treat the rulings of the COMELEC en banc when less than four (4) votes
were cast to either grant or deny the motion for reconsideration pending before it.
The Court's Ruling
The Court GRANTS petitioner's motion for reconsideration. The September 1, 2015
Decision in the case at bar is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE, and the instant
petition is GRANTED.
Primarily, the Court is called to interpret Sec. 6, Rule 18 of the COMELEC Rules on
Procedure. The provision reads:
Section 6. Procedure if Opinion is Equally Divided. - When the Commission en
banc is equally divided in opinion, or the necessary majority cannot be had, the
case shall be reheard, and if on rehearing no decision is reached, the action or
proceeding shall be dismissed if originally commenced in the Commission; in
appealed cases, the judgment or order appealed from shall stand affirmed; and all
incidental matters, the petition or motion shall be denied." (emphasis added)
As framed in the September 1, 2015 Decision, the afore-cited provision outlines the
effects of the COMELEC en banc's failure to decide:
1. If the action or proceeding is originally commenced in the COMELEC, such
action or proceeding shall be dismissed;
2. In appealed cases, the judgment or order appealed from shall stand
affirmed; or
3. In incidental matters, the petition or motion shall be denied.
In dismissing Legaspi's petition on September 1, 2015, the Court first categorized

SPA No. 13-353 (DC) as an action "originally commenced with the Commission"
warranting the entire case's dismissal should the en banc fail to reach the required
majority vote, regardless of the COMELEC division's ruling. This, according to
theponencia, is the first effect of Sec. 6, Rule 18 of the COMELEC Rules of
Procedure, as previously applied in Mendoza.
To summarize Mendoza, therein petitioner Joselito R. Mendoza (Mendoza) was
proclaimed winner of the 2007 gubernatorial election for the province of Bulacan,
besting respondent Roberto M. Pagdanganan (Pagdanganan). On June 1, 2007,
Pagdanganan filed an election protest that the COMELEC Second Division eventually
granted, thereby annulling Mendoza's proclamation. Aggrieved, Mendoza moved for
reconsideration with the en banc, but the COMELEC failed to reach a majority vote
to either grant or deny the motion. Pursuant to its rules, the COMELEC en
banc reheard the case but was, nevertheless, unsuccessful in obtaining the required
majority vote to render a valid ruling. Thus, in a 3-1 vote, with three votes denying
the motion, the COMELEC en banc sustained the ruling of its Second Division.[11]
On petition with the Court, Mendoza pointed out that because the necessary
majority vote of four (4) was not obtained by the COMELEC en banc,
Pagdanganan's election protest ought to be dismissed. Agreeing, the Court, on
March 25, 2010, ruled for Mendoza and explained that as an original action before
the Commission, failure to muster the required majority vote on reconsideration
would lead to the election protest's dismissal, not just of the motion for
reconsideration.[12]
Aside from relying on the Mendoza ruling, the September 1, 2015 Decision
discussed that a motion for reconsideration lodged with the COMELEC en banc is
not an "action or proceeding" within the contemplation of the rules; that the phrase
ought to be construed as pertaining to Part V of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure,
denominated as "Particular Actions or Proceedings" and covering Rules 20-34. Thus,
the Court applied the first effect and ordered that Legaspi's Petition for
Disqualification, the alleged "action or proceeding" in this case, be dismissed in its
entirety.
The interpretation of Sec. 6, Rule 18
of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure in Mendoza
and in the September 1, 2015 Decision
renders the rule unconstitutional
The Mendoza doctrine, as reiterated in the September 1, 2015 Decision, deviated
from the 1987 Constitution. Not only does it circumvent the four-vote requirement
under Sec. 7, Art. IX-A of the Constitution, it likewise diminishes the adjudicatory
powers of the COMELEC Divisions under Sec. 3, Article IX-C. [14]
Under Sec. 3, Article IX-C of the 1987 Constitution, [15] the COMELEC Divisions are
granted adjudicatory powers to decide election cases, provided that the
COMELEC en banc shall resolve motions for reconsideration of the division rulings.
Further, under Sec. 7, Article IX-A of the Constitution,[16] four (4) votes are
necessary for the COMELEC en banc to decide a case. Naturally, the party moving
for reconsideration, as the party seeking affirmative relief, carries the burden of
proving that the division committed reversible error. The movant then shoulders the
obligation of convincing four (4) Commissioners to grant his or her plea. [17]
This voting threshold, however, is easily rendered illusory by the
application of the Mendoza ruling, which virtually allows the grant of a
motion for reconsideration even though the movant fails to secure four
votes in his or her favor, in blatant violation of Sec. 7, Art. IX-A of the
Constitution. In this case, in spite of securing only two (2) votes to grant their
motion for reconsideration, private respondents were nevertheless declared the
victors in the January 28, 2015 COMELEC en banc Resolution.[18]
To exacerbate the situation, the circumvention of the four-vote requirement, in

turn, trivializes the proceedings before the COMELEC divisions and presents rather
paradoxical scenarios, to wit:[19]
i.
The failure of the COMELEC en banc to muster the required majority vote
only means that it could not have validly decided the case. Yet curiously, it
managed to reverse the ruling of a body that has properly exercised its
adjudicatory powers; and
ii.
A motion for reconsideration may be filed on the ground that the evidence is
insufficient to justify the decision, order or ruling; or that the said decision,
order or ruling is contrary to law. If the COMELEC en banc does not find that
either ground exists, there would be no cogent reason to disturb the ruling of
the COMELEC division. Otherwise stated, failure to muster four votes to
sustain the motion for reconsideration should be understood as tantamount
to the COMELEC en bancfinding no reversible error attributable to its
division's ruling. Said decision, therefore, ought to be affirmed, not reversed
nor vacated.
These resultant paradoxes have to be avoided. Under the prevailing interpretation

of Sec. 6, Rule 18 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure, a movant, in situations such
as this, need not even rely on the strength of his or her arguments and evidence to
win a case, and may, instead, choose to rest on inhibitions and abstentions of
COMELEC members to produce the same result. To demonstrate herein, it is as
though the two (2) abstention votes were counted in favor of the private
respondents to reach the majority vote of four (4). This impedes and undermines
the adjudicatory powers of the COMELEC divisions by allowing their rulings to be
overruled by theen banc without the latter securing the necessary number to decide
the case.[20]
From the foregoing disquisitions, it is then difficult to see how the Mendoza doctrine
"complements our Constitution."[21] Far from it, the prevailing interpretation of Sec.
6, Rule 18 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure severely suffers from constitutional
infirmities and calls for the nullification of the rule itself.
The motion for reconsideration
before the COMELEC en banc
is an "incidental matter"
Proceeding to the core of the controversy, we now apply Sec. 6, Rule 18 in the case
at bar. As discussed in the September 1, 2015 ponencia:
xxx [T]he effects of the COMELEC en banc's failure to decide vary depending on
the type of case or matter that is before the commission. Thus, under the
provision, the first effect (i.e., the dismissal of the action or proceeding) only
applies when the type of case before the COMELEC is an action or proceeding
"originally commenced in the commission"; the second effect (i.e., the affirmance
of a judgment or order) only applies when the type of case before the COMELEC is
an "appealed case"; and the third effect (i.e., the denial of the petition or
motion) only applies when the case or matter before the COMELEC is an
"incidental matter." (emphasis added)
Verily, classifying the pending case or matter before the COMELEC is a
prerequisite to identifying the applicable effect. Here, while the case
originated from Legaspi's filing of a Petition for Disqualification, said petition has
already been passed upon and decided by the COMELEC Special First Division on
October 3, 2013. Instead, what was under consideration when Sec. 6, Rule 18 was
invoked was no longer Legaspi's petition for disqualification itself but his motion
for reconsideration before the COMELEC en banc. The pending issue at the time
was not directly private respondents' qualification or disqualification to run for or
hold office, but, more precisely, whether or not the COMELEC division committed
reversible error in its October 3, 2013 ruling.
For the first effect to apply, the pending case or matter must be an original
action or proceeding originally commenced before the COMELEC. This could
take either of two forms: those originally commenced with the COMELEC Division or
those originally commenced with the COMELEC en banc.
Under Article IX-C, Sec. 2(2) of the Constitution, actions originally commenced
before the COMELEC Division consist of all contests relating to the elections,
returns, and qualifications of all elective regional, provincial, and city officials. [22] On
the other hand, the cases directly filed with the COMELEC en banc are those
specifically provided in the COMELEC Rules of Procedure, such as petitions for
postponement of elections under Sec. 1, Rule 26, petitions for failure of election
under Sec. 2, Rule 26, complaints or charges for indirect contempt under Sec. 2,
Rule 29, preliminary investigation of election offenses under Sec. 1, Rule 34, and all
other cases where the COMELEC division is not authorized to act. [23]
In this case, while the motion for reconsideration was filed with the COMELEC en
banc in the first instance, it cannot strictly be considered as an "action or
proceeding"originally commenced with the commission as contemplated by the
rules. As held in the September 1, 2015 Decision, the coverage of the phrase is
limited to those itemized in Part V of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure, viz:
COMELEC RULES OF PROCEDURE - PART V

PARTICULAR ACTIONS OR PROCEEDINGS
A. ORDINARY ACTIONS
Rule 20 - Election Protests
Rule 21 - Quo Warranto
Rule 22 - Appeals from Decisions of Courts in Election Protest Cases
B. SPECIAL ACTIONS
Rule 23 - Petition to Deny Due Course To or Cancel Certificates of Candidacy
Rule 24 - Proceedings Against Nuisance Candidates
Rule 25 - Disqualification of Candidates
Rule 26 - Postponement of Suspension of Elections
C. IN SPECIAL CASES
Rule 27 - Pre-proclamation Controversies
D. SPECIAL RELIEFS
Rule 28 - Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus
Rule 29 - Contempt
E. PROVISIONAL REMEDIES
Rule 30 - Injunction
F. SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS
Rule 31 - Annulment of Permanent List of Voters

Rule 32 Registration of Political Parties or Organization
Rule 33 - Accreditation of Citizens' Arms of the Commission
G. ELECTION OFFENSES
Rule 34 - Prosecution of Election Offenses
It bears stressing that the first effect would only apply if the tie vote was in the
resolution of the "action or proceeding" originally commenced before the COMELEC.
But given that the pending matter when the vote was cast was the resolution of the
motion for reconsideration, which is neither an action nor a proceeding within the
ambit of Part V of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure, the first effect cannot therefore
be applied in this case.
The second effect cannot likewise be applied herein for it requires that the
pending case or matter be an appeal. Worth maintaining is this doctrine
inMendoza: a motion for reconsideration is a constitutionally guaranteed remedial
mechanism for parties aggrieved by a division decision or resolution, but not an
appeal.[24] In the same vein, it was held in Apo Fruits Corporation v. Court of
Appeals[25] that "[t]he Supreme Court sitting en banc is not an appellate court visa-vis its Divisions, and it exercises no appellate jurisdiction over the latter. Each
division of the Court is considered not a body inferior to the Court en banc, and sits
veritably as the Court en banc itself"[26]
This leaves the court with the third effect: that the petition or motion will be
dismissed in incidental matters.
The Court now determines whether the motion for reconsideration of private
respondents is an "incidental matter" to which the third effect will apply. Without
doubt, the answer is in the affirmative.
In the August 24, 2010 ruling in League of Cities vs. COMELEC,[27] the Court applied
Sec.7, Rule 56 of the Rules of Court, which reads:
Rule 56
Procedure in the Supreme Court
xxxx
SEC. 7. Procedure if opinion is equally divided. - Where the court en banc is
equally divided in opinion, or the necessary majority cannot be had, the case shall
again be deliberated on, and if after such deliberation no decision is reached, the
original action commenced in the court shall be dismissed; in appealed cases, the
judgment or order appealed from shall stand affirmed; and on all incidental
matters, the petition or motion shall be denied.(Emphasis supplied)
As can be gleaned, the afore-quoted rule bears striking similarity with Sec. 6, Rule
18 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure. In the adverted ruling, Senior Associate
Justice Antonio T. Carpio (Justice Carpio) explained that a motion for
reconsideration is an incidental matter, and that application of Sec. 7, Rule 56
thereto has been clarified in A.M. No. 99-1-09-SC[28] wherein the Court resolved as
follows:
A MOTION FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF A DECISION OR RESOLUTION OF THE

COURT EN BANG OR OF A DIVISION MAY BE GRANTED UPON A VOTE OF A
MAJORITY OF THE MEMBERS OF THE EN BANC OR OF A DIVISION, AS THE CASE
MAY BE, WHO ACTUALLY TOOK PART IN THE DELIBERATION OF THE MOTION.
IF THE VOTING RESULTS IN A TIE, THE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
IS DEEMED DENIED. (emphasis added)
Free from ambiguity, the plain meaning of the clarificatory resolution is that the
motion for reconsideration, being an incidental matter, is deemed denied if no
majority vote is reached. Consequently, the Court's prior majority action in such
cases stands affirmed.[29]
Defensor-Santiago vs. COMELEC[30] served as jurisprudential basis for the
pronouncement in the August 24, 2010 League of Cities ruling. In the cited case,
eight (8) Justices of the Supreme Court, as against five (5), voted to declare
Republic Act No. 6735[31] insufficient to cover the system of initiative on
amendments to the Constitution, and to nullify the COMELEC rules and regulations
prescribing the conduct thereof. On reconsideration, the Court was equally-divided,
6-6, yet the prior Decision was never deemed overturned. The deadlock was
interpreted to mean that the opposite view failed to muster enough votes to modify
or reverse the majority ruling. Therefore, the motion for reconsideration was denied
and the original Decision, upheld.[32]
Noticeably, Mendoza, which was decided by the Court on March 25, 2010, preceded
the August 24, 2010 League of Cities ruling. In the latter en banc case, the Court
set the precedent that the failure to reach the majority vote on reconsideration
would only result in the denial of the motion alone.[33]
There is no reason why the same procedural principle in League of Cities, as
embodied in A.M. No. 99-1-09-SC, cannot find application in election cases. With
Sec. 6, Rule 18 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure couched in terms that
are almost identical with Sec. 7, Rule 56 of the Rules of Court, the
interpretation of one ought not deviate from the other. Interpretare et
cocordare leges legibus est optimus interpretandi modus. The rule is that a statute
must be construed not only to be consistent with itself but also to harmonize with
other laws so as to form a complete, coherent and intelligible system. [34] A.M. No.
99-1-09-SC on Sec. 7, Rule 56 of the Rules of Court should then be given
suppletory application"[35] to election cases for a singular interpretation of the
similarly phrased rules, more particularly to the treatment of less than majority
votes on motions for reconsideration before the COMELEC en banc.
In conclusion, Sec. 3, Article IX-C of the Constitution bestows on the COMELEC
divisions the authority to decide election cases. Their decisions are capable of
attaining finality, without need of any affirmative or confirmatory action on the part
of the COMELEC en banc. And while the Constitution requires that the motions for
reconsideration be resolved by the COMELEC en banc, it likewise requires that four
votes must be reached for it to render a valid ruling and, consequently, to GRANT
the motion for reconsideration of private respondents. Hence, when the private
respondents failed to get the four-vote requirement on their motion for
reconsideration, their motion is defeated and lost as there was NO valid ruling to
sustain the plea for reconsideration. The prior valid action - the COMELEC Special
First Division's October 3, 2013 Resolution in this case - therefore subsists and is
affirmed by the denial of the motion for reconsideration.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the motion for reconsideration is
hereby GRANTED and the September 1, 2015 Decision of the Court
is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The instant petition is GRANTED and the January
28, 2015 Order of the Comelec en banc in SPA No. 13-353 (DC) is hereby SET
ASIDE. The October 3, 2013 Resolution of the COMELEC Special First Division in
SPA No. 13-353 (DC) is REINSTATED and AFFIRMED. THIS DECISION IS
IMMEDIATELY EXECUTORY.
SO ORDERED.
Sereno, C.J. Carpio, Leonardo-De Castro, Peralta, Del Castillo, Reyes, and Caguioa,
JJ., concur.
Brion, Bersamin, Mendoza, Leonen, and Jardeleza, JJ., joins the dissent of J. Perez
Perez, J., please see dissenting opinion.
NOTICE OF JUDGMENT
Sirs/Mesdames:
original of which was received by this Office on may 4, 2016 at 1:00 p.m.
Very truly yours,
(SGD)
FELIPA G. BORLONGAN-ANAMA
Clerk of Court
[1]
630 Phil. 432 (2010).
Dissenting Opinion of Associate Justice Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr., Legaspi vs.

COMELEC, G.R. No. 216572, September 1, 2015
[2]

[3]

[4]
[5]
Petitioner offered the following in evidence:
1) Sinumpaang Salaysay of Kagawad Helen Viola, Ma. Joanna Abesamis, Jaimenito

Magat, Danny Mendoza and Teodorico Tuazon who witnessed the vote buying
activities during the morning of May 11, 2013, the forced opening of the HOA office
around 12:00 A.M. of May 12, 2013 by P/Supt. Soliba and subsequent interception
of the latter by the affiants, who seized the plastic bag containing 4 boxes of money
and sample ballots of respondents;
2) Report of the Turn-over of Confiscated/Recovered Items by P/Supt. Soliba to the
Municipal Treasurer of Norzagaray, Bulacan, detailing the number of envelopes and
sample ballots of Germar-Esquivel Team (FB Team) and amounts of money found
inside each of the 4 boxes;
3) Pictures during the opening of the seized items before the Norzagaray Municipal
Police Station and photos taken during the vote-buying incident at the HOA office
where respondent Esquivel was seen going out of the premises in the morning of
May 11, 2013;
4) Certified True Copies of the Police Blotter Entries regarding the vote-buying
incidents which happened on May 12-13, 2013, as reported to the police by Retired
Col. Bruno Paler Viola, Jr. and Alma Rulida;
5) Sworn Statements of 194 voters who testified that they were offered and/or
given the amount ranging from PhP250.00-PhP500.00 each in exchange of their
votes for the respondents, and were thus issued yellow stubs that they received
such amount;
6) Sworn Statements of several witnesses, attesting that during election day,

respondents' team promised them to pay PhP500.00-PhPl,000.00 each on condition
that they will not vote and their right point fingers will be marked with ink; and
7) Minutes of Voting of the Board of Election Inspectors of Cluster Precinct No. 60,
allowing three voters to cast their vote upon verifying that the ink marked on their
fingers was not that of the Comelec's indelible ink and that they have not yet voted.
[6]
Rollo, pp. 59-73.
[7]
Rollo, pp. 84-92.

[8]
[9]
Rollo, p. 99- 103.

[10]

[11]

[12]
[13]
Rule 19 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure governs motions for reconsideration

[14]
Section 3. The Commission on Elections may sit en banc or in two divisions, and
shall promulgate its rules of procedure in order to expedite disposition of election
cases, including pre-proclamation controversies. All such election cases shall be
heard and decided in division, provided that motions for reconsideration of decisions
shall be decided by the Commission en banc, (emphasis added)
[15]
Section 7. Each Commission shall decide by a majority vote of all its Members,
any case or matter brought before it within sixty days from the date of its
submission for decision or resolution. A case or matter is deemed submitted for
decision or resolution upon the filing of the last pleading, brief, or memorandum
required by the rules of the Commission or by the Commission itself. Unless
[16]
otherwise provided by this Constitution or by law, any decision, order, or ruling of

each Commission may be brought to the Supreme Court on certiorari by the
aggrieved party within thirty days from receipt of a copy thereof.
[17]

COMELEC, G.R. "No. 216572, September 1, 2015
[18]

[19]

[20]
[21]
Legaspi vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 216572, September 1, 2015
SECTION 2. The Commission on Elections shall exercise the following powers

and functions: x x x x
[22]
(2) Exercise exclusive original jurisdiction over all contests relating to the elections,
returns, and qualification; of all elective regional, provincial, and city officials, and
appellate jurisdiction over all contests involving elective municipal officials decided
by trial courts of general jurisdiction, or involving elective barangay officials decided
by trial courts of limited jurisdiction.
COMELEC, G.R. No. 216572, September 1, 2015.
[23]

[24]
[25]
G.R. No. 164195, April 30, 2008, 553 SRA 237
Apo Fruits Corporation v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 164195, April 30, 2008.
553 SRA 237, citing Firestone Ceramics, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 389 Phil. 810,
818 (2000). In accordance with Supreme Court Circular No. 2-89,
providing Guidelines and Rules in the Court en banc of Cases Assigned to A
Division.
[26]
[27]
G.R. Nos 176951, 177499, and 178056
In the Matter of Clarifying the Rule in Resolving Motions for Reconsideration,

promulgated on January 26, 1999.
[28]
[29]
Supra note 27.
[30]
336 Phil. 848(1997).
AN ACT PROVIDING FOR A SYSTEM OF INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM AND

APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR.
[31]
Separate Opinion of former Associate Justice Angelina Sandoval-Gutierrez

in Lambino vs. COMELEC, G.R. Nos. 174153 and 174299, October 25, 2006
[32]
Although the League of Cities ruling was thereafter reversed, said reversal was
due to substantive arguments, not for any perceived error in the application of the
procedural rule.
[33]
[34]
Dreamwork Construction, Inc. vs. Janiola, G.R. No. 184861, June 30, 2009
[35]
Rule 41 of the COMELEC Rule of Procedure:
Section 1. The Rules of Court. - In the absence of any applicable provisions in these
Rules, the pertinent provisions of the Rules of Court in the Philippines shall be
applicable by analogy or in suppletory character and effect.
DISSENTING OPINION
PEREZ, J.:
The resolution penned by the learned Justice Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr. which was
joined by seven (7) other colleagues, reversed the original decision [1] in this case
,and displaced the judicial doctrine meticolously laid out by the Court in Mendoza v.
COMELEC.[2] I view the reversal and the displacement by the new majority as
legally erronoeus. Hence, I must dissent.
I stand by the reasonings of the original decision and the Mendoza case. In addition
to them, however, I submit this opinion to fully articulate my position against the
majority resolution.
I
At the heart of this case is Section 6, Rule 18 of the COMELEC Rules. [3] The
provision reads:
Sec. 6. Procedure if Opinion is Equally Divided. - When the Commission en banc is
equally divided in opinion, or the necessary majority cannot be had, the case shall
be reheard, and if on rehearing no decision is reached, the action or proceeding
shall be dismissed if originally commenced in the Commission; in appealed cases,
the judgment or order appealed from shall stand affirmed; and in all incidental
matters, the petition or motion shall be denied.
The above provision was intended to fill the procedural void left when the
COMELEC en banc is unable to reach the constitutionally-required majority vote [4] in
deciding or resolving any case or matter before it. It does this in two ways: one, by
providing a mechanism by which the COMELEC en banc can try and achieve a
majority consensus; and two, when such mechanism fails, by providing for the
effects of the COMELEC en banc's failure to decide.
Hence, under the subject provision, the COMELEC en banc is first required to rehear
the case or matter that it cannot decide or resolve by the necessary majority. When
a majority still cannot be had after the rehearing, however, there results a failure to
decide on the part of the COMELEC en banc; the provision then steps in and
specifies the effects of such failure to decide:
1. If the action or proceeding is originally commenced in the COMELEC, such
action or proceeding shall be dismissed;
2. In appealed cases, the judgment or order appealed from shall stand
affirmed; or
3. In incidental matters, the petition or motion shall be denied.
Verily, the effects of the COMELEC en banc's failure to decide vary depending on
the type of case or matter that is before the commission. Under the provision,
thefirst effect (i.e., the dismissal of the action or proceeding) only applies when
the type of case before the COMELEC is an action or proceeding "originally
commenced in the commission"; the second effect (i.e., the affirmance of a
judgment or order) only applies when the type of case before the COMELEC is an
"appealed case"; and the third effect (i.e., the denial of the petition or motion)
only applies when the case or matter before the COMELEC is an "incidental matter:"
Mendoza was the leading pronouncement of the Court regarding the first effect
under Section 6, Rule 18 of the COMELEC Rules. It defined the bounds of the first
effectand it gave us a clear illustration of the application of the first effect.
In Mendoza, we proclaimed that the first effect under Section 6, Rule 18 of the
COMELEC Rules applies when the COMELEC en banc failed to reach a majority
consensus on a motion for reconsideration from a decision of the division in an
original election case (in Mendoza, the case was an electoral protest originally filed
before the division). This was so because, in such event, the case or matter
before the CQMELEC en banc is actually still the same election case that
was decided by the division. We explained that while the election case may have
reached the COMELEC en banc through the motion for reconsideration of the
decision of a division, the same did not change the original nature of the election
case; such motion not being an appeal. [5] Thus, we held that the failure of the
COMELEC en banc to decide the motion for reconsideration would resultnot in the
denial of the said motion or the affirmance of the division's decisionbut in the
dismissal of the election case itself, pursuant to the first effect under Section 6,
Rule 18 of the COMELEC Rules.[6]
II
The present case would have served us with the perfect factual context to apply the
first effect under Section 6, Rule 18 of the COMELEC Rules as interpreted
byMendoza. Its facts are essentially parallel with that of Mendoza.
Like Mendoza, the present case involved an election case that was originally filed in
and decided by a COMELEC division (in here, the election case was a petition for
disqualification). Like in Mendoza, the election case herein was afterwards elevated
to the en banc on motion for reconsideration. Like in Mendoza, the COMELEC en
banc in the present case likewise failed to come up with a majority vote, even after
rehearing, on the motion for reconsideration. By all indications, and pursuant the
principle of stare decisis, the present case should have been decided like Mendoza.
Faulty legal reasoning, however, led the new majority astray. As I will attempt to
demonstrate, the arguments relied upon by the new majority rests on less than
solid foundations.
III
At this juncture, I will venture into the arguments relied upon by the new majority
in support of their resolution. For purposes of this discussion, I have categorized
such arguments into two:
1. The incidental matter argument i.e., it is the third effect, not the first
effect, under Section 6, Rule 18 of the COMELEC Rules that ought to apply in
cases where the COMELEC en banc fails to reach majority consensus on a
motion for reconsideration. This is because, in such event, the matter before
the COMELEC en bancis only a motion for reconsideration which falls under
the category of an "incidental matter" under Section 6, Rule 18 of the
COMELEC Rules.
2. The unconstitutionally arguments i.e., pursuing Mendoza's interpretation
of the first effect under Section 6, Rule 18 of the COMELEC Rules would
diminish the constitutional power of COMELEC divisions to decide election
cases as well as circumvent the minimum voting threshold for constitutional
commissions.[7]
I shall address these arguments in seriatim.

RE: Incidental Matter Argument
The new majority advanced the argument that it is the third effect, not the first
effect, under Section 6, Rule 18 of the COMELEC Rules that ought to apply in cases
where the COMELEC en banc fails to reach majority consensus on a motion for
reconsideration. They insist that, in such event, the matter before the COMELEC en
bancis only a motion for reconsideration, which is a mere "incidental matter."
To bolster their position that a motion for reconsideration to the COMELEC en
banc from a decision of the division is a mere incidental matter, the new majority
cites the case of the League of Cities v. COMELEC.[8]
Like the argument advanced by the petitioner to counter the application of first
effect to this case, the incidental matter argument proceeds from the assumption
that the proceedings in election cases before the COMELEC division are separate
from those before the en banc; that there is a difference between what the
COMELEC en banc decides on motion for reconsideration with what the division
initially decides. Such assumption is admittedly appealing at first blush; but, as all
should have known by now, that assumption was already rejected and proven
wrong in Mendoza.
In Mendoza, we held that the COMELEC acts on election cases under a single and
integrated process, to wit:
[H]owever the jurisdiction of the COMELEC is involved, x x x, the COMELEC will act
on the case in one whole and single process: to repeat, in division, and if
impelled by a motion for reconsideration, en banc.[9]
It is to be minded that the above pronouncement in Mendoza is not one that was
merely grasped from thin air. The same, in fact, has firm roots in Section 3, Article
IX-C of the Constitution, which provides for the interplay between COMELEC
divisions and the en banc in deciding election cases:
SECTION 3. The Commission on Elections may sit en banc or in two divisions, and
shall promulgate its rules of procedure in order to expedite disposition of election
cases, including pre-proclamation controversies. All such election cases shall be
heard and decided in division, provided that motions for reconsideration of decisions
shall be decided by the Commission en banc.
Drawing from the discussion in Mendoza and the underlying edict of the
Constitution, we are then able to reach the inescapable conclusiona basic principle
that amotion for reconsideration from the decision of a COMELEC division in an
election case is only a means of elevating such case to the en banc. This the
original decision stated:
x x x when an election case originally filed with the COMELEC is first decided by a
division, the subsequent filing of a motion for reconsideration from that decision
before the en banc does not signify the initiation of a new action or case, but rather
a mere continuation of an existing process. The motion for reconsiderationnot
being an appeal from the decision of the division to the en banconly thus
serves as a means of elevating an election case to the COMELEC en
banc. Under this view, therefore, the nature of the election case as it was before
the division remains the same even after it is forwarded to the en banc through a
motion for reconsideration, x x x[10]
Recognition of this basic principle readily discredits the incidental matter argument
of the new majority. It was erroneous for the new majority to consider the motion
for reconsideration from the decision of a COMELEC division as the very matter that
is brought before the en banc. A motion for reconsideration from the decision of a
COMELEC division in an election case is only a means of elevating such case to
the en banc. Thus, when a motion for reconsideration in an election case is
filed, the case or matter that is actually brought before the COMELEC is the
very election case that was decided initially by the division. Hence, in such
event, the failure of the COMELEC en banc to muster a majority consensus would
only and rightly bring to the fore the application of the first effect under Section 6,
Rule 18 of the COMELEC Rules.
RE: Unconstitutionality Arguments

To justify their avoidance of Mendoza's interpretation of the first effect under
Section 6, Rule 18 of the COMELEC Rules, the new majority played the
unconstitutional card. According to the new majority, Mendoza's interpretation of
the first effect is unconstitutional for it diminishes the constitutional power of
COMELEC divisions to decide election cases[11] and circumvents the minimum voting
threshold for constitutional commissions.[12] This was apparently so because the
interpretation would allow the "paradoxical" scenario wherein a valid decision of a
COMELEC division in an election case can be simply overturned by the COMELEC en
banc even though the latter is not able to reach a majority vote on the motion for
reconsideration.
The "paradoxical" scenario complained of by the new majority is more apparent
than real. No constitutional provision is actually violated by the application of the
first effect in situations where the COMELEC en banc fails to reach a majority vote
on a motion for reconsideration:
First. The constitutional power of the COMELEC division to decide election cases is
not diminished by the mere possibility that it may be overturned as a consequence
of the failure of the en banc to reach a majority consensus on a motion for
reconsideration. Under the Constitution, in its proper understanding, the power of a
COMELEC division to decide election cases is subject to the concomitant power of
the en banc to decide the same cases as may be elevated to it on motion for
reconsideration.
The failure of the COMELEC en banc to reach a majority vote on a motion for
reconsideration, therefore, only means that it is not able to come up with a valid
decision in an election case. The only acceptable legal consequence of this is what
the first effect precisely prescribes.
Second. On the same note, the minimum voting threshold for constitutional
commissions is not circumvented when the failure of the COMELEC en banc to reach
a majority vote on a motion for reconsideration results in the dismissal of the very
election case. As earlier intimated, the case or matter that is actually brought
before the COMELEC on motion for reconsideration is the very election case that
was decided initially by the division.
Hence, we come back to the same conclusion: that the failure of the COMELEC en
banc to reach a majority vote on a motion for reconsideration only means that it is
not able to come up with a valid decision in an election case; and that the only
acceptable legal consequence of this is what the first effect prescribes.
IV
All told, I absolutely find no valid reason why the Court should depart from the
original decision and the legal teachings of Mendoza. I beg the indulgence of the
majority if I cannot join them in their resolution.
IN VIEW WHEREOF, I vote to DENY the motion for reconsideration of petitioners.
[1]
G.R. No. 216572, 1 September 2015.
[2]
630 Phil. 432(2010)
COMELEC Rules Governing Pleadings, Practice and Procedure Before It or Any of

Its Offices, dated 15 February 1993.
[3]
[4]
See Section 7, Article IX-A of the CONSTITUTION.
[5]
Mendoza v. COMELEC, supra note 2.
[6]
Id.
[7]
Section 7, Article IX-A of the CONSTITUTION.
[8]
G.R.Nos. 176951, 177499 and 178056, 24 August 2010.
[9]
Mendoza v. COMELEC, supra note 2, at 460. (Emphasis ours.)
[10]
Supra note 1.
[11]
See Section 3, Article IX-C of the CONSTITUTION.
[12]
See Section 7, Article IX-A of the CONSTITUTION.

A.M.
No.
P-16-3447
(formerly:
OCA
I.P.I.
No.
08-2915-P)
LUALHATI C. GUBATANGA, CLERK OF COURT II, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT, BALAGTAS, BULACAN COMPLAINANT, VS.
RENATO
V. BODOY, UTILITY
WORKER
I,
MUNICIPAL
TRIAL
COURT, BALAGTAS,
BULACAN,
RESPONDENT.
April 19, 2016
EN BANC
[ A.M. No. P-16-3447 (formerly: OCA I.P.I.
No. 08-2915-P), April 19, 2016 ]
LUALHATI C. GUBATANGA, CLERK OF COURT II, MUNICIPAL
TRIAL COURT, BALAGTAS, BULACAN COMPLAINANT, VS.
RENATO V. BODOY, UTILITY WORKER I, MUNICIPAL TRIAL
COURT, BALAGTAS, BULACAN, RESPONDENT.
DECISION
PER CURIAM:
For our resolution is the administrative complaint filed by Clerk of Court Lualhati C.
Gubatanga (COC Gubatanga) against Utility Worker Renato V. Bodoy (Bodoy), both
of the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Balagtas, Bulacan.
The case stemmed from the Affidavit Complaint[1] filed by COC Gubatanga charging
Bodoy with grave misconduct and falsification of commercial document.
COC Gubatanga alleged that on 14 May 2008, she noticed that their court's savings
account reflected an unauthorized withdrawal in the amount of Php60,000.00 on 19
March 2008. She reported that inquiries made with the bank disclosed that the
withdrawn amount was received by Bodoy. She was allegedly surprised as she has
never ever authorized Bodoy to make any deposit or withdrawal from their court's
bank account. Records reveal that COC Gubatanga and then acting presiding judge
of MTC Balagtas, Bulacan Luis Enriquez Reyes (Judge Reyes) were the only
accountable officer's allowed to withdraw from the MTC's bank account, particularly
Saving's Account No. 1301-0172-40, maintained at the Land Bank of the
Philippines, Balagtas, Bulacan branch.

COC Gubatanga further alleged that since 24 March 2008, Bodoy has not been
reporting for work. On 15 May 2008, however, he reported for duty and sought an
audience with Hon. Myrna S. Lagrosa (Judge Lagrosa), then newly appointed judge
of MTC Balagtas, Bulacan. Bodoy wished to talk to Judge Lagrosa and tender to her
his resignation.
When Judge Lagrosa summoned COC Gubatanga to discuss the clearance requested
by Bodoy, COC Gubatanga seized the opportunity to inform Judge Lagrosa
regarding the unauthorized withdrawal of Php60,000.00 from their court's savings
account.
In the presence of COC Gubatanga, Judge Lagrosa confronted Bodoy on the matter.
At first, Bodoy denied the accusation. He eventually admitted committing the
offense when he was informed by Judge Lagrosa that his signature appears on the
copy of the withdrawal slip left in the possession of the bank as the recipient of the
amount withdrawn.
When Judge Lagrosa asked how he was able to withdraw the amount from the
court's savings account, Bodoy explained that he inserted an extra withdrawal slip
among the other withdrawal slips that are to be signed by COC Gubatanga and
Judge Reyes in order to avail of their signatures. He also admitted that he used an
ordinary key to open COC Gubatanga's drawer to get the passbook.
COC Gubatanga, however, dismissed Bodoy's explanation and maintained that the
latter falsified her signature in the withdrawal slip, as the signature is not the
customary way she signs her name. She alleged that the same holds true with
respect to the signature of Judge Reyes since the latter meticulously goes over the
bunch of papers, including withdrawal slips, one by one before he affixes his
signature on them.
Finally, COC Gubatanga informed the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) that
she filed a criminal complaint against Bodoy involving the matter alleged in her
administrative complaint and the same is pending preliminary investigation with the
Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Bulacan. COC Gubatanga attached to her
affidavit complaint the affidavits of Judges Lagrosa and Reyes.
In his Affidavit dated 5 June 2008,[2] Judge Reyes denied having signed the
withdrawal slip used by Bodoy to withdraw the amount of Php60,000.00 on 19
March 2008. He averred that his supposed signature appearing thereon was forged.
He maintained that he never signed documents and duplicate copies thereof using
carbon paper and it is more likely that Bodoy imitated his signature in the said
withdrawal slip. Judge Reyes also reported that Bodoy has not been reporting for
work since 14 March 2008.
Bodoy vehemently denied the allegations in the complaint. He contended that the
narrations of facts cited in the complaint are self-serving statements. He further
contended that the filing of the instant administrative complaint is pre-mature and
has as yet, no basis in fact or law.
He argued that the basis of the administrative case is dependent upon the result of
the criminal case. He maintained that giving consideration to the administrative
complaint would result in an injustice. He further maintained that the allegations
contained in the Complaint-Affidavit filed with the Office of the Prosecutor do not
constitute the crime of Qualified Theft and Falsification of Commercial Documents.
On 16 September 2009, Atty. Caridad A. Pabello, Chief of Office, Office of
Administrative Services, OCA; issued a Certification stating that no Daily Time
Record has been submitted by Bodoy since 2008.
In a Resolution dated 22 June 2011,[3] this Court referred the administrative
complaint to the Executive Judge of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Malolos, Bulacan
for investigation, report and recommendation.
In compliance with the directive, Executive Judge Renato C. Francisco (EJ
Francisco), RTC, Malolos, Bulacan submitted his investigation report [4] dated 4
October 2011. He recommended that respondent Bodoy be found guilty of serious
misconduct and be dismissed from the service. Salient portion of his investigation
report, reads;
In the hearing conducted by the undersigned Executive Judge, respondent
Renato Bodoy openly admitted that he withdrew the amount of
Php60,000.00 subject of this present action. He was also confronted with
his signature appearing in the withdrawal slip (Annex "B") to which
respondent Bodoy admitted to affixing his signature therein.
According to the private complainant, she has already retired since June 2011 and
because of this administrative case, her benefits and pension had not been
approved and she prays for speedy resolution of this administrative action.
Upon judicious and sedulous examination of the evidence extant in the records,
more particularly the passbook and withdrawal slip, substantial evidence point to
the respondent Bodoy as having stealthily and clandestinely withdrawn the amount
of Php60,000.00 from the passbook of MTC-Balagtas, Bulacan last March 19,
2008. In fact, in the proceedings before this [c]ourt respondent Bodoy
freely and openly admitted his withdrawal of the said amount of
Php60,000.00 as he claimed that he was hard-pressed for cash at that

time. His culpability is buttressed by the fact that he has been AWOL or absent
without leave since March 14, 2008 and he could not have done so had he not
committed the act of withdrawal of the amount of Php60,000.00.
In sum, substantial evidence clearly established the irregular and anomalous
withdrawal of the amount of Php60,000.00 from the passbook of the MTC-Balagtas,
Bulacan committed by respondent on March 19, 2008, to the damage and prejudice
of the government.
xxxx
WHEREFORE, it is respectfully recommended to the Supreme Court through the
Office of the Court Administrator that respondent Renato Bodoy be dismissed for
serious misconduct.[5] (Emphasis supplied)
In this Court's resolution dated 23 November 2011, the investigation report
submitted by EJ Francisco was referred to the OCA for evaluation, report and
recommendation within sixty (30) days from receipt of the record.
In its Memorandum dated 6 June 2013,[6] the OCA recommended that:
(1) This case be re-docketed as a regular administrative case against Mr. Renato V. Bodoy,
Utility Worker I, Municipal Trial Court, Balagtas, Bulacan, for Dishonesty; [and]
(2) Mr. Renato V. Bodoy, Municipal Trial Court, Balagtas, Bulacan, be DISMISSED from the
service with forfeiture of retirement benefits except accrued leave credits, with perpetual
disqualification for re-employment in government service.
The OCA agreed with the conclusions of fact and recommendation of EJ Francisco.
The OCA, however, found Bodoy not guilty of grave misconduct but of dishonesty. It
explained that misconduct, by uniform legal definition, is a transgression of some
established and definite rule of action, more particularly, unlawful behaviour as well
as gross negligence by a public officer. 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.[7] The OCA held that in this case, there is no
direct connection between the performance of Bodoy's official functions as a Utility
Worker I and his unauthorized withdrawal of the amount of Php60,000.00 from the
trial court's bank account.
This Court agrees with the observation of the OCA.
It is without doubt that Bodoy is guilty of dishonesty. He made a categorical
admission that he withdrew the amount of Php60,000.00 from the trial court's bank
account because he was hard pressed for money. His admission was confirmed by
COC Gubatanga that there was an unauthorized withdrawal from the trial court's
funds, as well as, by the documents from the bank proving that such withdrawal
was indeed effected.[8] It is hornbook doctrine that a judicial admission binds the
person who makes the same, and absent any showing that this was made thru
palpable mistake, no amount of rationalization can offset it. [9] Bodoy's act of
surreptitiously withdrawing Php60,000.00 from the trial court's bank account
without any stamp of authority constitutes dishonesty, which is defined as follows:
[T]he 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.[10]
This Court will not tolerate dishonesty. Persons involved in the dispensation of
justice, from the highest official to the lowest employee, must live up to the
strictest standards of integrity, probity, uprightness and diligence in the public
service. As the assumption of public office is impressed with paramount public
interest, which requires the highest standards of ethical standards, persons aspiring
for public office must observe honesty, candor and faithful compliance with the law.
[11]
It has been consistently stressed that even minor employees mirror the image of
the courts they serve; thus, they are required to preserve the judiciary's good
name and standing as a true temple of justice.[12]
Dishonesty is a serious offense which reflects a person's character and exposes the
moral decay which virtually destroys his honor, virtue and integrity. It is a
malevolent act that has no place in the judiciary, as no other office in the
government service exacts a greater demand for moral righteousness from an
employee than a position in the judiciary.[13]
Significantly, under Section 22, Rule XIV of the Omnibus Rules Implementing Book
V of Executive Order 292, the Administrative Code of 1987 and other Pertinent Civil
Service Laws, the designation of the administrative offense is of no consequence in
this case because dishonesty, like grave misconduct, is considered a grave offense
for which the penalty of dismissal is prescribed even for the first offense. Section 9
of said Rule likewise provides that the penalty of dismissal shall carry with it
cancellation of eligibility, forfeiture of leave credits and retirement benefits, and the
disqualification from re-employment in the government service. This penalty is
without prejudice to criminal liability of the respondent. [14]
In fine, this Court emphasizes that every employee of the judiciary should be an
example of integrity, uprightness and honesty. Like any public servant, he must
exhibit the highest sense of honesty and integrity not only in the performance of his
official duties but in his personal and private dealings with other people, to preserve
the court's good name and standing.[15] Bodoy indubitably failed to meet this strict
standard set for a court employee, hence, he does not deserve to remain in the
judiciary.
Contrary to the contention of Bodoy, the instant administrative complaint can

proceed even before there is judgment in the criminal case involving the same
matter. In administrative proceedings, such as this case, the quantum of proof
required to establish the administrative liability of respondent is substantial
evidence, not proof beyond reasonable doubt. Substantial evidence means such
relevant evidence as reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a
conclusion.[16]
Records reveal that on 29 May 2009, the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of
Malolos City, Bulacan, in I.S. No. 08-06-2769 to 2770, recommended the filing in
court of the appropriate information for Estafa thru Falsification of Official Document
against Bodoy. The criminal case was docketed as Criminal Case No. 3763-M-09
and was raffled to RTC, Branch 81, Malolos, Bulacan.
Although COC Gubatanga is the complainant in the criminal case, she is in the strict
sense only a witness in the case. The real party prejudiced by the act of Bodoy is
MTC, Balagtas, Bulacan because the amount withdrawn without authority came
from the bank account of the aforesaid court. To date, there has been no report
received on the outcome of the criminal case filed against Bodoy or on whether the
full amount withdrawn without authority has been returned to the trial court's bank
account. Thus, it is necessary for the OCA to step in and ensure that the full
amount illegally withdrawn by Bodoy is restituted back to the coffers of the court.
WHEREFORE, respondent Renato V. Bodoy is DISMISSED from the service, with
forfeiture of all retirement benefits, except accrued leave credits, and with prejudice
to re-employment in any branch, agency or instrumentality of the government
including government-owned or controlled corporations.
The Legal Office of the Office of the Court Administrator is DIRECTED to coordinate
with the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Malolos City, Bulacan; oversee the
prosecution of the criminal case against Bodoy; and ensure the restitution of the
amount withdrawn without authority from the fiduciary fund account of Municipal
Trial Court, Balagtas, Bulacan.
SO ORDERED.
Sereno, C. J., Carpio, Velasco, Jr., Leonardo-De Castro, Brion, Peralta, Bersamin,
Del Castillo, Perez, Mendoza, Reyes Perlas Bernabe, Leonen, Jardeleza,
and Caguioa, JJ., concur.
NOTICE OF JUDGMENT
Sirs/Mesdames:
a.m.
Very truly yours,

Clerk of Court
[1]
Rollo, pp. 1-3.
[2]
Id. at 11-15.
[3]
Id. at 65-66.
[4]
Id. at 72-74.
[5]
Id. at 73-74.
[6]
Id. at (no proper pagination, should be pp. 83-88).
[7]
Civil Service Commission v. Perocho, Jr., 555 Phil. 157, 167 (2007).
[8]
Rollo, p. 9.
[9]
Heirs of Miguel Franco v. Court of Appeals, 463 Phil. 417, 428 (2003).
Re: Irregularity in the Use of Bundy Clock by Castro and Tayag, Social Welfare
Officers II, both of the RTC, OCC, Angeles City, 626 Phil. 16, 22 (2010)
citingEstardo-Teodoro v. Segismundo, A.M. No. P-08-2523, April 7, 2009, 584
SCRA 18, 30.
[10]
[11]
De Guzman v. Delos Santos, 442 Phil. 428, 441 (2002).
[12]
Judge Pizarro v. Villegas, 398 Phil. 837, 844 (2000).
[13]
OCA v. Bermejo, 572 Phil. 6, 14 (2008).
[14]
Civil Service Commission v. Sta. Ana, 450 Phil. 59, 69 (2003).
Adm. Case for Dishonesty & Falsification Against Luna, 463 Phil. 878, 889
(2003).
[15]
[16]
Mariano v. Roxas, 434 Phil. 742, 749 (2002).

G.R.
No.
181892
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY EXECUTIVE SECRETARY EDUARDO R. ERMITA, THE DEPARTMENT
OF TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNICATIONS, AND MANILA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY, PETITIONERS, VS.
HON. JESUS M. MUPAS, IN HIS CAPACITY AS ACTING PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, NATIONAL
CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION, BRANCH 117, PASAY CITY, AND PHILIPPINE INTERNATIONAL AIR TERMINALS CO., INC.,
RESPONDENTS.
[G.R.
NO.
209917]
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY EXECUTIVE SECRETARY EDUARDO ERMITA, DEPARTMENT OF

TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNICATIONS, AND MANILA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY, PETITIONERS, VS.
PHILIPPINE
INTERNATIONAL
CORPORATION,
AIR
TERMINALS
RESPONDENTS.
COMPANY, INC., TAKENAKA

[
CORPORATION
G.R.
NOS.
AND
ASAHIKOSAN
209696]
TAKENAKA CORPORATION AND ASAHIKOSAN CORPORATION, PETITIONERS, VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES,
REPRESENTED
BY
EXECUTIVE
SECRETARY
EDUARDO
ERMITA,
DEPARTMENT
OF
TRANSPORTATION
AND
COMMUNICATIONS, MANILA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY, AND PHILIPPINE INTERNATIONAL AIR TERMINALS
COMPANY,
INC.
RESPONDENTS.
[G.R.
NO.
209731]
PHILIPPINE INTERNATIONAL AIR TERMINALS CO., INC. PETITIONER, VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, AS
REPRESENTED
BY
EXECUTIVE
SECRETARY
EDUARDO
ERMITA,
DEPARTMENT
OF
TRANSPORTATION
AND
COMMUNICATIONS, MANILA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY, TAKENAKA CORPORATION, AND ASAHIKOSAN
CORPORATION,
RESPONDENTS.
April 19, 2016
EN BANC
[ G.R. No. 181892, April 19, 2016 ]
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY
EXECUTIVE SECRETARY EDUARDO R. ERMITA, THE
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND
COMMUNICATIONS, AND MANILA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
AUTHORITY, PETITIONERS, VS. HON. JESUS M. MUPAS, IN
HIS CAPACITY AS ACTING PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL
REGION, BRANCH 117, PASAY CITY, AND PHILIPPINE
INTERNATIONAL AIR TERMINALS CO., INC., RESPONDENTS.
[G.R. NO. 209917]
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY
EXECUTIVE SECRETARY EDUARDO ERMITA, DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNICATIONS, AND MANILA
INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY, PETITIONERS, VS.
PHILIPPINE INTERNATIONAL AIR TERMINALS COMPANY,
INC., TAKENAKA CORPORATION AND ASAHIKOSAN
CORPORATION, RESPONDENTS.
[ G.R. NOS. 209696]
TAKENAKA CORPORATION AND ASAHIKOSAN
CORPORATION, PETITIONERS, VS. REPUBLIC OF THE
PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
EDUARDO ERMITA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND
COMMUNICATIONS, MANILA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
AUTHORITY, AND PHILIPPINE INTERNATIONAL AIR
TERMINALS COMPANY, INC. RESPONDENTS.

[G.R. NO. 209731]
PHILIPPINE INTERNATIONAL AIR TERMINALS CO., INC.
PETITIONER, VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, AS
REPRESENTED BY EXECUTIVE SECRETARY EDUARDO ERMITA,
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND
COMMUNICATIONS, MANILA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
AUTHORITY, TAKENAKA CORPORATION, AND ASAHIKOSAN
CORPORATION, RESPONDENTS.
RESOLUTION
BRION, J.:
Before the Court are the motion for reconsideration filed by the Republic of the
Philippines (Department of Transportation and Communications) and the Manila
International Airport Authority (Republic for brevity), and the respective partial
motions for reconsideration of Philippine International Airport Terminals Co., Inc.
(PIATCO) and of Takenaka Corporation (Takenaka) and Asahikosan Corporation
(Asahikosan). In these motions, the parties assail the Court's Decision dated
September 8, 2015 (Decision)[1]
I. The Factual Antecedents
A. The concession agreement between the

Republic and PIATCO; PIATCO's subcontract
agreements with Takenaka and Asahikosan
On July 12, 1997, the Republic executed a concession agreement with PIATCO
for the construction, development, and operation of the Ninoy Aquino International
Airport Passenger Terminal III (NAIA-IPT III) under a build-operate-transfer
scheme. The parties subsequently amended their concession agreement and
entered into several supplemental agreements (collectively referred to as
the PIATCO contracts).[2]
In the PIATCO contracts, the Republic authorized PIATCO to build, operate, and
maintain the NAIA-IPT III during the concession period of twenty-five (25) years. [3]
On March 31, 2000, PIATCO engaged the services of Takenaka for the
construction of the NAIA-IPT III under an Onshore Construction

Contract. On the same date, PIATCO also entered into an Offshore
Procurement Contract with Asahikosan for the design, manufacture, purchase,
test and delivery of the Plant in the NAIA-IPT III. Both contracts were
supplemented by succeeding agreements.[4]
In May 2002, PIATCO failed to pay for the services rendered by Takenaka
and Asahikosan.[5]
B. The Agan v. PIATCO[6] case: the
nullification of the PIATCO contracts
On May 5, 2003, the Court nullified the PIATCO contracts in Agan v. PIATCO[7] on
the grounds that: (a) the Paircargo Consortium (that later incorporated into
PIATCO) was not a duly pre-qualified bidder; and (b) the PIATCO contracts
contained provisions that substantially departed from the draft Concession
Agreement.[8]
On January 21, 2004, the Court issued a resolution (2004 Agan Resolution),
denying PIATCO, et al.'s motion for reconsideration.[9] Significantly, we stated in the
resolution that the Republic should first pay PIATCO before it could take over
the NAIA-IPTHI. We further ruled that "the compensation must be just and in
accordance with law and equity for the Republic cannot unjustly enrich itself at the
expense of PIATCO and its investors."[10]
C. The expropriation case before the RTC
On December 21, 2004, the Republic filed a complaint for the expropriation of
the NAIA-IPT III before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasay, Branch 117,
docketed as Civil Case No. 04-0876. Notably, the property to be expropriated only
involves the NAIA-IPT III structure and did not include the land which the Republic
already owns.[11]
On the same day, the RTC issued a writ of possession in favor of the
Republic pursuant to Rule 67 of the Rules of Court (Rule 67). The writ was issued
based on the Republic's manifestation that it had deposited with the Land Bank of
the Philippines (Land Bank) the amount of P3,002,125,000.00, representing the
NAIA-IPT Ill'sassessed value.[12]
On January 4, 2005, the RTC supplemented its December 21, 2004 order.
The RTC applied Republic Act (RA) No. 8974 instead of Rule 67 as basis for the
effectivity of the writ of possession. The RTC ruled, among others, that the Land
Bank should immediately release to PIATCO the amount of US$62,343,175.77,
[13]
to be deducted eventually from the just compensation.[14]
In the course of the RTC expropriation proceedings, the RTC allowed Takenaka and
Asahikosan to intervene in the case. Takenaka and Asahikosan based their
intervention on the foreign judgments issued in their favor in the two collection
cases that they filed against PIATCO {London awards). Takenaka and Asahikosan
asked the RTC to: (a) hold in abeyance the release of just compensation to PIATCO
until the London awards are recognized and enforced in the Philippines; and (b)
order that the just compensation be deposited with the RTC for the benefit of
PIATCO's creditors.[15]
The Republic questioned the January 4, 2005 RTC order and two other RTC
orders[16] before this Court in the case entitled Republic v. Gingoyon.[17]
On January 14, 2005, we issued a temporary restraining order and preliminary
injunction against the implementation of the assailed RTC orders, including the
January 4, 2005 RTC order.[18]
D. Developments pending the expropriation
case: the Republic v. Gingoyon case
In Gingoyon, the Court partly granted the Republic's petition on December 19,
2005.
We adopted the 2004 Agan Resolution in ruling that the Republic is barred from
taking over the NAIA-IPT III until just compensation is paid to PIATCO as the
builder and owner of the structure.
We also ruled that RA No. 8974 applies insofar as it: (a) provides valuation
standards in determining the amount of just compensation; and (b) requires the
Republic to immediately pay PIATCO at least the proffered value of the NAIAIPT III for purposes of determining the effectivity of the writ of possession.
We also held that Rule 67 shall apply to the procedural matters of the
expropriation proceedings insofar as it is consistent with RA 8974 and its
implementing rules and regulations (IRR), and Agan.
Applying RA No. 8974, we held in abeyance the implementation of the writ of
possession until the Republic directly pays PIATCO the proffered value of P3
billion. We also authorized the Republic to perform acts essential to the
operation of the NAIA-IPT III once the writ of possession
becomes effective.
For purposes of computing just compensation, we held that PIATCO should only be
paid the value of the improvements and/or structures using the replacement
cost method under Section 10 of RA 8974 IRR.[19] We added, however, that the
replacement cost method is only one of the factors to be considered in determining
just compensation; equity should also be considered.
On February 1, 2006, we denied the Republic, et al.'s motion for partial
reconsideration. Citing procedural errors, we also denied the motions for
intervention of Asahikosan, Takenaka, and Rep. Salacnib F. Baterina.[20]
E. The continuation of the expropriation
proceedings after the finality of the
Gingoyon case; the present cases before
the Court
Pursuant to our mandate in Gingoyon, the RTC proceeded to determine the amount
of just compensation.
In compliance with the RTC's order, the Republic tendered to PIATCO the P3 billion
proffered value on September 11, 2006. On the same day, the RTC reinstated
the writ of possession in favor of the Republic.[21]
In compliance with the RTC order dated August 5, 2010, the parties and the BOC
submitted their appraisal reports on NAIA-IPT III, as follows: (1) the Republic's
appraisal was US$149,448,037.00; (2) PIATCO's appraisal was
US$905,867,549.47; (3) Takenaka and Asahikosan's appraisal was
US$360,969,790.82; and (4) the BOC's appraisal was US$376,149,742.56, plus
interest and commissioner's fees.[22]
In the RTC's decision dated May 23, 2011, the RTC computed just compensation at
US$116,348,641.10. The RTC further directed the Republic and the team of
Takenaka and Asahikosan to pay their respective shares in the BOC expenses. [23]
On appeal with the CA, docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 98029, the CA issued its
amended decision, computing the just compensation at US$371,426,688.24 as of
July 31, 2013 plus 6% per annum on the amount due from finality of judgment
until fully paid. The CA further held that Takenaka and Asahikosan are both liable to
share in the BOC expenses.[24]
The RTC rulings and CA decision in the expropriation cases led to the present
consolidated cases before us, specifically:
G.R. No. 181892 was filed by the Republic to question the RTC's orders: (1)
appointing DG Jones and Partners as independent appraiser; (2) directing the

Republic to submit a Certificate of Availability of Funds to cover DG Jones and
Partners' US$1.9 Million appraisal fee; and (3) sustaining the appointment of DG
Jones and Partners as an independent appraiser.[25]
G.R. Nos. 209917, 209731, and 209696 were filed by the Republic, PIATCO, and
Takenaka and Asahikosan, respectively questioning the CA's decision.[26]
II. Our ruling dated September 8, 2015
in G.R. Nos. 181892, 209917, 209696, 209731
In our Decision dated September 8, 2015, we applied the standards laid down
under Section 7, RA 8974 and Section 10 of RA 8974 IRR. We likewise applied
equity pursuant to Gingoyon.
We ruled that PIATCO, as the owner of the NAIA-IPT III, is the sole recipient of
the just compensation even though Takenaka and Asahikosan actually built the
NAIA-IPT III.
We did not grant Takenaka and Asahikosan's prayer to set aside a portion of just
compensation to secure their claims, as we would be preempting the Court's ruling
in the enforcement case, specifically, G.R. No. 202166, which is still pending before
the Court.
We ruled that the Republic shall only have ownership of the NAIA-IPT
III after it fully pays PIATCO the just compensation due. However, the
determination of whether the NAIA-IPT III shall be burdened by liens and
mortgages even after the full payment of just compensation is still premature.
In computing the just compensation, we applied the depreciated
replacement cost method consistent with Section 10 of RA 8974 IRR and the
principle that the property owner of the expropriated property shall be
compensated for his actual loss. We therefore agreed with the Gleeds' deduction
of depreciation and deterioration from the construction cost.
We adopted Gleeds' construction cost at US$300,206,693.00 as the base value at
December 2002. We also rejected the Republic's argument that the amounts
pertaining to the unnecessary areas, structural defect, and costs for rectification for
contract compliance should be excluded from the base value. We likewise did not
add attendant costs as it already formed part of the Gleeds' computation of
construction cost.
Applying equity, we adjusted the replacement cost computed at December 2002 to

December 2004 values using the Consumer Price Index.
We likewise imposed interest on the unpaid amount of just compensation, reckoned
from September 11, 2006 when the writ of possession was reinstated in favor of
the Republic.
In summary, we computed the just compensation as of December 21, 2004 at
US$326,932,221.26. We deducted from this sum the proffered value of
US$59,438,604.00. We ruled that the resulting difference of US$267,493,617.26
shall earn a straight interest of 12% per annum from September 11, 2006 until
June 30, 2013, and a straight interest of 6% per annum from July 1, 2013, until full
payment.[27]
Finally, we reversed the CA's ruling that Takenaka and Asahikosan were liable to
share in the BOC expenses. We ruled that the Republic shall solely bear these
expenses as part of the costs of expropriation. We however ruled that PIATCO,
which voluntarily paid a portion of the BOC expenses and did not question the
rulings ordering it to pay, is deemed to have waived its right not to share in these
expenses.
III. The parties' motion for reconsideration and
motions for partial reconsideration of our September 8, 2015 Decision
The parties assail our Decision. The Republic filed its motion for reconsideration
while PIATCO and Takenaka and Asahikosan filed their respective partial motions for
reconsideration.
A. The Republic's motion for reconsideration
The Republic argues as follows:
First, the Court should declare that, upon payment of just compensation, full
ownership shall be vested in the Republic, free from liens and encumbrances.[28]
Second, the just compensation should not earn interest. The Republic prays for the
deletion of US$242,810,918.54 awarded to PIATCO by way of interest.
According to the Republic, the present case is sui generis as the expropriation
resulted from the nullification of the concession agreement; hence, the traditional
notion of "just compensation" is inapplicable.[29]
The Republic cites our rulings in Agan and Gingoyon that the principle of unjust
enrichment or solutio indebiti is the standard in fixing just compensation in the
present case. According to the Republic, this principle results in the application of
the doctrine of restitution which arose as a consequence of Agon's nullification of
the concession agreements.[30] The Republic referred to Justice Panganiban's
concurring opinion in Agan that the quantum meruit principle should be applied.[31]
The Republic further argues that the award of interest is unjustifiable because: (a)
PIATCO has no "income-generating capacity" from the expropriated structures due
to the nullification of the concession agreements; and (b) the Republic should not
be made liable to pay interest as the delay in the prompt payment of just
compensation was due to the deliberate refusal of PIATCO, Takenaka and
Asahikosan to submit the valuation of the NAIA-IPT III.[32]
The Republic concludes that the Court's award of interest in the present case is
contrary to Agan and Gingoyon and would result in PIATCO "profiting" from its own
misdeed that caused the nullification of the concession agreements. [33]
Third, the Court erred in not deducting from the computed just compensation
the amounts pertaining to structural defects, unnecessary
areas, and rectification for contract compliance.[34]
The Republic asserts that the amounts pertaining to NAIA-IPT Ill's structural
defects should be excluded from the computation of just compensation. According
to the Republic, the equiponderance of evidence rule is inapplicable because it had
proven by overwhelming evidence that the NAIA-IPT III suffered from massive
structural defects. PIATCO allegedly admitted this fact in the Scott Wilson Report. [35]
The Republic also points to the structural remediation programs that MIAA
conducted prior to the NAIA-IPT Ill's operation, showing that it was structurally
defective. PIATCO also failed to refute the findings of TGCI, one of the Republic's
engineering experts, that the NAIA-IPT III would not have been damaged by the
2008 Pangasinan earthquake if it had been structurally sound.
The Republic posits that it was forced to expropriate a structure that does not
conform with the design intended to serve its purpose; worse, the design contains
facilities that are not essential for an airport (such as the retail mall and excess
retail concession space). PIATCO should not be compensated for these structures as
the Republic had to spend for the rectification expenses.
B. PIATCO's partial motion for reconsideration
PIATCO seeks the partial reconsideration of our decision under the following
arguments:
First, the Court erred in applying the depreciated replacement cost method in
computing just compensation.[36]
RA 8974 and its IRR never used the terms "depreciated replacement cost,"
"deterioration," or any other type of adjustment to the replacement cost. [37]
Second, the financial concept of depreciation is inapplicable in the determination of
just compensation in expropriation cases. An asset may still be valuable and yet
appear as fully depreciated in financial statements. [38]
Third, assuming the accounting concept of "depreciation" is relevant, depreciation
of an asset begins when it is available for use. The Republic should therefore bear
the cost of depreciation since the NAIA-IPT III was available for use only in
December 21, 2004 when the Republic operated it. [39]
PIATCO further argues that Gleeds, which first visited NAIA-IPT III only on May
2006, could not have possibly evaluated deterioration in the structure that
supposedly occurred between 2002 and 2004. [40]
Fourth, PIATCO argues that the Court erred in excluding PIATCO's computation
of attendant costs.
According to PIATCO, the photocopied documents evidencing its attendant costs are
admissible and have probative value. These documents were accompanied by the
affidavit dated December 14, 2010 of PIATCO's VP for Legal and Corporate Affairs,
Atty. Moises S. Tolentino, Jr. (Atty. Tolentino). In his affidavit, he identified the
documents and affirmed that these photocopies were certified true copies and/or
faithful reproductions of the originals in his possession. [41]
PIATCO further argues that these documents were submitted in a summary and
informal proceeding before the BOC. The parties' failure to object to the offered
evidence rendered the photocopy documents admissible. [42]
Furthermore, PIATCO points out that the construction cost in the Gleeds report,
which the Court had adopted in the present case, excluded attendant costs,
financing costs, and other associated costs as confirmed by the Scott Wilson
Report. Even Gleeds admitted that the attendant costs reflected in its report
excluded the financing cost in the amount of US$26,602,890.00.[43] As such, at the
very least, PIATCO should be awarded financing costs on top of the construction
cost as supported by documents submitted to the lower court.
PIATCO further avers that the Court has misquoted item 3.1.17 of the Scott Wilson
Report in page 99 of our Decision. The quote in our Decision states that PIATCO has
paid US$7.9 million to the QA Inspectors (JAC) and US$4.2 million to PCI, SOM,
PACICON and JGC, and this appears "not reasonable." PIATCO alleged that the
correct provision of clause 3.1.17 in the Scott Wilson Report states that these
PIATCO payments appear "not unreasonable."[44]
The Court should award PIATCO's attendant costs in view of Scott Wilson's findings
that the paid fees under clause 3.1.17 are reasonable. [45]
Fifth, PIATCO argues that the Court erred in reckoning the period for the interest
payment only on September 11, 2006. PIATCO avers that the Court is mistaken in
its impression that the Republic took possession of NAIA-IPT III only on September
11, 2006.[46]
PIATCO insists that the interest should be computed from the date of the actual
taking or on December 21, 2004 when the Republic filed the expropriation
complaint and actually took physical possession of NAIA-IPT III. According to
PIATCO, the RTC order dated January 7, 2005 confirms this fact. [47]
PIATCO also argues that the Republic stubbornly refused to pay the proffered value,
thus resulting in the delay of the reinstatement of the writ of possession. [48]
In the computation of interest, PIATCO further argues that the Court should
consider the leap years, specifically years 2008 and 2012, with 366 days instead of
just 365 days as stated in our Decision.[49]
PIATCO likewise brings to the Court's attention the discrepancy on the dates
mentioned in the Decision. PIATCO notes the Court's statement on page 41 of the
Decision that the CA reckoned the period for the computation of interest on
September 11, 2006. However, page 42 of our Decision shows in tabular form that
the CA computed the interest from December 21, 2004. [50]
According to PIATCO, the abovementioned date of "September 11, 2006" in page
41 of the Decision might have been a typographical error since the other
statements in the Decision were consistent that the CA computed interest from
December 21, 2004. In any case, PIATCO reiterates its position that the interest
rate of 12% per annum should be computed from December 21, 2004. [51]
Sixth, PIATCO argues that it should not be held liable to share the BOC expenses in
view of the Court's Decision that the Republic should solely bear the cost of
expropriation. PIATCO disagrees with the Court's statement that PIATCO's voluntary
payment served as a waiver of its right not to share in the BOC expenses.
According to PIATCO, its payment was out of faithful compliance with the RTC's
order dated March 11, 2011, directing the Republic, PIATCO and Takenaka and
Asahikosan to proportionately share in the BOC's mobilization fund.
[52]
Consequently, PIATCO invokes the principle of solutio indebiti and equity in
arguing that it should be refunded the P2.550 million that it had mistakenly paid as
its share in the BOC expenses.[53]
Seventh, PIATCO argues that the Bureau of Internal Revenue's (BIR) present and
future tax assessments against PIATCO in relation to the supply for and
construction of the NAIA-IPT III should be added to the just compensation. This
approach is consistent with the definition of "replacement cost" under Section 10 of
RA 8974 1RR. PIATCO manifested that the BIR had intensified its harassment on
PIATCO since the promulgation of our Decision.[54]
C. Asahikosan and Takenaka's motion for partial reconsideration
Takenaka and Asahikosan argue that the Court misconstrued their prayers in the
petition. They clarified that they are not asking the Court to order that any part of
the just compensation be paid directly to them. They are also not asserting any
form of title to the NAIA-IPT III or enforcing any liens that they may have thereto.
[55]
They are only asking the Court to partially reconsider its decision insofar as it
ordered the direct payment to PIATCO of the computed just compensation.
Takenaka and Asahikosan, as the unpaid builders and largest contractors, pray that
the Court also apply equity in their favor by ordering that a portion of the just
compensation in the amount of at least US$85.7 million be set aside in escrow to
cover for their claims in the enforcement case.[56]
IV. Comments
The Republic's Consolidated Comment

The Republic maintains that the Court correctly applied the depreciated
replacement cost method in determining just compensation; that RA 8974 is not
the sole basis for such determination as Agan held that compensation must be in
accordance with law and equity.[57]
The Republic insists that the award of interest is unwarranted and reiterates its
arguments that PIATCO is not an innocent property owner; that the award of
interest detracts from Agan and Gingoyon, which predicated compensation on
"unjust enrichment."[58] The award of interest would allow PIATCO to profit from its
own wrong.[59]
The Republic likewise argues that PIATCO is not entitled to be compensated for loss
of its income-generating potential because the concession agreements were
nullified.[60]
The Republic further resists the payment of interests, by stressing that the delay is
not attributable to it.[61] Rather, the delay was caused by: (a) the private parties'
deliberate refusal to provide valuation and (b) the protracted court proceedings
(i.e., numerous interventions, the appointment and replacements of commissioners,
the appointment of appraisers, the death of Judge Gingoyon, and the appeals).
[62]
To place the entire weight of delay solely on the Republic by imposing interest of
$242,810,918.54 (more than half of the awarded just compensation) is neither just
nor equitable.[63]
The Republic maintains that the depreciation and deterioration were properly
excluded from the total amount of just compensation. NAIA-IPT III did not have the
full economic and functional utility of a brand new airport. [64]
The Republic agrees that the Court correctly denied PIATCO's claim for attendant
costs.[65] The Republic echoes the Court's discussion on PIATCO's secondary
evidence[66] and contends that Atty. Tolentino's affidavit and the photocopied
documents are hearsay evidence even if no one objected to their admissibility.
[67]
Moreover, the computation of the construction cost valuation already included the
attendant costs.[68]
The Republic refutes PIATCO's claim for the refund of the amount it paid for the
BOC expenses.[69] First, solutio indebiti does not apply because PIATCO voluntarily
paid.[70] It cannot claim that it paid the BOC's expenses "through a misapprehension
of fact."[71] Second, even assuming that solutio indebiti applies, PIATCO's claim for
refund has prescribed. A quasi-contract claim must be made within six (6) years
from the date of payment. In the present case, PIATCO first paid the BOC expenses
in 2006; thus, the claim has prescribed.[72]
Anent PIATCO's deficiency tax liability, the Republic argues that it cannot form part
of just compensation.[73] PIATCO's liability arose from its filing of false returns.
[74]
Moreover, PIATCO failed to present proof that its deficiency tax liability is part of
the replacement cost of NAIA-IPT III facilities.[75]
Finally, the Republic submits that Takenaka and Asahikosan's plea that the Court set
aside a portion of the just compensation in the amount of at least US$85.7 million
to cover the London Awards lacks legal basis. Besides, their claims as unpaid credits
are still premature given the pendency of the enforcement case in G.R. No. 202166.
[76]
PIATCO 's Comment to the Republic's

Motion for Reconsideration
PIATCO asserts that the Republic is not the victim in this case; that the Republic
was not forced to award the NAIA-IPT III project to PIATCO; and that the Republic
acted deliberately and voluntarily.[77] PIATCO insists that there is no finding
in Agan that supports the notion that PIATCO is the "guilty party," while the
Republic is the "innocent party."[78] PIATCO also stresses that the Republic
voluntarily expropriated NAIA-IPT III.[79]
PIATCO refutes the Republic's reliance on the concept of solutio indebiti, unjust
enrichment, and quantum meruit as standards in the computation of just
compensation. Rather, and as held by the Court in Gingoyon, the substantive law
applicable is RA 8974 and its IRR.[80]
PIATCO underscores that the principle of unjust enrichment does not apply because
PIATCO has not received anything from the Republic that the latter believes is not
owed. Instead, it is the Republic that has taken and benefited from NAIA-IPT III,
and that has withheld the just compensation due to PIATCO.[81] Thus, just
compensation determined as of the time of taking correctly earns interest from the
time of taking until fully paid to the property owner.[82]
Finally, PIATCO maintains that the Republic failed to establish that NAIA-IPT III was
structurally defective.[83] And since the Republic is expropriating the entire terminal,
then it shall also pay for the value of the "unnecessary areas." [84]
PIATCO's Comment to Takenaka and
Asahikosan 's Partial Motion for
Recons ideration
PIATCO argues that Takenaka and Asahikosan's prayer for the Court to set aside a
certain portion of the just compensation to cover the London awards lacks legal
basis. Section 4(a) of RA 8974 (i.e., direct payment to the property owner) applies
when the issue of ownership of the expropriated property is not disputed as in the
present case.[85]
On this point, PIATCO invokes the Court's Decision where it held that "in Philippine
jurisdiction, the person who is solely entitled to just compensation is the owner of
the property at the time of taking. The test of who shall receive just compensation
is not who built the terminal but rather who its true owner is." [86] The Court has
consistently recognized that PIATCO is the owner of NAIA-IPT III. Takenaka and
Asahikosan have not shown that they possess legal title to the NAIA-IPT III. [87]
PIATCO further claims that, contrary to Takenaka and Asahikosan's claim, there is
no "secured valid money judgments" against it, considering that the enforcement of
the London awards is still pending with the Court in G.R.No. 202166. [88]
Takenaka and Asahikosan's Comment
to the Republic's Motion for
Reconsideration
Takenaka and Asahikosan urge the Court to set aside, in an escrow account, a
portion of the just compensation. They argue that this method would relieve the
NAIA-IPT III of the biggest possible lien that could be asserted against it. [89]
While Takenaka and Asahikosan admit that the enforcement of the London awards
is still awaiting decision, they propose that the Court opt for either of two actions:
(1) set aside the amount of US$87.5Million; or (2) await the decision of the Second
Division in the enforcement case (G.R. No. 202166).[90]
Takenaka and Asahikosan maintain that the design of the NAIA-IPT III is, and
always has been, structurally sound. They insist that the Republic failed to prove its
claim that the NAIA-IPT III was structurally defective.[91]
We note Takenaka and Asahikosan's Reply[92] reiterating their position that they are
not asking to be directly paid a portion of the just compensation, but merely for the
Court to set aside the amount corresponding to the London awards. They posit that
if the Court does not set aside the said amount and they eventually prevail in the
enforcement case, there is a danger that they would not be paid if PIATCO chooses
to ignore their claim and absconds with the money.
V. Our Ruling
We partly grant the Republic's motion for reconsideration and deny the partial
motions for reconsideration of PIATCO and Takenaka and Asahikosan.
A. On the application of the depreciated
replacement cost method in computing just
compensation in the present case
We disagree with PIATCO's arguments that the application of the depreciated
replacement cost method is not allowed under RA 8974.
The payment for property in expropriation cases is enshrined in Section 9, Article

III of the 1987 Constitution, which mandates that no private property shall be
taken for public use without payment of just compensation. [93] The measure of just
compensation is not the taker's gain, but the owner's loss.[94] We have ruled
that just compensation must not extend beyond the property owner's loss or
injury. This is the only way for the compensation paid to be truly just, not only to
the individual whose property is taken, but also to the public who shoulders the
cost of expropriation. Even as undervaluation would deprive the owner of his
property without due process, so too would its overvaluation unduly favor him to
the prejudice of the public.[95]
To this end, statutes such as RA 8974 have been enacted, laying down guiding
principles to facilitate the expropriation of private property and payment of just
compensation.[96]
However, we must bear in mind that the determination of just compensation is
primarily a judicial function that may not be usurped by any other branch or official
of the Republic. In National Power Corporation v. Bagui,[97] this Court ruled that any
valuation for just compensation laid down in the statutes may serve only as a
guiding principle or one of the factors in determining just compensation but it
may not substitute the court's own judgment as to what amount should be awarded
and how to arrive at such amount. In fact, in National Power Corporation v.
Purefoods Corporation,[98] we held that just compensation standards derived from
statutes such as RA 8974, are not binding on this Court.
The nature of the provisions in RA 8974 as mere guidelines to this Court, as
opposed to being mandatory rules, cannot be denied. First, while Section 10, RA
8974 IRR uses the word "shall" in referring to the use of the replacement cost
method in determining valuation of the improvements and/or structures on the land
to be expropriated, connoting that such use is mandatory, the directive/mandate
is addressed, not to this Court, but to the Implementing Agency [99] or the
department, bureau, office, commission, authority, or agency of the national
government, including any government-owned and -controlled corporation or state
college or university, concerned and authorized by law or its respective charter to
undertake national government projects. [100] Second, Section 13, RA 8974 IRR
explicitly states that the court shall determine the just compensation to be paid to
the owner of the property, considering the standards set out in Sections 8, 9, and
10 thereof.[101]Clearly, the Court may consider the guidelines set, but it cannot be
bound by these guidelines.
At best, any finding on just compensation using the methods set forth in the statute
is merely a preliminary determination by the Implementing Agency, subject to the
final review and determination by the Court. While we may be guided by the
replacement cost of the property, just compensation will be ultimately based on the
payment due to the private property owner for his actual loss - the fundamental
measure of just compensation compliant with the Constitution. [102]
Further, when acting within the parameters set by the law itself, courts are not
strictly bound to apply the formula to its minutest detail, particularly when faced
with situations that do not warrant the formula's strict application. The courts may,
in the exercise of their discretion, relax the formula's application to fit the factual
situations before them.[103]
In the present case, we adopted the depreciated replacement cost method as a
guideline in the computation of just compensation; at the same time, we reconciled
this method with our duty to award just compensation as a constitutional mandate
to compensate the owner with his actual loss.[104]
In our Decision, we compared the different replacement cost methods, [105] such as
the replacement cost new method and the depreciated replacement cost
method. Notably, these are recognized methods in appraising properties.
As we clearly explained, we did not adopt the new replacement cost
method because in doing so, PIATCO would be compensated for more than it
actually lost.[106] We emphasize our ruling that "[i]njustice would result if we award
PIATCO just compensation based on the new replacement cost of the NAIA-IPT III,
and disregard the fact that the Republic expropriated a terminal that is not brand
new; the NAIA-IPT III simply does not have the full economic and functional utility
of a brand new airport."[107]
We therefore ruled that PIATCO would be compensated for its actual loss if we
adopt the depreciated replacement cost approach.[108] It is defined as a
"method of valuation which provides the current cost of replacing an asset with its
modern equivalent asset less deductions for all physical deterioration and all
relevant forms of obsolescence and optima[z]ation." [109]
Adjustments for depreciation should be made to reflect the differences between the
modern equivalent asset and the actual asset or the NAIA-IPT III. The reason is
that depreciation involves the loss of value caused by the property's reduced utility
as a result of damage, advancement of technology, current trends and tastes, or
environmental changes.[110]
PIATCO, however, argues that depreciation begins when the asset is available for
use and continues until the asset is derecognized and, as such, NAIA -IPT III could
be subject to depreciation only in the hand of the Republic after the Republic
operated it, which took place after the taking on December 21, 2004. [111]
In our Decision, we clarified the difference between "depreciation" in the contexts of
valuation and financial accounting. In financial accounting, depreciation is a process
of allocating[112] the cost of a plant asset over its useful (service) life.[113] The need
exists to determine when an asset is available for use in order to identify the
periods within which cost must be allocated.
Depreciation in valuation/appraisal, on the other hand, is the "reduction or writing
down of the cost of a modern equivalent asset to reflect the obsolescence and
relative disabilities affecting the actual asset" or "loss in any value from any
cause."[114] Hence, for purposes of appraisal, an asset may not yet be available for
use within the context of financial accounting, but its value has nevertheless
depreciated due to factors affecting its intended use and function.
In sum, even assuming PIATCO's claim that an asset only begins to depreciate
when it is available for use (that is, the NAIA-IPT IIII only began to depreciate
when the Republic filed the expropriation complaint on December 21, 2004, not on
December 2002 when construction was suspended), is accurate, we are not
precluded from adopting a method that is more in line with the settled
jurisprudence that the measure of the award of just compensation is the
owner's actual loss and not the taker's gain.
In these lights, we maintain our ruling that the depreciated replacement cost
applies in computing just compensation in the present case. In applying this
method, the owner is compensated for his actual loss at the date of taking of the
expropriated property. Consequently, the deduction from the construction cost of
the deterioration and depreciation items is permissible under RA 8974.
B. PIATCO's arguments against the
deeds' computation of the deterioration
items
We also disagree with PIATCO's argument that Gleeds could not have correctly
computed the deterioration items of the NAIA-1PT III structure from December
2002 to December 2004 because Gleeds first visited NAIA-IPT III only in May 2006.
PIATCO adds that Gleeds failed to show how the sums for deterioration were
derived, and Scott Wilson stated that Gleeds' computation did not seem fair and
reasonable.
We find that the Gleeds Report contains sufficient explanation on the methodology
that Gleeds followed in arriving at its conclusion on deterioration since the
suspension of the NAIA-IPT Ill's construction in December 2002.
At pages 2 and 28 of Gleeds Report dated November 15, 2010, Tim Lunt stated
that:[115]
1.1 Instructions
xxxx
1.1.2
With the help of the Republic's airport architectural and engineering experts,
determine the cost to remedy the deterioration in the Terminal 3 facility
stemming from the suspension of work in early 2002 xxx.
Deterioration
xxxx
3.2.7 The Arup Site Observation Report identifies a number of items which have
deteriorated since suspension of the construction of Terminal 3 in December 2002.
3.2.8 A provisional value has been assessed against the items identified in the Arup
report at $1,738,318. The deterioration items have been costed with a base date of
2009. Calculation of this amount is contained in Appendix 'E.' Further examination
and costing of each of the identified items are required and, therefore, the costs of
these items will require adjustment based on the actual date when the rectification
works are carried out.
At pages 26-27 of the Scott Wilson Report dated December 1, 2010,116 Scott
Wilson replied to the above Gleeds findings. Scott Wilson commented that the sum
arrived at had no documentary support. Thus:
3.6.1 Gleeds have deducted from the Base Value CCV deterioration items made up
as follows xxx.
3.6.2 The major deduction is for the baggage system but the Gleeds document
does not show how any of these sums are derived.
3.6.3 It is noted the baggage system requirements was to handle 8000 bags per
hour. According to section 8.3 of the Arup March 2007 report that following 9/11
that significant changes were made to the Employers Requirements to incorporates
(sic) alternative screening technology, requiring a reduced capacity of 6500 bags
per hour (Section 8.3.3.4 Arup March 2007 Report) and testing showed it handling
between 6250 to 6500 bags per hour.

3.6.4 Of the 80 items listed against the baggage system in Volume 2, Section K of
the Arup March 2007 none are noted as Non Code Compliant, 10 fall under the "Not
Best Practice" headings. There are none in the "Does Not Confirm to Technical
Requirements."
3.6.5 We therefore do not understand how the above reduction of US$1.13
million has been derived and it does not seem fair and reasonable.
(emphasis supplied)
PIATCO relies on the above statement of Scott Wilson that Gleeds' computation of
deterioration "does not seem fair and reasonable."
PIATCO's reliance on the Scott Wilson's findings was misplaced. Scott Wilson's
statement on the unreasonableness of Gleeds' computation only pertains to the
baggage handling item out of the seven (7) deterioration items.
At any rate, Gleeds sufficiently showed how it arrived at the amount of
deterioration. We quote Gleeds' answer in page 16 of its Reply dated December 22,
2010[117] to the Scott Wilson Report, as follows:
54. The cost associated with deterioration are (sic) set out in Appendix E, Part 1 of
the CCV. The detailed calculation of the amounts for deterioration was included in
the Appendices to the CCVs. Scott Wilson does not appear to have been
provided with the relevant appendices to my CCV. The cost of deterioration to
the baggage handling system is shown in the detailed calculation. The total
deduction from the CCV associated with deterioration is US$1,738,318.
We therefore maintain our ruling applying the depreciated replacement cost method
to serve the purpose of just compensation, which is to compensate the owner for
his actual loss.
C. The arguments of the Republic and
PIATCO on the imposition of interest
Before we separately address the Republic and PIATCO's arguments, we first
expound on the reason for the imposition of interest in case of delay in the payment
of just compensation. While we have exhaustively discussed in our Decision the
legal and jurisprudential bases for the imposition of interest, [118] we find it helpful to
review the basic facts of the case and highlight key legal concepts that can
illuminate our ruling.
We stress that the Republic chose to expropriate the NAIA-IPT III, and was fully
cognizant of the legal and practical effects of filing an expropriation complaint. After
choosing this legal remedy, the Republic cannot now disclaim knowledge or feign
ignorance of the implications of this choice in an attempt to evade paying interest.
The Republic owes PIATCO a specific sum of money.
We remind the Republic that PIATCO, through its subcontractors, built the NAIA-IPT
III.
The Republic later took over the NAIA-IPT III in the exercise of its power of eminent
domain. By so doing, the Republic became legally obliged to pay PIATCO the value
of the property taken. This obligation arises from the constitutional mandate that
private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation. [119]
Subsequently, the Court determined the monetary value of the NAIA-IPT III, which
sum the Republic now owes PIATCO as payment for the NAIA-IPT III. In short, it is
currently indebted to PIATCO for the monetary value of the NAIA-IPT III less the
proffered value.
The Republic has not yet fully paid its debt.
The Republic took over the NAIA-IPT III on September 11, 2006 upon payment of
the proffered value. The Republic's possession of the NAIA-IPT III had twin effects:
(1) PIATCO was effectively deprived of the possession of the property; and (2)
PIATCO's right to the payment of the just compensation accrued as a matter of
right.
Applying Section 10 of Rule 67, we held in our Decision that the condemnor incurs
delay if it does not pay the property owner the full amount of just compensation on
the date of taking.[120] This rule requires the Republic to perform two essential acts
in order not to incur delay: (1) pay the full amount of just compensation and (2)
pay the full amount of just compensation on time, i.e., on the date of taking.
Upon its failure to pay, the Republic has been in continuing delay, which delay
carries legal consequences.
As a consequence of the Republic's continuing delay in paying the full
amount of just compensation, it is legally obliged to pay interest.
As explained in our Decision, "the interest in eminent domain cases runs as
a matter of law and follows as a matter of course from the right of the [owner] to
be placed in as good a position as money can accomplish, as of the date of
taking."[121]
We also recognized that the just compensation due to the property owner is
effectively a forbearance of money.[122] Forbearance of money refers to
"arrangements other than loan agreements, where a person acquiesces to the
temporary use of his money, goods or credits pending happening of certain events
or fulfillment of certain conditions."[123]
In such arrangements, "the [creditors] are entitled not only to the return of the
principal amount paid, but also to compensation for the use of their money. And the
compensation for the use of their money, absent any stipulation, should be the
same rate of legal interest applicable to a loan since the use or deprivation of funds
is similar to a loan"[124]
Applying these concepts in the present case,- it can readily be seen that PIATCO
"acquiesced" to the temporary use of its money (the monetary value of NAIA-IPT
III)by the Republic while the expropriation case was pending. We note that during
the pendency of the expropriation case, PIATCO had already been dispossessed of
NAIA-IPT III but had not yet received the monetary equivalent of the property
taken from it.
Plainly, PIATCO is entitled to the award of interest as compensation for the use
of its money, computed from the time of taking of the NAIA-IPT III until full
payment of the just compensation.
As we also noted in the Decision, Central Bank Circular No. 905, later amended by
BSP Circular No. 799, provides for the rate of legal interest for forbearance of
money (i.e., from 12% per annum to 6% per annum, effective July 1, 2013).
In sum, the Republic owes PIATCO the unpaid portion of the just
compensation and the interest on that unpaid portion, which interest runs
from the date of taking (September 11, 2006) until full payment of the just
compensation. Thus, any argument that wholly or partly assails this legal
conclusion must fail.
C.I. On the Republic's argument
that PIATCO is not entitled to the
interest award on the unpaid portion
of the just compensation because the
traditional notion of expropriation
is inapplicable.
The Republic alleges that the traditional notion of expropriation is inapplicable in the
present case and that the principles of restitution and unjust enrichment should
apply, supposedly pursuant to Agan and Gingoyon.
The Republic's contention lacks merit.
In our 2004 Agan Resolution, we held that "[f]or the Republic to take over the said
facility, it has to compensate respondent PIATCO as builder of the said structures.
The compensation must be just and in accordance with law and equity for the
Republic cannot unjustly enrich itself at the expense of PIATCO and its
investors."[125]
The statement in our 2004 Agan Resolution that the "Republic cannot unjustly
enrich itself at the expense of PIATCO and its investors" should be understood in a
way consistent with its preceding statement that "[f]or the Republic to take over
the said facility, it has to compensate respondent PIATCO as builder of the said
structures." We would read too much in the above Agan pronouncement if we adopt
the Republic's view that the Court had already envisioned the applicability of the
principles of restitution and unjust enrichment on the yet unfiled expropriation case.
We should remember that the core of Agan was merely the nullification of the
concession agreements. The Republic had not yet taken any legal step at that point
to acquire the NAIA-IPT III; hence, the Court could not have validly and finally
ruled in Agan on the applicable laws in relation to the Republic's acquisition of the
NAIA-IPT III. The statement in Agan merely instructs that the Republic cannot take
over the NAIA-IPT III without paying PIATCO compensation for the structure to
avoid the Republic's unjust enrichment at the expense of PIATCO and its investors.
It is undisputed that the Republic subsequently chose to acquire the NAIAIPT III by exercising its power of eminent domain when it filed its
expropriation complaint on December 21, 2004. The RTC's several early rulings in
this expropriation case led to Gingoyon.
We ruled in Gingoyon that "[i]n addition to Rep. Act No. 8974, the 2004 Resolution
in Agan also mandated that the payment of just compensation should be
inaccordance with equity as well. Thus, in ascertaining the ultimate amount of
just compensation, the duty of the trial court is to ensure that such amount
conforms not only to the law, such as Rep. Act No. 8974, but to principles of equity
as well."[126]
In our Decision now on reconsideration, we simply pursued the above directive in
Gingoyon. Specifically, we applied the law, RA 8974, and equity in: (1) adopting the
depreciated replacement cost method in computing just compensation; and (2)
adjusting the computed 2002 replacement cost of NAIA-IPT III to its 2004 value.
By adopting the depreciated replacement cost method, we took into consideration

that the Republic did not expropriate a brand new airport at the time of taking on
December 21, 2004.[127] Similarly, we considered that PIATCO should be
compensated for the 2004 value of the airport by adjusting the 2002 computed
construction cost to its 2004 value by using the consumer price index. [128]
In applying RA 8974 and equity in our computation of just compensation, we thus
complied with the mandate of Agan that the Republic cannot unjustly enrich itself at
the expense of PIATCO and its investors. We did this by ordering the Republic to
pay just compensation, in the context of expropriation, which the Republic itself
filed to acquire the NAIA-IPT III.
In applying Agan and Gingoyon, we also fulfilled our duty to award compensation
that is fair and just both to the Republic and PIATCO.
Consequently, we cannot adopt Justice Panganiban's concurring opinion in Agan
prescribing the application of the principle of quantum meruit; his opinion - it
should be noted - had never been made a part of the majority decision.
In these lights, we deny the Republic's argument that we should not impose
interest on the just compensation award to PIATCO.
C.2. On the Republic's argument
interest award in view of PIATCO's
bad faith, leading to the nullification
of the concession agreement.
We remind the Republic that what it filed before the RTC was an action for
expropriation. Hence, there is no reason to doubt that the Republic was fully aware
of thelegal realities (i.e., the law, rules and prevailing jurisprudence governing
expropriation cases) attendant to such filing. We thus reject any opposition to the
imposition of interest that has no relation to the settled rules on expropriation, such
as PIATCO's alleged bad faith.
In expropriation cases, our jurisprudence has established that interest should be
paid on the computed just compensation due when delay in payment takes
place, i.e, regardless of PIATCO's alleged bad faith in contracting with the Republic.
We have consistently ruled that just compensation does not only refer to the full
and fair equivalent of the property taken; it also means, equally if not more than
anything else, payment in full without delay.[129] The basis for the imposition of
interest in cases of delay is none other than our Constitution which commands the
condemnor to pay the property owner the full and fair equivalent of the
property from the date of taking. This provision likewise presupposes that the
condemnor incurs delay if it does not pay the property owner the full amount of
just compensation on the date of taking.[130]
In other words, interest on the unpaid compensation becomes due as compliance
with the constitutional mandate on eminent domain and as a basic measure of
fairness.[131] The owners' loss is not only his property but also its income-generating
potential.[132]
We disagree with the Republic's position that PIATCO's bad faith in the nullified
concession agreements should negate any award of interest in its favor. We
disagree, too, with the Republic's argument that PIATCO has no income-generating
capacity as it no longer has the right to operate the NAIA-IPT III under the nullified
concession agreements.
In advancing these arguments, the Republic confuses its right of action arising from
the nullification of the concession agreement and its right of action arising from the
exercise of its power of eminent domain. These two rights of action are totally
distinct from each other, giving rise to distinct rights and obligations among the
parties to the case, and prescribing distinct proceedings before the courts.
At the risk of repetition, we stress that the Republic availed of the remedy of
expropriation rather than a case arising from the nullification of contract. Thus,
issues such as PIATCO's bad faith resulting in the nullification of the concession
agreements may not be properly considered in the present case.
Since the Republic chose to file the present expropriation case to acquire NAIA-ITP
III, we are bound to follow the appropriate expropriation proceeding, the settled
jurisprudence in expropriation case, and use the applicable expropriation laws and
rules as guiding principles.
For these reasons, we maintain our ruling imposing interest on the computed just
compensation (less the proffered value).
C.3. On the Republic's argument
interest award as it caused the delay
in the computation of just compensation.
We now resolve the Republic's argument that PIATCO is not entitled to interest, as
it is guilty of delay in the expropriation proceedings for the computation of just
compensation.
In pursuing this argument, the Republic forgets that the delay in the payment of
just compensation, and not the delay in the proceedings for its computation, is the
legal basis for the imposition of interest on the unpaid just compensation.
m our Decision, we imposed the interest on the unpaid just compensation starting
September 11, 2006 when the writ of possession granted in favor of the Republic
became effective. We ruled that, in view of the effectivity of the writ of possession
on September 11, 2006, the Republic effectively deprived PIATCO of the ordinary
use of the NAIA-IPT III as of this date[133] and PIATCO could no longer exercise all
the attributes of ownership over NAIA-IPT III, particularly the right of possession.
In expropriation cases, the State must pay for the shortfall in the earning potential
immediately lost due to the taking, and the absence of a replacement property from
which income can be derived. We established this rule in order to comply with the
constitutional mandate that the owner of the expropriated property must be
compensated for his actual loss; the income-generating potential is part of this loss
and should therefore be fully taken into account.[134]
Clearly, the concept of delay for purposes of the imposition of interest on the unpaid
just compensation is based on the effect on the owner's rights of the Republic's
non-payment of the full amount of just compensation at the date the possession
and effective taking of the expropriated property took place.
While the delay in the computation of just compensation (because of the protracted
proceeding) may also delay the payment of just compensation, we note that, in this
case, the delay was not entirely attributable to any particular party, i.e., to PIATCO
and/or Takenaka and Asahikosan, as the Republic contends. The "delay" arose
because all the parties to the case had taken procedurally permissible steps in order
to protect their respective interests; the complexity, too, of appraising a specialized
property like the NAIA-IPT III cannot likewise be discounted.
We remind the Republic that the computation of just compensation is not always a
simple affair and may take time, particularly in the case of a specialized property
like the NAIA-IPT III. Delay should not be imputed on the owner alone unless it
delayed the proceedings purposely and unreasonably. The facts of the present case
do not show that neither PIATCO nor Takenaka and Asahikosan purposely and
unreasonably acted to cause delay. The more tenable view is that all the parties
took remedial measures, within legitimate and reasonable limits, to protect their
respective claims, thus, the belated determination of the just compensation.
For all these reasons, the Republic would have to pay the amount of just
compensation computed as of the date of the effective taking (December 21, 2004)
plus the interest which runs from the date it took possession and actually took over
the property (September 11, 2006), regardless of the perceived delay in the
determination of just compensation.
C.4 PIATCO's arguments on the
reckoning period of the interest
award from September 11, 2006
We now address PIATCO's arguments on the imposition of interest on the unpaid
just compensation awarded to it.
PIATCO first questions the reckoning period of the interest.that we imposed on the
unpaid just compensation. PIATCO argues that since the Republic actually took
possession of NAIA-IPT III on December 21, 2004 (the date of filing of the
complaint for expropriation), then it should be the reckoning period of the interest
payment and not on September 11, 2006 when the writ of possession was
reinstated. Furthermore, the delay in the payment of the proffered value on
September 11, 2006 was due to the Republic's fault, which should not prejudice
PIATCO.
We do not find PIATCO's arguments persuasive.
PIATCO's unsupported claim that the Republic actually took possession of the NAIAIPT III on December 21, 2004 cannot be a valid basis for us to reckon the accrual
of the interest on that date.
We cannot also accord merit to PIATCO's reliance on the RTC's order dated January
7, 2005 where it stated that the Republic actually took possession of NAIA-IPT III
on December 21, 2004.
We note that the RTC issued its January 7, 2005 order without motion and
hearing[135] from which it could properly infer its factual statement on the Republic's
actual possession of the NAIA-IPT III on December 21, 2004.
Significantly, Gingoyon noted that this January 7, 2005 order was issued without
prior consultation with either the Republic or PIATCO.[136] Furthermore, we note that
the Republic's alleged possession was not the issue resolved in the RTC order; the
crux of the order was the RTC's appointment of commissioners.
Gingoyon is the case that settled the basis and standards for the effectivity of the
writ of possession in favor of the Republic. In ruling, therefore, that the interest
should be reckoned from September 11, 2006, our basis was our final and
executory ruling in Gingoyon, which is undisputably applicable in the present case.

To recall, the writ of possession was the subject of two (2) conflicting RTC orders the first was the December 21, 2004 order based on Rule 67; the second was the
January 4, 2005 order based on RA 8974 instead of Rule 67.
The January 4, 2005 order supplemented the December 21, 2004 order and
effectively imposed more stringent requirements as conditions for the effectivity of
the December 21 writ of possession. Notably, the Republic, pending Gingoyon, did
not have to comply with the conditions in the January 4, 2005 order as we had
issued in its favor a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction against
its implementation. The effectivity of the writ of possession was therefore still
then at issue inGingoyon.
In Gingoyon, we reconciled Agan, RA 8974 and Rule 67 in: (1) resolving
the effectivity of the writ of possession issued in favor of the Republic; and (2)
determining the standards in computing just compensation. We pointed out that the
RTC erroneously relied on Rule 67 in issuing the December 21, 2004 writ of
possession; we also ruled on the RTC's misapplication of RA 8974 in issuing the
January 4, 2005 order.
On the pre-requisites for the effectivity of the writ of possession, we ruled that FLA
8974 guarantees compliance with the Agan requirement that just compensation be
first paid to PIATCO before the Republic could takeover the NAIA-IPT III.
Specifically, RA 8974 assures the private property owner the payment of, at the
very least, the proffered value of the property to be seized. We also ruled
that the payment of the proffered value to the owner, followed by the issuance of
the writ of possessionin favor of the Republic, is precisely the scheme under RA
8974, one that facially complied with the prescription laid down in the 2004 Agan
Resolution.
Consequently, in Gingoyon, we held in abeyance the writ of possession dated
December 21, 2004 pending proof of the Republic's actual payment to PIATCO of
the proffered value of the NAIA-IPT III of F3,002,125,000.00. We expressly ruled
that the Republic would be entitled to the writ of possession only once it pays
PIATCO the amount of the proffered value.
On the effects of an effective writ of possession, we also held in Gingoyon that
upon the effectivity of the writ of possession, the Republic is authorized to perform
the acts that are essential to the operation of the NAIA-IPT III as an international
airport terminal. These acts include the repair, reconditioning, and improvement of
the complex, maintenance of the existing facilities and equipment, installation of
new facilities and equipment, provision for services and facilities pertaining to the
facilitation of air traffic and transport, and other services that are integral to a
modern-day international airport.[137]
It is undisputed that the Republic tendered to PIATCO the proffered value
on September 11, 2006, leading to the reinstatement of the writ of
possession in favor of the Republic on the same day.[138]
Thus, applying Gingoyon, we ruled in our Decision now under challenge, that the
reinstatement of the writ of possession on September 11, 2006 empowered the
Republic to take the property for public use, and to effectively deprive PIATCO of
the ordinary use of the NAIA-IPT III.[139]
Based on these considerations, we maintain our ruling that the interest on the just
compensation (less proffered value) should accrue only from September 11, 2006
when the Republic effectively deprived PIATCO of the ordinary use of the NAIA-IPT
III.
C.5 On PIATCO's arguments that
it should not be prejudiced by the
Republic's delay in paying the
proffered value
We disagree with PIATCO that the Republic deliberately refused to pay the proffered
value, resulting in the delay of its payment.
We find that the Republic's filing of the Gingoyon case was a reasonable legal move
in view of the two (2) RTC orders relative to the effectivity of the writ of possession.
These two orders contained different bases, amounts, and modes for payment for
purposes of the effectivity of the writ of possession. Furthermore, we note that
in Gingoyon, we issued a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction
against the RTC order dated January 4, 2005 and only lifted the TRO in our decision
dated December 19,2005.
We further note that we resolved the motion for reconsideration in Gingoyon on
February 1, 2006. Thereafter, supervening events occurred that delayed the
payment of the P3 billion proffered value. Thus:
On April 11, 2006, the RTC ordered the BOC to resume its duties.
On April 26, 2006, the Republic asked the RTC to stop the payment of P3
billion proffered value in view of an alleged supervening event - the collapse
of the ceiling of the arrival lobby section of the north side of the NAIA-IPT III
on March 27, 2006. The Republic informed the Court that the MIAA requested
the Association of Structural Engineers of the Philippines (ASEP) to

investigate the cause of the collapse.[140]
On June 20, 2006, the RTC ordered Land Bank to immediately release the
amount of P3 billion to PIATCO. The RTC ruled that the collapse of a portion
of the NAIA-IPT III was not a supervening event that would hinder the
payment of the proffered value to PIATCO. In compliance with this order, the
Republic tendered to PIATCO a P3 billion check on September 11, 2006. On
the same day, the RTC reinstated the writ of possession in favor of the
Republic.[141]
In view of these RTC proceedings prior to the payment of the P3 billion proffered
value on September 11, 2006, we cannot agree with PIATCO that the
Republicdeliberately refused to pay this amount. The supervening events leading to
the Republic's filing of cases and motions before the RTC and the lapse of less than
three (3) months from the RTC's order to release the P3 billion proffered value until
its payment are reasonable developments in the case that could not be taken
against the Republic.
C.6 On PIATCO's arguments that
the computation of interest should
consider leap years 2008 and 2012
We now resolve PIATCO's argument that the interest awarded to it should include
leap years. According to PIATCO, the Court may have failed to consider the leap
years, specifically years 2008 and 2012, where there were supposed to be 366 days
instead of just 365 days as stated in the Decision.
We disagree with PIATCO's contention.
We compute interest rates of 12% or 6% per annum on a yearly basis, as the term
suggests, without distinguishing whether it is a leap year or not. While our
computation on pages 123-124 of our Decision indicated that 2008 and 2012 had
365 days, we computed the 12% per annum interest equivalent to one whole year
of interest for these years.
Notably, Article 13 of the New Civil Code states that "when the laws speak of years,
it shall be understood that years are of three hundred sixty-five days each. " Since
our interest rate is applied on a per annum basis or per year basis, we apply the
general rule that the imposition of interest rate per annum means the imposition of
the whole interest rate for one whole year, regardless if it is composed of 365 or
366 days.
Nevertheless, we correct pages 123-124 of the Decision to reflect the proper

number of days in years 2008 and 2012, which is 366 days.
C.7 On PIATCO's reference to the
typographical errors in our Decision
on the CA 's ruling on interest
We agree with PIATCO's observation that the correct CA's ruling was its
computation of interest starting December 21, 2004 as reflected at page 42 of our
decision. Hence, we correct page 41 of our decision to read as follows:
Interest. The CA further held that interest shall be added to just compensation as
of December 21, 2004. xxx
Nevertheless, for reasons already explained above, we maintain our ruling that the
reckoning period for the computation of interest on the just compensation is
September 11, 2006.
D. PIATCO's arguments on the attendant costs
We disagree with PIATCO's argument that the Court should have considered the
photocopies of PIATCO's documents supporting attendant costs.
PIATCO cannot rely on the affidavit of Atty. Tolentino who allegedly identified the
photocopied documents supporting attendant costs. The Court observed that the
alleged affidavit of Atty. Tolentino does not have any signal are above his name as
the affiant.[142] Hence, his affidavit cannot be said to have at least substantially
complied with the requirements laid down in Sections 3(a), (b), and/or (d) of Rule
130 of the Rules of Court for the admissibility of photocopies as secondary
evidence.
We therefore maintain our ruling that PIATCO's documents allegedly supporting the
attendant costs are hearsay evidence.[143]
With respect to the effect of the alleged non-objection of the parties to the
presentation of these photocopy documents, we have ruled in PNOC Shipping and
Transport Corporation v. CA et al.[144] that a hearsay evidence has no probative
value and should be disregarded whether objected to or not.
The courts differ as to the weight to be given to hearsay evidence admitted
without objection. Some hold that when hearsay has been admitted without
objection, the same may be considered as any other properly admitted
testimony. Others maintain that it is entitled to no more consideration than

if it had been excluded.
The rule prevailing in this jurisdiction is the latter one. Our Supreme Court
held that although the question of admissibility of evidence cannot be raised for the
first time on appeal, yet if the evidence is hearsay it has no probative value
and should be disregarded whether objected to or not."If no objection is
made" quoting Jones on Evidence "it (hearsay) becomes evidence by reason of
the want of such objection even though its admission does not confer upon it any
new attribute in point of weight. Its nature and quality remain the same, so
far as its intrinsic weakness and incompetency to satisfy the mind are
concerned, and as opposed to direct primary evidence, the latter always
prevails.
The failure of the defense counsel to object to the presentation of incompetent
evidence, like hearsay evidence or evidence that violates the rules of res inter alios
acta, or his failure to ask for the striking out of the same does not give such
evidence any probative value. But admissibility of evidence should not be equated
with weight of evidence. Hearsay evidence whether objected to or not has no
probative value. (Emphasis supplied)
Notably, the BOC, the RTC, and the CA unanimously disregarded PIATCO's
documents in considering the attendant costs in their respective computations of
the just compensation. The BOC and the RTC awarded the attendant costs based
only on industry practice because PIATCO failed to substantiate its claimed
attendant costs.
More importantly, we reiterate that we cannot give weight to the summary prepared
by Reyes, Tacandong & Co. for being double hearsay. Aside from failing to state that
it examined the original documents allegedly proving attendant costs, it also stated
that it did not "express any assurance on the attendant costs."[145] Thus, our ruling
on attendant costs remains.
D.I On PIATCO's statement that the
Court misquoted item 3.1.17 of the
Scott Wilson Report on
attendant costs
We now address PIATCO's averment that the Court should revisit its ruling on the
attendant costs as we misquoted item 3.1.17 of the Scott Wilson Report at page 99
of our Decision.
The quote in our Decision states that PIATCO paid US$7.9 million to the QA
Inspectors (JAC) and US$4.2 million to PCI, SOM, PACICON and JGC, and these
payments appear "not reasonable." PIATCO pointed out that the correct phrase is
"not unreasonable." Hence, we should award the attendant costs on the basis of
the Scott Wilson's finding that these are reasonable.
We disagree with PIATCO's reasoning.
While it is true that there had been a misquote of item 3.1.17 of the Scott Wilson
Report, our findings in disregarding the attendant cost did not rise and fall on this
quoted item of the report. The relevance of this quote, as is obvious in the Decision,
was merely to compare the Scott Wilson Report and the Gleeds report on attendant
cost. We did not grant PIATCO's claimed attendant costs, as it failed to substantiate
its claim.
Nevertheless, we correct page 99 of the Decision to reflect the correct quote of item
3.1.17 of the Scott Wilson Report, as follows:
3.1.17 On the basis of a construction cost valuation of the order of US$322 million
we would expect the cost of construction supervision to be a minimum of US$9.5
million. It is understood that PIATCO have paid US$7.9 million to the QA Inspectors
(JAC) and US$4.2 million to PCI, SOM, PACICON and JGC and this therefore
appears not unreasonable.
E. On the Republic's arguments on
structural defect, unnecessary areas,
and rectification for contract
compliance
We deny the Republic's argument that the amount pertaining to structural defects
should be deducted from the construction cost.
The Republic's arguments on the structural defects of the NAIA IPT-III were
sufficiently discussed in our Decision. Although the Scott Wilson Report admitted
that retrofit works needed to be done, the Republic failed to submit documents
before the lower courts supporting the retrofit project. Furthermore, we noted that
the retrofit bid took place in 2012, or after the promulgation of the RTC's ruling. [146]
In view of the equally persuasive arguments of the Republic on the one hand, and
PIATCO, Takenaka and Asahikosan, on the other, the equiponderance rule applies
against the Republic.
Similarly, we sufficiently explained in our Decision our ruling on the Republic's
arguments pertaining to the unnecessary areas and the rectification for contract
compliance.
In computing the just compensation in the present case, we have included the
amount allegedly pertaining to the unnecessary areas, such as the excess
concession space and the four-level retail complex. We ruled that since the Republic
would expropriate the entire NAIA-IPT III, the Republic should pay for these
structures.
We reiterate that the present case stemmed from an expropriation case. Hence, the
standards and parameters for computing just compensation should be in line with
the nature of the action before us.[147]
Notably, just compensation in expropriation cases is defined "as the full and fair
equivalent of the property taken from its owner by the expropriator. The Court
repeatedly stressed that the true measure is not the taker's gain but the owner's
loss. The word 'just' is used to modify the meaning of the word 'compensation' to
convey the idea that the equivalent to be given for the property to be taken shall
be real, substantial, full and ample.[148]
We therefore consider the NAIA-IPT III structure as a whole for purposes of
computing just compensation.
On the issue of rectification for contract compliance, we maintain our ruling that
this should not be excluded from the computation of just compensation. We ruled
that there could not be rectification works to comply with a void contract. [149]
We have succinctly ruled that "the [Republic] cannot complain of contract
noncompliance in an eminent domain case, whose cause of action is not based on a
breach of contract, but on the peremptory power of the State to take private
property for public use."[150]
Additionally, we referred to Scott Wilson's observation that the non-compliant
items, except for the moving walkway, are "functional."[151] It is therefore proper
that these form part of the just compensation in order to serve its purpose to fully
compensate the owner for its actual loss.
We noted in our Decision that should the Republic decide to construct the moving
walkway, the amount spent therefore cannot be determined in the present
expropriation case as we are merely tasked to determine the value of NA[A-IPT III
at the time of taking.[152]
We therefore deny the Republic's arguments in its motion for reconsideration with
respect to the structural defects, unnecessary areas, and rectification for contract
compliance.
F. On PIATCO's arguments that it should
be refunded of the amount it paid for the
BOC expense
We disagree with PIATCO's argument that the Court erred in ruling that PIATCO had
waived its right not to share in the BOC expenses.
In resolving this issue, it is necessary to trace the proceedings relating to the
parties' sharing of the BOC expenses.
On June 15, 2006, the BOC filed a request for the release of a mobilization fund of
P1,600,000.00.[153] The RTC approved the request and directed
the Republic andPIATCO to equally share the BOC's expenses.[154] The Republic
and PIATCO complied with this order and tendered the sum of P1,600,000.00 to
the BOC.[155]
On December 7, 2010, the RTC directed PIATCO and the Republic to pay the
amount of P5,250,000.00 on a fifty-fifty basis or for P2,625,000.00 each to defray
the BOC expenses. Aside from paying the amount ordered by the RTC, PIATCO did
not question the RTC orders dated June 15, 2006 and December 7, 2010. The
Republic, on the other hand, filed a motion for partial reconsideration, on the
grounds that the amount was excessive and arbitrary and that the Intervenors
(Takenaka and Asahikosan) should likewise shoulder part of the BOC expenses.
The RTC issued an order on March 11, 2011, granting the Republic's prayer that the
Intervenors Takenaka and Asahikosan should share in the BOC expenses but denied
the Republic's argument that the expenses were excessive. The RTC thus ordered
each party to pay P1,750,000.00. PIATCO did not question the March 11, 2011
order; instead, PIATCO complied with this order and paid the amount of PI,
750,000.00 to the BOC.[156]
Takenaka and Asahikosan filed a partial motion for reconsideration of the March 11,
2011 order on the ground that it has no legal basis.
The RTC rendered its decision on May 23, 2011 on the computation of just
compensation and directed both the Republic and Takenaka and Asahikosan to pay
their proportionate shares of the BOC expenses with dispatch.
The Republic, PIATCO, and Takenaka and Asahikosan filed their respective appeals
with the CA, which are subject of the present case. Takenaka and Asahikosan
questioned the RTC's ruling directing them to pay their proportionate shares in the
BOC expenses; PIATCO again did not question the RTC's decision on the BOC
expenses.
The CA denied Takenaka and Asahikosan's prayer to be exempt from paying the
BOC expenses. Consequently, Takenaka and Asahikosan raised this issue in its
appeal before the Court.
In the cases before the Court, PIATCO never lifted a finger to question the rulings
of the RTC and the CA; it likewise did not raise this issue in the pleadings before
the Court except in the present partial motion for reconsideration.
In view of PIATCO's failure to promptly and vigorously question the imposition of
the BOC expenses, we confirm our ruling that PIATCO is deemed to have waived its
right to question the rulings directing it to share in the BOC expenses. PIATCO's
payment pursuant to the RTC rulings, which it did not assail, served as its
conformity with these rulings, whose finality against PIATCO we cannot modify in
the present case.
PIATCO should have questioned the rulings that are adverse to it; that it did not
and even willingly complied means that it had accepted the ruling. It is well-settled,
too, that the negligence and mistakes of counsel bind the client. Hence, the
principle of unjust enrichment cannot be applied in the present case in favor of
PIATCO.[157]
G. On the Republic's prayer for
the Court to declare that, upon payment
of just compensation, full ownership
shall be vested in the Republic,
free from any liens and encumbrances.
We grant the Republic's prayer that upon payment of just compensation, full
ownership shall fully vest with the Republic; however, we deny its prayer that
this ownership shall be free from any Hens and encumbrances.
We ruled in Agan that "[f]or the Republic to take over the said facility, it has to
compensate respondent PIATCO as builder of the said structures."
We however clarified in Gingoyon that, "[t]he recognized rule is that title to the
property expropriated shall pass from the owner to the expropriator only upon full
payment of the just compensation. Jurisprudence on this settled principle is
consistent both here and in other democratic jurisdictions. "
In Association of Small Landowners in the Philippines, Inc. et al., v. Secretary of
Agrarian Reform,[158] we ruled that "ftjitle to property which is the subject of

condemnation proceedings does not vest [with] the condemnor until the judgment
fixing just compensation is entered and paid xxx title to the property taken remains
in the owner until payment is actually made. "
In view of these jurisprudential precedents, we grant the Republic's prayer that
upon full payment of the just compensation finally adjudged in this decision, the
title to the property shall be fully vested in the Republic.
However, we cannot categorically rule in the present case that the
Republic's ownership of NAIA-IPT III - after full payment of just
compensation - shall be free from all liens and encumbrances.
Before us are the narrow issues of an expropriation case. We cannot make an allencompassing ruling that would cover cases and issues that had not been raised
and resolved in the present case. To do so would not only be purely speculative but
may also be reckless and highly improper.
H. On Takenaka andAsahikosan's claims
We cannot grant Takenaka and Asahikosan's argument that a portion of the just
compensation be set aside to cover for their claims against PIATCO. Takenaka and
Asahikosan's arguments are contrary to the constitutional and jurisprudential
mandates on just compensation and our final and executory rulings
in Agan andGingoyon.
To reiterate, just compensation should be paid to the owner and it should be real,
substantial, full and ample.[159] Therefore, the Republic must pay PIATCO the full
amount of the just compensation computed in the present case.
Furthermore, if we set aside a portion of the just compensation to cover Takenaka
and Asahikosan's claims, we would also be running against our final and executory
rulings in Agan and Gingoyon mandating that just compensation should
be fully paid to PIATCO as the owner of the NAIA-IPT III.
Stated differently, the mere setting aside of a definite portion of the just
compensation to cover the claim of a non-owner (especially if the non-owner's
claim is not yet fixed or confirmed by a final ruling) would defeat the constitutional
mandate that full payment be made to the property owner. We thus cannot grant
Takenaka and Asahikosan's plea even if we can later release to PIATCO the portion
that is set aside (in the event that Takenaka and Asahikosan's claims turn out to be
excessive or totally unjustified).
Takenaka and Asahikosan also conveniently ignore the adverse consequences of

their request. They do not seem to realize that the Court would deprive PIATCO of
theuses of its money during the entire period a portion of the just compensation is
put in escrow.
Worse, if Takenaka and Asahikosan's claims are later partially or wholly denied,
there is the matter of interest: who will pay the interest on the amount set aside?
Will it be the Republic or will it be Takenaka and Asahikosan? Will they equally share
the burden? These are the complications that Takenaka and Asahikosan avoided in
their insistence to have a portion of the just compensation set aside to cover claims
that have not even been judicially confirmed with finality in the Philippines.
Finally, we clarify our holding that if we grant Takenaka and Asahikosan's prayer
to merely set aside a portion of the just compensation to secure their claims, we
would thereby pre-empt the Court's ruling in the pending enforcement case (G.R.
No. 202166).
In truth, we would not pre-empt the Court's ruling in the enforcement case ifwe set
aside a portion of the just compensation in favor Takenaka and Asahikosan. The
Court would still have to apply the law to the unique facts of that case regardless of
our holding in the present case.
Nevertheless, there is simply no basis to set aside a portion of the just
compensation in favor of a non-owner. As explained, setting aside Takenaka and
Asahikosan's claim purportedly in the interest of "equity and justice" would defeat
the essence of just compensation. We remind Takenaka and Asahikosan that the
invocation of the Court's equity jurisdiction can never be used to violate the law and
the Constitution.[160]
In light of the discussion above, we deny Takenaka and Asahikosan's arguments in
its partial motion for reconsideration.
I. On PlATCO's argument that the tax
assessments against it should be included
as part of the just compensation
We deny PIATCO's argument that the tax assessments against it should be added to
the just compensation in the present case.
The tax assessments should first go through the appropriate tax proceedings
prescribed by law. The present case is neither the proper venue nor the forum to
determine the validity of these alleged pending tax assessments or to declare its
inclusion in the computation of just compensation inasmuch as these were not
presented before the lower courts.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, we:
(1) SUSTAIN our September 8, 2015 Decision, thus:
a. The principal amount of just compensation is fixed at $326,932,221.26 as of
December 21, 2004. Thereafter, the amount of $267,493,617.26, which is
the difference between $326,932,221.26 and the proffered value of
$59,438,604.00, shall earn a straight interest of 12% per annum from
September 11, 2006 until June 30, 2013, and a straight interest of 6% per
annum from July 1, 2013 until full payment;
b. The Republic is hereby ordered to make direct payment of the just
compensation due to PIATCO; and
c. The Republic is hereby ordered to defray the expenses of the BOC in the sum
of P3,500,000.00.
(2) PARTLY GRANT the Republic's motion for reconsideration by declaring that full
ownership over the NAIA-IPT III shall be vested in the Republic upon full payment
of the just compensation as computed in the immediately preceding paragraph;
(3) DENY PIATCO's motion for partial reconsideration;
(4) DENY Takenaka and Asahikosan's motion for partial reconsideration; and
(5) RECTIFY THE FOLLOWING TYPOGRAPHICAL ERRORS in our Decision dated
September 8, 2015:
(a) The last paragraph of page 41 of our Decision should read as follows:
Interest. The CA further held that interest shall be added to just compensation as
of December 21, 2004. xxx
(b) Page 99 of the Decision should reflect the proper quote of item 3.1.17 of the
Scott Wilson Report, as follows:
3.1.17 On the basis of a construction cost valuation of the order of US$322 million
we would expect the cost of construction supervision to be a minimum of US$9.5
million. It is understood that PIATCO has paid US$7.9 million to the QA Inspectors
(JAC) and US$4.2 million to PCI, SOM, PACICON and JGC and this therefore
appears not unreasonable.
(c) Pages 123-124 of the Decision should reflect the proper number of days in years
2008 and 2012, which is 366 days, and hence should be corrected as follows:
Period
September 11, 2006
to
December 31, 2006
January 1, 2007 to
December 31, 2007
January 1, 2008 to
December 31, 2008
January 1,2009 to
December 31, 2009
January 1,2010 to
December 31, 2010
January 1, 2011 to
December 31, 2011
January 1, 2012 to
December 31, 2012
January 1, 2013 to
June 30, 2013
July 1, 2013 to
December 31, 2013
January 1, 2014 to
December 31, 2014
Total
Formula
Number of Interest
Principal
Days
Rate
Amount
principal*rate * 113 days 12% $267,493,617.2
(113/365)
6
principal *rate
365 days
12%
principal*rate
366 days
12%
principal *rate
365 days
12%
principal*rate
365 days
12%
principal*rate
365 days
12%
principal *rate
366 days
12%
principal *rate*
(181/365)
principal *rate *
(189/365)
principal*rate
181 days
12%
189 days
6%
365 days
6%
Straight
Interest
$9,937,571.10
$267,493,617.2 $32,099,234.07
6
$267,493,617.2 $32,099,234.07
6
$267,493,617.2 $32,099,234.07
6
$267,493,617.2 $32,099,234.07
6
$267,493,617.2 $32,099,234.07
6
$267,493,617.2 $32,099,234.07
6
$267,493,617.2 $15,917,702.38
6
$267,493,617.2 $8,310,623.62
6
$267,493,617.2 $16,049,617.04
6
$242,810,918.5
4
This Resolution is final and no further pleadings shall be entertained. Let judgment
be entered in due course.
SO ORDERED.
Velasco, Jr., Leonardo-De Castro, Peralta, Bersamin, Perez, Mendoza, Reyes,
Perlas-Bernabe, and Leonen JJ., concur.
Sereno, C.J., Carpio, Del Castillo, Jardeleza, and Caguioa, JJ., no part.
NOTICE OF JUDGMENT
Sirs/Mesdames:
original of which was received by this Office on May 3, 2016 at 1:44 p.m.
Very truly yours,
(SGD)
Clerk of Court
[1]
Rollo, Volume II, pp. 873-1037.
[2]
Decision dated September 8, 2015, p. 8.
[3]
Id.
[4]
Id. at 8-9.
[5]
Id. at 9.
[6]
450 Phil. 744-902 (2003).
[7]
Id.
[8]
[9]
Agan v. PIATCO, 465 Phil. 545-586 (2004).
[10]
Id. at 582.
[11]
Supra note 1, at 900 and 905.
[12]
Id. at 900.
The MIAA held guaranty deposits in the sum of $62,343,175.77 with Land Bank
for purposes of expropriating the NAIA-IPT III. See rollo in G.R. No. 209731,
Volume I, pp. 380-382.
[13]
[14]
[15]
Id. at 901-903.
RTC orders dated January 7, 2005 on the RTC's appointment of three

commissioners and the January 10, 2005 order denying the motion for inhibition of
the then RTC hearing judge, Judge Gingoyon-id. at 903-907.
[16]
[17]
514 Phil. 657-781 (2005).
[18]
Id. at 681.
[19]
Id. at 710.
[20]
517 Phil. 1-22(2006).
[21]
[22]
Id. at 913-922.
[23]
Id. at 923-924.
[24]
Id. at 929-932.
[25]
Id. at 935.
[26]
Id. at 934-935.
In view of BSP Circular No. 799's effectivity on July 1, 2013; the circular reduced
the legal interest on loans and forbearance of money from 12% to 6% per annum.
[27]
[28]
G.R. No. 209917, rollo, Volume IV, pp. 3114-3116.
[29]
Id. at 3111.
[30]
Id. at 3112 and 3117-3119.
[31]
Id. at 3117-3119.
[32]
Id. at 3119-3131.
[33]
Id. at 3113.
[34]
Id. at 3130, 3135.
[35]
Id. at 3133.
[36]
Id. at 3145.
[37]
Id.
[38]
Id. at 3147-3148.
[39]
Id. at 3149.
[40]
Id.
[41]
Id. at 3150.
[42]
Id. at 3151-3152.
[43]
Id. at 3153-3154.
[44]
Id. at 3154-3155.
[45]
Id. at 3155.
[46]
Id.
[47]
Id. at 3156-3162.
[48]
Id. at 3160-3161.
[49]
Id. at 3161-3162.
[50]
Id. at 3162-3163.
[51]
Id.
[52]
Id. at 3 163-3164.
[53]
Id. at 3 164.
[54]
Id. at 3164-3171.
[55]
Id. at 3087-3093.
[56]
Id. at 3094-3106.
[57]
Supranote 1, at 1284-1286.
[58]
Id. at 1302-1303.
[59]
Id. at 1306.
[60]
Id. at 1312.
[61]
Id. at 1308 and 1313.
[62]
Id. at 1316-1328.
[63]
Id. at 1328.
[64]
Id. at 1292.
[65]
Id. at 1294.
[66]
Id. at 1295-1298.[67] Id. at 1297.
[68]
Id. at 1299.
[69]
Id. at 1331.
[70]
Id. at 1333-1334.
[71]
Id. at 1336.
[72]
Id. at 1337.
[73]
Id.
[74]
Id at 1340.
[75]
Id. at 1344.
[76]
Id. at 1346.
[77]
Id. at 1227.
[78]
Id. at 1228.
[79]
Id. at 1229.
[80]
Id. at 1230-1241.
[81]
Id. at 1240.
[82]
Id. at 1241-1252.
[83]
Id. at 1252.
[84]
Id. at 1253.
[85]
Id. at 1213-1214.
[86]
Id. at 1214.
[87]
Id. at 1215-1216.
[88]
Id. at 1217.
[89]
Id. at 1203.
[90]
Id. at 1205.
[91]
Id. at 1205-1206.
[92]
Id. at 1360-1366.
[93]
NPC v. Tuazon, et al, 668 Phil. 301, 312 (2011).
Republic v. Asia Pacific Integrated Steel Corp., G.R. No. 192100, March 12,
2014, 719 SCRA 50, 63.
[94]
B.H. Berkenkotter & Co. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 89980 December 14,
1992, 216 SCRA 584, 586.
[95]
Also see RA 6657, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform

Program, and RA 6395, or the legislative charter of the National Power Corporation.
[96]
[97]
590 Phil. 424, 434-435 (2008), citing Export Processing Zone Authority v.
Dulay, G.R. No. L-59603, April 29, 1987, 149 SCRA 305.
586 Phil. 587, 603 (2008), citing Land Bank of the Philippines v. Celada, 515
Phil. 467 (2006). This Court held, "While Section 3(a) of R.A. No. 6395, as
amended, and the implementing rule of R.A. No. 8974 indeed state that only 10%
of the market value of the property, is due to the owner of the property subject to
an easement of right-of-way, said rule is not binding on the Court. Well-settled is
the rule that the determination of just compensation in eminent domain cases is a
judicial function."
[98]
Section 10, RA 8974 IRR provides, "Pursuant to Section 7 of the Act, the
Implementing Agency shall determine the valuation of the improvements and/or
structures on the land to be acquired using the replacement cost method. The
replacement cost of the improvements/structures is defined as the amount
necessary to replace improvements/structures, based on the current market prices
for materials, equipment, labor, contractor's profit and overhead, and all other
attendant costs associated with the acquisition and installation in place of the
affected improvements/structures. In the valuation of the affected
improvements/structures, the Implementing Agency shall consider, among other
things, the kinds and quantities of materials/equipment used, the location,
configuration and other physical features of the properties, and prevailing
construction prices." (Emphasis supplied)
[99]
[100]
See Section 2(b), RA 8974 IRR.
Section 13, RA 8974 IRR provides, "Payment of Compensation - Should the

property owner concerned contest the proffered value of the Implementing Agency,
the Court shall determine the just compensation to be paid by the owner within
sixty (60) days from the date of filing of the expropriation case, considering the
standards set out in Sections 8, 9 and 10 hereof, pursuant to Section 5 of the
Act. When the decision of the Court becomes final and executory, the Implementing
Agency shall pay the owner the difference between the amount already paid as
provided in Section 8 (a) hereof and the just compensation determined by the
Court, pursuant to Section 4 of the Act." (emphasis supplied)
[101]
Manansan v. Republic of the Philippines, 530 Phil. 104, 117-118

(2006); Eslaban, Jr. v. Vda. De Onorio, 412 Phil. 667 (2001); Bank of the Philippine
Islands v. CA,484 Phil. 601 (2004); National Power Corp. v. Manubay AgroIndustrial Development Corporation, 480 Phil. 470 (2004), citing Association of
Small Landowners in the Philippines, Inc. v. Secretary of Agrarian Reform, 256 Phil.
777 (1989).
[102]
[103]
Land Bank of the Philippines v. Eusebio, Jr., G.R. No. 160143, July 2, 2014, 728
SCRA 447.
[104]
[105]
Id. at 960-963.
[106]
Id. at 967.
[107]
Id. at 966.
[108]
Id. at 1031.
[109]
Id. at 963. (emphasis added)
[110]
Id. at 966-967.
[111]
Supra note 39.
[112]
[113]
Id.
[114]
Id.
[115]
Rollo, G.R. No. 209917, Volume I, pp. 582, 607-608.
[116]
Rollo, G.R. No. 209731. Volume II, pp. 1754-1755.
[117]
Id., Volume I, p. 1113.
[118]
[119]
CONSTITUTION, Article 111, Section 9.
[120]
Supra note 1, at 1007. See footnote 338 of the Decision.
[121]
Id. at 1008. (citation omitted, emphasis supplied)
[122]
Id. at 1010, citing Republic v. Court of Appeals.
[123]
Estores v. Spouses Supangan, 686 Phil. 86, 97 (2012).
[124]
Id. (emphasis supplied)
[125]
Supra note 9.
[126]
[127]
Supra note 1, at. 966.
Id. at 1005.
Secretary of the Department of Public Works and Highways v. Sps. Tecson, G.R.
No. 179334, April 21, 2015.
[128]
[129]
RA 8974 is silent on the reckoning period of interests in the expropriation of

property for national infrastructure projects. Pursuant to Section 14 of RA 8974
IRR, the Rules of Court suppletorily applies. In this respect, Section 10, Rule 67 of
the Rules of Court provides:
Section 10. Rights of plaintiff after judgment and payment. Upon payment by the
plaintiff to the defendant of the compensation fixed by the judgment,with legal
interest thereon from the taking of the possession of the property, or after tender
to him of the amount so fixed and payment of the costs, the plaintiff shall have the
right to enter upon the property expropriated and to appropriate it for the public
use or purpose defined in the judgment, or to retain it should he have taken
immediate possession thereof under the provisions of section 2 hereof. If the
defendant and his counsel absent themselves from the court, or decline to receive
the amount tendered, the same shall be ordered to be deposited in court and such
deposit shall have the same effect as actual payment thereof to the defendant or
the person ultimately adjudged entitled thereto. (10a) (underscoring supplied)
However, even without this provision, interest on just compensation will still accrue
on the date of taking since the Section 9, Article III of the 1987 Constitution
provides that just compensation must be paid on the date of taking.
[130]
[131]
Id.
Apo Fruits Corporation v. Land Bank of the Philippines, 647 Phil. 251, 276
(2010).
[132]
[133]
[134]
Id. at 1007.
[135]
[136]
Supra note 17.
[137]
Id. at 717.
[138]
Rollo, G.R. No 209696, Volume 1, p. 331.
[139]
[140]
Id.
[141]
Id. at 910.
[142]
Rollo, G.R No. 209731, Volume 1, p. 547.
[143]
[114]
358 Phil. 38, 59-60(1998).
[145]
[146]
Id. at. 988.
[147]
Id.
[148]
[149]
Id. at 1003-1004.
[150]
Id. at 1003.
[151]
Id.
[152]
Id. at 1003-1004.
[153]
RTC rollo, Volume XVII, pp. 11175-11181.
[154]
Id.
[155]
Id.
[156]
Id.
Building Care Corporation et al. v. Macaraeg, G.R. No. 198357, 687 SCRA 643
December 10 2012.
[157]
[158]
G.R. No. 78742 July 14, 1989, 175 SCRA 343.
[159]
See Reyes v. Lim, 456 Phil. 1 (2003); Arsenal v. IAC, 227 Phil. 36 (1986);
and Sps. Alvendia v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 260 Phil. 265 (1990).
[160]
CONCURRING OPINION
LEONEN, J.:
I concur, subject to the views I have expressed in the September 8, 2015 Decision
of this Court En Bane. I also reiterate ray reservations in the computation of
interest rates for delayed payments for expropriated properties, as explained in my
Separate Opinions in Secretary of the Department of Public Works and Highways v.
Spouses Tecson[1] and Heirs of Spouses Tria v. Land Bank of the Philippines. [2]
J. Leonen, Dissenting Opinion in Department of Public Works and Highways v.

Spouses Tecson (Decision), G.R. No. 179334, July 1, 2013, 700 SCRA 243, 274-279
[Per J. Peralta, Third Division]; and J. Leonen, Dissenting Opinion in Department of
Public Works and Highways v. Spouses Tecson (Resolution), G.R, No. 179334, April
21, 2015
http://scjudiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?
file=/jurisprudence/2015/april2015/179334_leonen.pdf> [Per J. Peralta, Third
Division].
[1]
J. Leonen., Separate Opinion in Heirs of Spouses Tria v. Land Bank of the

Philippines, G.R, No. 170245, July 1, 2013, 700 SCRA 188, 200-209 [Per J. Peralta,
Third Division].
[2]

G.R.
No.
184068
SIMNY G. GUY, AS MINORITY STOCKHOLDER AND FOR AND IN BEHALF OF GOODLAND COMPANY, INC., PETITIONER,
VS.
GILBERT
G.
GUY,
ALVIN
AGUSTIN
T.
IGNACIO
AND
JOHN
AND/OR
JANE
DOES,
RESPONDENTS.
April 19, 2016
FIRST DIVISION
[ G.R. No. 184068, April 19, 2016 ]
SIMNY G. GUY, AS MINORITY STOCKHOLDER AND FOR AND
IN BEHALF OF GOODLAND COMPANY, INC., PETITIONER, VS.
GILBERT G. GUY, ALVIN AGUSTIN T. IGNACIO AND JOHN
AND/OR JANE DOES, RESPONDENTS.
DECISION
SERENO, C.J.:
Before this Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of
Court, assailing the Decision[1] and Resolution[2] of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CAG.R. SP No. 99749. The CA affirmed in toto the Decision[3] issued by the Regional
Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 24. The challenged rulings upheld the validity of
a special stockholders' meeting, the election of directors and officers of Goodland
Company, Inc. (GCI), and any further proceedings, acts or resolutions resulting
therefrom.
FACTUAL ANTECEDENTS
GCI is a family-owned corporation of the Guy family duly organized and existing
under Philippine laws.[4] Petitioner Simny G. Guy (Simny) is a stockholder of record
and member of the board of directors of the corporation. Respondents are also GCI
stockholders of record who were allegedly elected as new directors by virtue of the
assailed stockholders' meeting held on 7 September 2004. [5]
On 10 September 2004, Paulino Delfin Pe and Benjamin Lim (stockholders of record

of GCI) informed petitioner that they had received a notice dated 31 August 2004
calling for the holding of a special stockholders' meeting on 7 September 2004 at
the Manila Diamond Hotel.[6] The notice[7] reads:
NOTICE OF MEETING
Please take notice that the Special Stockholders' meeting of Goodland Company,
Inc. shall be held on 7 September 2004 at 10:00 a.m. at the Manila Diamond Hotel
located at Roxas Boulevard corner Dr. J. Quintos Street, Ermita, Manila, for the
purposes, among others, of the election of the Board of Directors for the year 20042005, and consideration of such other matters as may arise during the meeting.
If you are unable to be present at the stockholders' meeting, please nominate and
authorize your proxy representative by executing, signing and delivering to the
undersigned the proxy for the meeting of the stockholders.
The newly elected Board of Directors may meet thereafter for the purposes, among
others, of election and appointment of officers, and consideration of such other
matters as may arise during the meeting.
Quezon City, 31 August 2004.
(Sgd)
GILBERT G. GUY Executive
Vice-President
On 22 September 2004, or fifteen (15) days after the stockholders' meeting,
petitioner received the aforementioned notice.[8]
On 30 September 2004, petitioner, for himself and on behalf of GCI and Grace Guy
Cheu (Cheu), filed a Complaint against respondents before the RTC of Manila [9] for
the "Nullification of Stockholders' Meeting and Election of Directors, Nullification of
Acts and Resolutions, Injunction and Damages with Prayer for Temporary
Restraining Order and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction." [10]
Petitoner assailed the election held on 7 September 2004 on the following grounds:
(1) there was no previous notice to petitioner and Cheu; (2) the meeting was not
called by the proper person; and (3) the notices were not issued by the person who
had the legal authority to do so.[11]
In his Answer, respondent Gilbert G. Guy (Gilbert) argued that the stockholders'
meeting on 7 September 2004 was legally called and held; that the notice of
meeting was signed by the authorized officer of GCI and sent in accordance with
the by-laws of the corporation; and that Cheu was not a stockholder of record of
the corporation, a status that would have entitled her to receive a notice of the
meeting.[12]
On 18 October 2004, the RTC issued a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO)
enjoining respondents and their officers, agents, assigns, and all other persons
deriving authority from them from acting or holding themselves out as new
directors/officers of the corporation.[13]
In a Manifestation dated 10 August 2005, respondents disclosed that an annual
stockholders' meeting of GCI for the year 2005 had been held. They prayed for the
dismissal of the Complaint, claiming that the issues raised therein had already
become moot and academic by virtue of the 2005 annual stockholders' meeting.
[14]
The pertinent portions of the Manifestation read:
4. On March 30, 2005, defendant Gilbert G. Guy [herein respondent], in his
capacity as Acting President, Vice-President, Director and majority stockholder of
GOODLAND, sent a "Notice of 2005 Annual Meeting of Stockholders" to all
stockholders of record of GOODLAND notifying all stockholders that "pursuant to
Art. II, Sec. 1 of the By-Laws of GOODLAND COMPANY, INC., the annual meeting of
the stockholders of the Corporation shall be held on the SECOND MONDAY OF
APRIL, " or on APRIL 11, 2005, at 2:00 o'clock in the afternoon, at Taal Conference
Room, Upper Lobby, Century Park Sheraton Hotel, P. Ocampo, Sr., St. Manila" xxx.
5. The said Notice complies with the provisions of Art. II, Sections] 2 and 3 of the
By-Laws of GOODLAND, which provide that:
"Sec. 2. Special meeting of the stockholders may be called at the principal office of
the company at any time by resolution of the Board of Directors or by order of the
President and must be called upon the written request of stockholders registered as
the owners of one-third (1/3) of the total outstanding stock. "
"Section 3. Notice of meeting written or printed for every regular or special meeting
of the stockholders shall be prepared and mailed to the Registered post office
address of each stockholder not less than five (5) days prior to the date set for
such meeting, and if for a special meeting, such notice shall state the object or
objects of the same. No failure or irregularity of notice of any meeting shall
invalidate such meeting at which all the stockholders are present and voting
without protest. "
6. Plaintiff SIMNY G. GUY [herein petitioner] was notified three (3) times by the
post office of the said "Notice of 2005 Annual Meeting of Stockholders" on
April 6, 2005, April 11, 2005 and April 20, 2005, respectively, but the same was
(sic) ignored by plaintiff SIMNY G. GUY [petitioner] and the said "Notice of 2005
Annual Meeting of Stockholders" was "UNCLAIMED" x x x.
7. The Notices sent to Paulino Del fin Pe and Benjamin Lim were duly received by
them on April 5, 2005 as evidenced by their respective Registry Return Receipts x x
x.
8. No Notice was sent to plaintiff GRACE GUY CHEU as she is not a stockholder of
record of GOODLAND.[15]
On 26 October 2005, the RTC denied the prayer for dismissal and ruled that the
case had not been mooted by the holding of the 2005 annual stockholders'
meeting. It said that respondents' issuance and sending of notices were part of the
acts arising from the special stockholders' meeting held on 7 September 2004, the
validity of which is being assailed in the present case.[16]
In their Manifestation and Motion,[17] petitioner and Cheu averred that their
application for preliminary injunction had been mooted by supervening events. One
of these events was the holding of the 2005 annual stockholders' meeting of the
corporation on 11 April 2005, during which a new set of directors and officers for
the ensuing year was elected.[18]
In a Decision[19] dated 25 June 2007, the RTC dismissed the Complaint filed by
petitioner and Cheu. The trial court ruled:
On the issue that there was no previous notice to the plaintiffs, the evidence clearly
shows that the Notice of the Special Stockholders' meeting was sent to plaintiff
Simny [petitioner] by registered mail on September 2, 2004, or five days before the
said meeting held on September 7, 2004, in accordance with Art. II, Section 3 of
the By-Laws of Goodland. In fact, plaintiffs admitted in par. 13 of the complaint that
plaintiffs were informed by Paulino Delfin Pe and Benjamin Lim that they received a
Notice dated 31 August 2004 calling tor the holding of a special stockholders'
meeting on 7 September 2004.[20]
The evidence on record consisting of the GIS of Goodland, duly filed with SEC, for
the years 1998, 1999, 2001, 2002, and 2003 xxx, show that plaintiff Simny G. Guy
[petitioner] owns 7,982 shares of the total 80,000 subscribed and issued shares of
Goodland or equivalent to around 9.97% of the total subscribed shares of
Goodland.[21]
Plaintiff Grace Cheu failed to show proof of her alleged ownership of shares in
Goodland as in fact, the evidence she presented during trial are the valid, existing,
and uncancelled Goodland Stock Certificate Nos. 49 and 58 in the name of one
Paulino Delfin Pe for a total of 8 shares xxx, and Goodland Stock Certificate Nos. 50
and 59 in the name of one Benjamin Lim for a total of 7 shares x x x. [22]
On the other hand, respondent Gilbert Guy was shown to own 63,996 shares or
around 79.99% of the total subscribed shares of Goodland x x x. [23]
As correctly pointed out by defendants the applicable provisions of the By-laws of
Goodland are Art. II, Sec. 2 which provides that the "special meeting of the
stockholders may be called xxx by order of the President and must be called upon
the written request of stockholders registered as the owners of one-third the total
outstanding stock" and Art. IV, Section 3 which provides that "the Vice President, if
qualified, shall exercise all of the functions and perform all the duties of the
President in the absence or disability, for any cause, of the latter.[24]
Based on the evidence on record and considering the above quoted provisions of
Goodland's By-Laws, we rule in favor of defendants [herein respondents]. The
evidence conclusively shows that defendant Gilbert is the owner of more than onethird of the outstanding stock of Goodland. In fact, it is around 79.99%. Thus,
pursuant to Art. II, Sec. 2 of the By-laws of Goodland, defendant Gilbert may
validly call such special stockholders' meeting.[25]
Plaintiffs have not disputed defendants' allegation that the then incumbent
President of Goodland Francisco Guy Co Chia was incapacitated by Alzheimer's
Disease. Thus, pursuant to Art. IV, Section 3 of the By-Laws of Goodland, defendant
Gilbert, as the duly elected Vice President of Goodland (which is likewise not
disputed by plaintiffs), shall exercise all of the functions and perform all the duties
of the President in the absence or disability, for any cause of the latter. We likewise
rule that the qualifying phrase in Art. IV, Section 3 of the By-Laws of Goodland that
the Vice-President, "if qualified," refers to the qualification that the Vice President
must also be a director since one of the qualifications to become a President of the
corporation is that he must first be a director of the corporation. A Vice President of
Goodland who is not also a director is not qualified to act as President. And since
defendant Gilbert is both the duly elected Vice President and an incumbent director,
we find that he is qualified to act as President. Thus, as acting President of
Goodland, defendant Gilbert may validly order the calling of the said special
stockholders' meeting.[26]
In view of the said findings, plaintiffs' prayer for damages against defendants must
perforce fail.[27]
Aggrieved, petitioner filed a Petition for Review[28] under Rule 43 of the Rules of
Court based on Section 1 of A.M. No. 04-9-07-SC dated 18 July 2007 and docketed
as CA-G.R. No. 99749. According to this provision, "[a]ll decisions and final orders
in cases falling under the Interim Rules of Corporate Rehabilitation and the Interim
Rules of Procedure Governing Intra-Corporate Controversies under Republic Act No.
8799 shall be appealable to the Court of Appeals through a petition for review
under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court."[29]
In a Decision[30] dated 30 April 2008, the CA affirmed the RTC ruling in toto.
Hence, this Petition for Review on Certiorari claiming that the special stockholders'
meeting held on 7 September 2004 was void for lack of due notice.
Respondents filed their Comment[31] praying for the dismissal of the Petition for lack
of merit and for being moot and academic.
Our Ruling
The Petition is denied.
Notice of the stockholders' meeting
was properly sent in compliance with
law and the by-laws of the corporation.
Section 50 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 68 (B.P. 68) or the Corporation Code of the
Philippines reads as follows:
SECTION 50. Regular and Special Meetings of Stockholders or Members. Regular
meetings of stockholders or members shall be held annually on a date fixed in the
by-laws, or if not so fixed, on any date in April of every year as determined by the
board of directors or trustees: Provided, That written notice of regular meetings
shall be sent to all stockholders or members of record at least two (2) weeks prior
to the meeting, unless a different period is required by the by-laws.
Special meetings of stockholders or members shall be held at any time deemed
necessary or as provided in the by-laws: Provided, however, That at least one (1)
week written notice shall be sent to all stockholders or members, unless
otherwise provided in the by-laws.
Notice of any meeting may be waived, expressly or impliedly, by any stockholder or
member.
Whenever, for any cause, there is no person authorized to call a meeting, the
Securities and Exchange Commission, upon petition of a stockholder or member,
and on the showing of good cause therefor, may issue an order to the petitioning
stockholder or member directing him to call a meeting of the corporation by giving

proper notice required by this Code or by the bylaws. The petitioning stockholder or
member shall preside thereat until at least a majority of the stockholders or
members present have chosen one of their number as presiding officer. (Emphasis
supplied)
For a stockholders' special meeting[32] to be valid, certain requirements must be met
with respect to notice, quorum and place.[33] In relation to the above provision of
B.P. 68, one of the requirements is a previous written notice sent to all stockholders
at least one (1) week prior to the scheduled meeting, unless otherwise provided
in the by-laws:[34]
Under the by-laws[35] of GCI, the notice of meeting shall be mailed not less than five
(5) days prior to the date set for the special meeting. The pertinent provision
reads:
Section 3. Notice of meeting written or printed for every regular or special meeting
of the stockholders shall be prepared and mailed to the registered post office
address of each stockholder not less than five (5) days prior to the date set
for such meeting, and if for a special meeting, such notice shall state the object
or objects of the same. No failure or irregularity of notice of any meeting shall
invalidate such meeting at which all the stockholders are present and voting without
protest.[36] (Emphasis supplied)
The Corporation Code itself permits the shortening (or lengthening) of the period
within which to send the notice to call a special (or regular) meeting. Thus, no
irregularity exists in the mailing of the notice sent by respondent Gilbert G. Guy on
2 September 2004 calling for the special stockholders' meeting to be held on 7
September 2004, since it abides by what is stated in GCI's by-laws as quoted
above.
Petitioner avers that although the notice was sent by registered mail on 2
September 2004, the registry return card shows that he received it only on 22
September 2004 or fifteen (15) days after the stockholders' meeting was held.
[37]
He insists that actual receipt of the notice of the stockholders' meeting prior to
the date of the meeting is mandatory.[38]
Petitioner begs the Court to interpret the provisions on notice in Section 50 of the
Corporation Code and GCI's by-laws pursuant to a rule in statutory construction
that states: "Statutes should receive a sensible construction, such as will give effect
to the legislative intention and so as to avoid an unjust or an absurd conclusion." [39]
Petitioner persists in his view that to achieve the intent of the law, the notice must
be actually received, and not just sent, prior to the date of the meeting. [40]Petitioner
cites the provision on "completeness of service" under the Rules of Court, which
states that service by registered mail is deemed complete upon actual receipt by
the addressee or after five (5) days from the date of receipt of the first notice of the
postmaster, whichever date is earlier.[41]
We are not persuaded.
The first and fundamental duty of the Court is to apply the law.[42] Where the law
speaks in clear and categorical language, there is no room for interpretation;
[43]
there is only room for application.[44] Only when the law is ambiguous or of
doubtful meaning may the court interpret or construe its true intent. [45]
Rizal Commercial Banking Corp. v. Intermediate Appellate Court[46] describes when
the law becomes ambiguous:
Ambiguity is a condition of admitting two or more meanings, of being understood in
more than one way, or of referring to two or more things at the same time. A
statute is ambiguous if it is admissible of two or more possible meanings, in which
case, the Court is called upon to exercise one of its judicial functions, which is to
interpret the law according to its true intent.
Applying this ruling, we find that the provisions under Section 50 of the Corporation
Code and the by-laws of GCI are clear and unambiguous. They do not admit of two
or more meanings; nor do they make reference to two or more things at the same
time. The provisions only require the sending/mailing of the notice of a
stockholders' meeting to the stockholders of the corporation. Sending/mailing is
different from filing or service under the Rules of Court. Had the lawmakers
intended to include the stockholder's receipt of the notice, they would have clearly
reflected such requirement in the law. Absent that requirement, the word "send"
should be understood in its plain meaning:[47]
"Send" means to deposit in the mail or deliver for transmission by any other usual
means of communication with postage or cost of transmission provided for and
properly addressed and in the case of an instrument to an address specified
thereon or otherwise agreed, or if there be none, to any address reasonable under
the circumstances. The receipt of any writing or notice within the time at which it
would have arrived if properly sent has the effect of a proper sending. (U.C.C.
Sections 1-201 [38]).[48] (Emphasis supplied)
Clearly, respondents are only mandated to notify petitioner by depositing in the
mail the notice of the stockholders' special meeting, with postage or cost of
transmission provided and the name and address of the stockholder properly
specified. With respect to the latter part of the definition of "send" under Black's
Law Dictionary, the term "receipt" only has the effect of proper sending when a
mail matter is received in the usual course of transmission.
As found by both the RTC to the CA, petitioner admitted that the notice of the
special stockholders' meeting was sent to him through registered mail by
respondents on 2 September 2004.[49] Respondents further argued:
It should be emphasized here that the period of mailing, that is, at least five (5)
days prior mailing of notice of meeting as provided in the Bylaws of
GOODLAND is reasonable enough for the petitioner Simny Guy to receive the
notice of meeting prior to the holding of the subject stockholders' meeting
considering the relative distance of the Post Office (Meralco Post Office,
Pasig City) where the said notice of meeting was mailed vis-a-vis the place
of residence of petitioner Simny Guy located at Greenmcadows, Quezon
City.[50] (Emphases supplied)
Therefore, petitioner is considered to have received notice of the special
stockholders' meeting after said notice was properly mailed by respondents.
Petitioner further claims that (1) the notice suffered some fatal defects when it was
not issued by the corporate secretary of GCI pursuant to its bylaws; and (2) the
stockholders' meeting was not "called" by the proper person under the Corporation
Code and the by-laws of GCI.
These claims are without merit. The RTC correctly ruled:
As correctly pointed out by defendants [respondents], the applicable provisions of
the by-laws of Goodland are Article II, Sec. 2 which provides that the "special
meeting of the stockholders may be called xxx by order of the President and must
be called upon the written request of stockholders registered as the owners of onethird (1/3) of the total outstanding stock and Article IV, Section 3 which provides
that "the Vice President, if qualified, shall exercise all of the functions and perform
all the duties of the President, in the absence or disability, for any cause, of the
latter."
Based on the evidence on record and considering the above quoted provisions of
Goodland's By-laws, we rule in favor of defendants [respondents]. The evidence
conclusively show that defendant Gilbert [respondent Guy] is the owner of
more than one-third (1/3) of the outstanding stock of Goodland. In fact, it
is around 79.99%. Thus, pursuant to Art. II, Sec. 2 of the By-laws of
Goodland, defendant Gilbert [respondent Guy] may validly call such special
stockholders' meeting.[51] (Emphasis supplied)
The CA, in affirming the RTC ruling, further said:

Significantly, Section 25 of the Corporation Code states:
SECTION 25. Corporate Officers, Quorum. Immediately after their election, the
directors of a corporation must formally organize by the election of a president, who
shall be a director, a treasurer who may or may not be a director, a secretary who
shall be a resident and citizen of the Philippines, and such other officers as may be
provided for in the by-laws. Any two (2) or more positions may be held concurrently
by the same person, except that no one shall act as president and secretary or as
president and treasurer at the same time.
From the above provision, the requirement imposed on a president of the
corporation is that he should be a member of the Board of Directors and he should
not be at the same time the treasurer or secretary of the corporation. Therefore,
under Section 3, Article IV of the By-laws of Goodland, respondent Gilbert G. Guy
as Vice-President of the corporation is qualified to act as president.
xxxx
From the above exposition, it is undisputed that xxx the special stockholders'
meeting was xxx prepared and called by the proper person. The notice of
meeting and the calling thereof by the Vice-President acting as President complied
with the provisions in the by-laws of the corporation and the Corporation Code.
[52]
(Emphasis supplied)
We, therefore, find no reversible error either in the CA or in the RTC Decision after
finding that notice of the special stockholders' meeting was properly issued and the
meeting properly called by respondent Gilbert.
Cheu was not a stockholder of record
of GCI and was therefore not
entitled to any notice of meeting.
Petitioner also asserts that the special stockholders' meeting on 7 September 2004
was invalid for lack of due notice to Grace Cheu, allegedly a stockholder of record of
GCI. She was considered as such for having been in possession of the stock
certificates of stockholders Paulino Delfin Pe and Benjamin Lim. [53]
This contention cannot be sustained.
A "stockholder of record" is defined as follows:
A person who desires to be recognized as stockholder for the purpose of exercising

stockholders' right must secure standing by having his ownership of share recorded
on the stock and transfer book. Thus, only those whose ownership of shares
are duly registered in the stock and transfer book are considered
stockholders of record and arc entitled to all rights of a stockholder.
[54]
(Emphasis supplied)
More so, Section 63 of the Corporation Code provides:
SECTION 63. Certificate of Slock and Transfer of Shares. The capital stock of
stock corporations shall be divided into shares for which certificates signed by the
president or vice-president, countersigned by the secretary or assistant secretary,
and sealed with the seal of the corporation shall be issued in accordance with the
by-laws. Shares of stock so issued arc personal property and may be transferred by
delivery of the certificate or certificates indorsed by the owner or his attorney-infact or other person legally authorized to make the transfer. No transfer,
however, shall be valid, except as between the parties, until the transfer is
recorded in the books of the corporation so as to show the names of the
parties to the transaction, the date of the transfer, the number of the
certificate or certificates and the number of shares transferred. (Emphasis
supplied)
The Court affirmed this provision in Batangas Laguna Tayabas Bus Company, Inc.
v. Bitanga.[55]
Indeed, until registration is accomplished, the transfer, though valid between the
parties, cannot be effective as against the corporation. Thus, the unrecorded
transferee, the Bitanga group in this case, cannot vote nor be voted for. The
purpose of registration, therefore, is two-fold: to enable the transferee to exercise
all the rights of a stockholder, including the right to vote and to be voted for, and to
inform the corporation of any change in share ownership so that it can ascertain the
persons entitled to the rights and subject to the liabilities of a stockholder. Until
challenged in a proper proceeding, a stockholder of record has a right to participate
in any meeting; his vote can be properly counted to determine whether a
stockholders' resolution was approved, despite the claim of the alleged
transferee. On the other hand, a person who has purchased stock, and who
desires to be recognized as a stockholder for the purpose of voting, must
secure such a standing by having the transfer recorded on the corporate
books. Until the transfer is registered, the transferee is not a stockholder
but an outsider. (Emphasis supplied)
The above pronouncements are embodied in GCI's by-laws, specifically Article I,
Sections 2, 3 and 4:[56]
Section 2. Every certificate surrendered for exchange or transfer shall be cancelled

and affixed to the original stub in the certificate book and no new certificates shall
be issued unless and until the old certificates have been so cancelled and returned
to the corporation, or satisfactory proof of their loss is presented.
Section 3. Certificates of stock may be sold, transferred or hypothecated by
indorsement or separate deed, but the corporation shall not consider any
transfer effective until the indorsed certificate is submitted for cancellation
and a new one issued in the name of the transferee. (Emphasis supplied)
Section 4. All certificates submitted for transfer to another name shall be marked
"CANCELLED" by the Secretary and attached to its corresponding stub whereon the
following data shall be shown:
a. The date when the shares were transferred.
b. To whom transferred.
c. Number of shares transferred.
d. Number or numbers of the new certificate or certificates.
Based on the foregoing, the RTC and the CA found that Cheu was not a stockholder
of record of GCI. Hence, she was not entitled to be notified of the subject special
stockholders' meeting.
Clearly then, the evidence presented by Cheu to prove that she was a stockholder
of record - valid, existing and uncancelled Goodland Stock Certificate37 Nos. 49,
50, 58 and 59 in the names of Paulino Delfin Pe and Benjamin C. Lim - does not
satisfy the requirements imposed by the Corporation Code and the by-laws of GCI.
[58]
All told, the validity of the special stockholders' meeting held on 7 September 2004
has been sufficiently established. Accordingly, we find no necessity to decide on the
other issue of damages claimed by petitioner, as we find no merit therein.
WHEREFORE, the instant Petition for Review is DENIED. The Court of Appeals
Decision in CA-G.R. SP No. 99749 is hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
Rollo, pp. 54-67; Decision dated 30 April 2008, penned by Associate Justice
Josefina Guevara-Salonga, with Associate Justices Magdangal M. de Leon and
[1]
Normandie B. Pizarro concurring.

[2]
Id. at 68; Resolution dated 6 August 2008.
Id. at 626-632; Decision dated 25 June 2007, penned by Judge Antonio M

Eugenio Jr
[3]
[4]
Id. at 55.
[5]
Id. at 96-97.
[6]
Id. at 55.
[7]
Id. at 60.
[8]
Id. at 801.
[9]
Id. at 94-109.
[10]
Id. at 55.
[11]
Id. at 626.
[12]
Id. at 56.
[13]
Id.
[14]
Id.
[15]
Id. at 579-580.
[16]
Id. at 56.
[17]
Id. at 603-605.
[18]
Id. at 56.
[19]
Supra note 3.
[20]
Id. at 629.
[21]
Id. at 628.
[22]
Id.
[23]
Id.
[24]
Id. at 630.
[25]
Id.
[26]
Id. at 630-63 I.
[27]
Id at 63 1.
[28]
Id. at 248-278.
[29]
Id. at 27.
[30]
Supra note 1.
[31]
Id. at 473-515.
Stockholders' meetings are called for corporate purposes like the election of
directors (Sec. 24), amendment of the articles of incorporation involving investment
for purposes other than the primary purpose, or investment in another corporation
or business (Sees. 16 and 42), adoption of by-laws (Sec. 46), increase or decrease
of capital stock (Sec. 38), merger or consolidation (Sec. 76), etc. [Lopez, Rosario
N., The Corporation Code of the Philippines (Annotated) Volume Two, 685 (1994)].
[32]
Campos, Jose C. Jr. and Lopez-Campos, Maria Clara, The Corporation Code:
Comments, Notes and Selected Cases Vol. 1,413 (1990).
[33]
The by-laws may either shorten or extend the time required by the Code for
giving notice (Id at 414)
[34]
[35]
Rollo, pp. 326-332.
[36]
Id. at 328.
[37]
Id. at 33.
[38]
Id. at 30.
[39]
Id. at 3 1.
[40]
Id. at 32.
[41]
Id. at 32-33.
Rizal Commercial Banking Corp. v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 378 Phil. 10-31
(1999).
[42]
United Paracale Mining Co., Inc. v. Dela Rosa, G.R. Nos. 63786-87, 70423
73931 7 April 1993 221 SCRA 1080.
[43]
Id., citing Cebu Portland Cement Company v. Municipality of Naga, 133 Phil.
695-702 (1968).
[44]
[45]
Rizal Commercial Banking Corp. v. Intermediate Appellate Court, supra note 43.
[46]
Id.
Under the principles of statutory construction, if a statute is clear, plain and free
from ambiguity, it must be given its literal meaning and applied without attempted
interpretation. This plain-meaning rule or verba legis derived from the maxim index
animi sermo est (speech is the index of intention) rests on the valid presumption
that the words employed by the legislature in a statute correctly express its intent
or will and preclude the court from construing the statute differently. The legislature
is presumed to know the meaning of the words, to have used those words
advisedly, and to have expressed its intent by the use of such words as are found in
the statute. Verba legis non est recedendum, or "from the words of a statute there
should be no departure." (Pioneer Texturizing Corp. v. NLRC, 345 Phil. 1057-1077
[1997]).
[47]
[48]
Black, Henry Campbell, M.A., Black's Law Dictionary Sixth Edition.
[49]
Rollo, pp. 6Und 629.
[50]
Id. at 487-488.
[51]
Id. at 630.
[52]
Id. at 63-66.
[53]
Id. at 40.
Id. at 61-62, citing SEC Opinions dated 23 May 1993, Victor Africa; and 7 March
1994, Pastora T. O'Connor.
[54]
[55]
415 Phil. 43 (2001).
[56]
Rollo, p. 327.
[57]
Id. at 623-624; 796-799.
[58]
Id. at 63.

G.R.
No.
216776
PHILIPPINE CHARITY SWEEPSTAKES OFFICE (PCSO), PETITIONER, VS. CHAIRPERSON MA. GRACIA M. PULIDO-TAN,
COMMISSIONER HEIDI L. MENDOZA, COMMISSIONER ROWENA V. GUANZON, THE COMMISSIONERS, COMMISSION ON
AUDIT
(COA),
RESPONDENTS.
April 19, 2016
EN BANC
[ G.R. No. 216776, April 19, 2016 ]
PHILIPPINE CHARITY SWEEPSTAKES OFFICE (PCSO),
PETITIONER, VS. CHAIRPERSON MA. GRACIA M. PULIDOTAN, COMMISSIONER HEIDI L. MENDOZA, COMMISSIONER
ROWENA V. GUANZON, THE COMMISSIONERS, COMMISSION
ON AUDIT (COA), RESPONDENTS.
DECISION
PERALTA, J.:
This petition for certiorari under Rule 64, in relation to Rule 65, of the Rules of
Court (Rules) seeks to annul and set aside the June 5, 2014 Decision [1] and
December 22, 2014 Resolution[2] of the Commission on Audit (COA) Commission
Proper, which affirmed the notice of disallowance on the cost of living allowance
received by the officials and employees of the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes
Office-Nueva Ecija Provincial District Office in 2010.
Created by Republic Act (R.A.) No. 1169,[3] as amended by Presidential Decree
(P.O.) No. 1157[4] and Batas Pambansa (B.P.) Blg. 42,[5] the Philippine Charity
Sweepstakes Office (PCSO) is the principal government agency for raising and
providing funds for health programs, medical assistance and services, and charities
of national character. On March 4, 2008, the PCSO Board of Directors, through
Resolution No. 135, approved the payment of monthly cost of living allowance
(COLA) to its officials and employees for a period of three (3) years in accordance
with the Collective Negotiation Agreement. Pursuant thereto, in 2010, the PCSO
released the sum of P381,545.43 to all qualified officials and employees of its
Nueva Ecija Provincial District Office. A year after, on March 19, 2011, Executive
Secretary Paquito N. Ochoa, Jr. confirmed the benefits and incentives provided for
in Resolution No. 135, but with a directive to the PCSO to strictly abide by
Executive Order (E.O.) No. 7 that imposed a moratorium on any grant of new or
increase in the salaries and incentives until specifically authorized by the President.
[6]
On post audit, the Team Leader and Supervising Auditor of the PCSO-Nueva Ecija
Provincial District Office issued Notice of Disallowance (ND) 11-001-101-(10)
[7]
dated May 16, 2011 invalidating the payment of P381,545.43 on the grounds
that it is contrary to the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) Circular No.
2001-03 dated November 12, 2001 and it amounts to double compensation that is
prohibited under the 1987 Constitution. Those found liable for the disallowed
disbursement were:
Name
1. Josefina A. Sarsonas
2. Francis S. Manalad
3. Alberto B. Pertinente
5. Mary Ann T. Baltazar
6. Moriel C. Blanco
Position/ Designation
Department Manager
CLOO
Acting Auditor
Acting SLOO
Cashier II
Nature of Participation in the

Transaction
Approving Officer
Recommending Approval
Certifies Cash Available
Issued Check[8]
The PCSO appealed, but the COA Regional Director affirmed the disallowance in a
Decision[9] dated September 6, 2012. Similarly, the COA Commission Proper denied
the petition for review and motion for reconsideration of PCSO. Hence, this petition
contending that:
1. The PCSO Board of Directors is authorized under Sections 6 and 9 of R.A. No.
1169, as amended, to fix salaries and to determine allowances, bonuses, and
other incentives of its officers and employees;
2. Executive Secretary Ochoa, Jr. approved the grant of benefits and incentives
previously given to the PCSO officials and employees and such post
factoapproval/ratification by the Office of the President is enshrined in Article
VII Section 17 of the 1987 Constitution in relation to Book III Section 1 of
the Administrative Code of 1987 as well as recognized by the Supreme Court
in Cruz v. Commission on Audit[10] and GSIS v. Commission on Audit;[11]
3. The disallowance of COLA violates the principle of non-diminution of benefits
because the PCSO officials and employees already acquired vested rights
over the same for having been a part of their compensation for a
considerable length of time; and
4. The recipients of the disallowed amounts need not return the COLA received
since they are in good faith for lack of knowledge at the time that the same
lacked legal basis.
During the pendency of the case, the COA issued an Order of Execution [12] dated
July 3, 2015 directing to withhold the payment of salaries or any amount due the
five above-named officials as settlement of their liabilities. Arguing that these
employees were discriminated against and were denied due process, the PCSO filed
a Petition for the Issuance of Temporary Restraining Order (TRO).[13] On August 25,
2015, the Court merely noted the prayer for TRO.
The petition is denied. No grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction could be attributed to the COA.
Authority of the PCSO
The PCSO stresses that it is a self-sustaining government instrumentality which
generates its own fund to support its operations and does not depend on the
national government for its budgetary support. Thus, it enjoys certain latitude to
establish and grant allowances and incentives to its officers and employees.
We do not agree. Sections 6 and 9 of R.A. No. 1169, as amended, cannot be relied
upon by the PCSO to grant the COLA. Section 6 merely states, among others, that
fifteen percent (15%) of the net receipts from the sale of sweepstakes tickets
(whether for sweepstakes races, lotteries, or other similar activities) shall be set
aside as contributions to the operating expenses and capital expenditures of the
PCSO. Also, Section 9 loosely provides that among the powers and functions of the
PCSO Board of Directors is "to fix the salaries and determine the reasonable
allowances, bonuses and other incentives of its officers and employees as may be
recommended by the General Manager x x x subject to pertinent civil service
and compensation laws." The PCSO charter evidently does not grant its Bioard
the unbridled authority to set salaries and allowances of officials and employees. On
the contrary, as a government owned and/or controlled corporation (GOCC), it was
expressly covered by P.D. No. 985 or "The Budgetary Reform Decree on
Compensation and Position Classification of 1976," and its 1978 amendment, P.D.
No. 1597 {Further Rationalizing the System of Compensation and Position
Classification in the National Government), and mandated to comply with the rules
of then Office of Compensation and Position Classification (OCPC) under the DBM. [14]
Even if it is assumed that there is an explicit provision exempting the PCSO from
the OCPC rules, the power of the Board to fix the salaries and determine the
reasonable allowances, bonuses and other incentives was still subject to the DBM
review. In Intia, Jr. v. COA,[15] the Court stressed that the discretion of the Board of
Philippine Postal Corporation on the matter of personnel compensation is not
absolute as the same must be exercised in accordance with the standard laid down
by law, i.e., its compensation system, including the allowances granted by the
Board, must strictly conform with that provided for other government agencies
under R.A. No. 6758[16] in relation to the General Appropriations Act. To ensure such
compliance, the resolutions of the Board affecting such matters should first be
reviewed and approved by the DBM pursuant to Section 6 of P.D. No. 1597.
Following Intia, Jr., We subsequently ruled in Phil. Retirement Authority (PRA) v.
Buag:[17]
In accordance with the ruling of this Court in Intia, we agree with petitioner PRA
that these provisions should be read together with P.D. No. 985 and P.D. No. 1597,
particularly Section 6 of P.D. No. 1597. Thus, notwithstanding exemptions from the
authority of the Office of Compensation and Position Classification granted to PRA
under its charter, PRA is still required to 1) observe the policies and guidelines
issued by the President with respect to position classification, salary rates, levels of
allowances, project and other honoraria, overtime rates, and other forms of
compensation and fringe benefits and 2) report to the President, through the
Budget Commission, on their position classification and compensation plans,
policies, rates and other related details following such specifications as may be
prescribed by the President.
Despite the power granted to the Board of Directors of PRA to establish and fix a
compensation and benefits scheme for its employees, the same is subject to the
review of the Department of Budget and Management. However, in view of the
express powers granted to PRA under its charter, the extent of the review authority
of the Department of Budget and Management is limited. As stated in Intia, the
task of the Department of Budget and Management is simply to review the
compensation and benefits plan of the government agency or entity concerned and
determine if the same complies with the prescribed policies and guidelines issued in
this regard. The role of the Department of Budget and Management is supervisorial
in nature, its main duty being to ascertain that the proposed compensation,
benefits and other incentives to be given to PRA officials and employees adhere to
the policies and guidelines issued in accordance with applicable laws.
The rationale for the review authority of the Department of Budget and
Management is obvious. Even prior to R.A. No. 6758, the declared policy of the
national government is to provide "equal pay for substantially equal work and to
base differences in pay upon substantive differences in duties and responsibilities,
and qualification requirements of the positions." To implement this policy, P.D. No.
985 provided for the standardized compensation of government employees and
officials, including those in government-owned and controlled corporations.
Subsequently, P.D. No. 1597 was enacted prescribing the duties to be followed by
agencies and offices exempt from coverage of the rules and regulations of the
Office of Compensation and Position Classification. The intention, therefore, was to
provide a compensation standardization scheme such that notwithstanding any
exemptions from the coverage of the Office of Compensation and Position
Classification, the exempt government entity or office is still required to observe the
policies and guidelines issued by the President and to submit a report to the Budget
Commission on matters concerning position classification and compensation plans,
policies, rates and other related details. This ought to be the interpretation if the
avowed policy of compensation standardization in government is to be given full
effect. The policy of "equal pay for substantially equal work" will be an empty
directive if government entities exempt from the coverage of the Office of
Compensation and Position Classification may freely impose any type of salary
scheme, benefit or monetary incentive to its employees in any amount, without
regard to the compensation plan implemented in the other government agencies or
entities. Thus, even prior to the passage of R.A No. 6758, consistent with the salary
standardization laws in effect, the compensation and benefits scheme of PRA is
subject to the review of the Department of Budget and Management. [18]
Upon the effectivity of R.A. No. 6758, GOCCs like the PCSO are included in the
Compensation and Position Classification System because Section 16 of the law
repeals all laws, decrees, executive orders, corporate charters, and other issuances
or parts thereof, that exempt agencies from the coverage of the System, or that
authorize and fix position classification, salaries, pay rates or allowances of
specified positions, or groups of officials and employees or of agencies, which are
inconsistent with the System, including the proviso under Section 2 and Section 16
of P.D. No. 985.[19]
At present, R.A. No. 10149, or the GOCC Governance Act of 2011,[20] which was
approved on June 6, 2011, is the latest pertinent law. It declares the policy of the
State to ensure, among others, that reasonable, justifiable and appropriate
remuneration schemes are adopted for the directors/trustees, officers and
employees of GOCCs and their subsidiaries to prevent or deter the granting of
unconscionable and excessive remuneration packages. [21] Relative to the purposes
of the law, the Governance Commission for Government-Owned or -Controlled
Corporations (GCG) was created to act as the central advisory, monitoring, and
oversight body that is attached to the Office of the President. Among its powers and
functions is to conduct compensation studies, develop and recommend to the
President a competitive compensation and remuneration system which shall attract
and retain talent but allow the GOCC to be financially sound and sustainable.
[22]
After the conduct of a compensation study, the GCG is tasked to develop a
Compensation and Position Classification System (CPCS) applicable to all officers
and employees of the GOCCs, whether under the Salary Standardization Law or
exempt therefrom, subject to approval of the President. [23] R.A. No. 10149
unequivocally states that, any law to the contraiy notwithstanding, no GOCC shall
be exempt from the coverage of the CPCS.[24]
On March 22, 2016, President Benigno Simeon C. Aquino III issued E.O No.
203[25] approving the CPCS and the Index of Occupational Services (IOS)
Framework for the GOCC Sector that was developed by the GCG. The E.O. provides,
among others, that while recognizing the constitutional right of workers to selforganization, collective bargaining and negotiations, the Governing Boards of all
covered GOCCs, whether Chartered or Non-chartered, may not negotiate with their
officers and employees the economic terms of their CBAs. [26] Likewise, the E.O.
restates the provision of R.A. No. 10149 that the GCG may recommend for the
President's approval incentives outside of the CPCS for certain position titles in
consideration of the good performance of the GOCC provided that the GOCC has
fully paid all taxes for which it is liable, and it has declared and paid all the
dividends required to be paid under its charter or any other law.[27]
COLA as allowance
To determine whether the COLA is considered as an allowance that is excluded from
the standardized salary rates of the PCSO officials and employees, reference must
be made to the first paragraph of Section 12 of R.A.No. 6758. It states:
SEC. 12. Consolidation of Allowances and Compensation. - All allowances, except

for representation and transportation allowances; clothing and laundry allowances;
subsistence allowance of marine officers and crew on board government vessels
and hospital personnel; hazard pay; allowances of foreign service personnel
stationed abroad; and such other additional compensation not otherwise specified
herein as may be determined by the DBM, shall be deemed included in the
standardized salary rates herein prescribed. Such other additional compensation,
whether in cash or in kind, being received by incumbents only as of July 1, 1989
not integrated into the standardized salary rates shall continue to be authorized, x x
x"
Based on the above-quoted, all kinds of allowances are integrated into the
prescribed standardized salary rates except:
(1) representation and transportation allowances (RATA);
(2) clothing and laundry allowances;
(3) subsistence allowance of marine officers and crew on board government
vessels;
(4) subsistence allowance of hospital personnel;
(5) hazard pay;
(6) allowance of foreign service personnel stationed abroad; and
(7) such other additional compensation not otherwise specified in Section 12 as
may be determined by the DBM.[28]
The foregoing are the only allowances which government employees can continue
to receive in addition to their standardized salary rates.[29] Since the COLA is not
among those expressly excluded from integration by R.A. No. 6758, it should be
considered as deemed integrated in the standardized salaries of the PCSO
officials and employees under the general rule of integration.
R.A. No. 6758 does not require that the DBM should first define those allowances
that are to be integrated with the standardized salary rates of government
employees before the additional compensation could be integrated into the
employees' salaries.[30] Instead, until and unless the DBM issues rules and
regulations, the enumerated exclusions in items (1) to (6) remain exclusive.
[31]
While Section 12 of R.A. No. 6758 is considered as self-executing with respect to
items (1) to (6), it is only upon the amplification of the DBM through the issuance
and taking effect of implementing rules and regulations that item (7) could be
deemed as legally completed.[32] The DBM is delegated with the authority to identify
such other additional compensation that may be granted to government employees
over and above the standardized salary rates.[33] Relative thereto, it must be shown
that additional non-integrated allowances are given to government employees of
certain offices due to the unique nature of the office and of the work performed by
the employee, taking into consideration the peculiar characteristics of each

government office where performance of the same work may entail different
necessary expenses for the employee.[34]
Moreover, in contrast with items (1) to (6), COLA belongs to a different genus of
allowance. This Court has opined:
Analyzing No. 7, which is the last clause of the first sentence of Section 12, in
relation to the other benefits therein enumerated, it can be gleaned unerringly that
it is a "catch-all proviso." Further reflection on the nature of subject fringe benefits
indicates that all of them have one thing in common - they belong to one category
of privilege called allowances which are usually granted to officials and employees
of the government to defray or reimburse the expenses incurred in the performance
of their official functions. In Philippine Ports Authority vs. Commission on Audit, this
Court rationalized that "if these allowances are consolidated with the standardized
rate, then the government official or employee will be compelled to spend his
personal funds in attending to his duties."[35]
Taking into account the distinction, Gutierrez, et al. v. Dept. of Budget and Mgt., et
al.[36] already settled:
In any event, the Court finds the inclusion of COLA in the standardized salary rates
proper. In -National Tobacco Administration v. Commission on Audit, the Court ruled
that the enumerated fringe benefits in items (1) to (6) have one thing in common they belong to one category of privilege called allowances which are usually granted
to officials and employees of the government to defray or reimburse the expenses
incurred in the performance of their official functions. Consequently, if these
allowances are consolidated with the standardized salary rates, then the
government official or employee will be compelled to spend his personal funds in
attending to his duties. On the other hand, item (7) is a "catch-all proviso" for
benefits in the nature of allowances similar to those enumerated.
Clearly, COLA is not in the nature of an allowance intended to reimburse expenses
incurred by officials and employees of the government in the performance of their
official functions. It is not payment in consideration of the fulfillment of official duty.
As defined, cost of living refers to "the level of prices relating to a range of
everyday items" or "the cost of purchasing those goods and services which are
included in an accepted standard level of consumption." Based on this premise,
COLA is a benefit intended to cover increases in the cost of living. Thus, it is and
should be integrated into the standardized salary rates.[37]
The ruling was subsequently reaffirmed in Maynilad Water Supervisors Association
v. Maynilad Water Services, Inc.[38] and Land Bank of the Philippines v. Naval.
Similar to the social amelioration or educational assistance benefit in National

Tobacco Administration v. COA,[40] the Staple Food Incentive in Phil. International
Trading Corp. v. COA,[41] and the food basket allowance in Bureau of Fisheries and
Aquatic Resources (BFAR) Employees Union v. Commission on Audit, [42] the COLA is
a benefit which is in the nature of financial assistance or bonus, not allowance, the
specific purpose of which is to alleviate the economic condition of the subject PCSO
officials and employees.
[39]
Notably, on February 12, 1997, Congress enacted R.A. No. 8250 or the General
Appropriations Act (GAA) for Fiscal Year 1997, which granted Personnel Economic
Relief Allowance (PERA) to all government officials and employees as a replacement
of the COLA.[43] Like Additional Compensation (ADCOM), PERA is a financial benefit
given to augment the take-home pay of government employees in view of the
increasing cost of living. Both financial benefits are part of compensation embraced
in the term "living" allowance provided under R.A. No. 910, as amended. [44] For
GOCCs, including government financial institutions, the PERA shall be taken from
their respective corporate funds, subject to the approval of their governing boards.
[45]
Post Facto Approval

Section 29(1), Article VI of the 1987 Constitution provides, "[n]o money shall be
paid out of the Treasury except in pursuance of an appropriation made by law."
Further, before public funds may be disbursed for salaries and benefits to
government officers and employees, it must be shown that these are
commensurate to the services rendered and necessary or relevant to the functions
of the office. "Additional allowances and benefits must be shown to be necessary or
relevant to the fulfillment of the official duties and functions of the government
officers and employees."
In Yap v. Commission on Audit, this Court laid down two general requisites before a
benefit may be granted to government officials or employees. First is that the
allowances and benefits were authorized by law, and second, that there was a
direct and substantial relationship between the performance of public functions and
the grant of the disputed allowances. Thus:
[t]o reiterate, the public purpose requirement for the disbursement of public funds
is a valid limitation on the types of allowances and,benefits that may be granted to
public officers. It was incumbent upon petitioner to show that his allowances and
benefits were authorized by law and that there was a direct and substantial
relationship between the performance of his public functions and the grant of the
disputed allowances to him.
The burden of proving the validity or legality of the grant of allowance or benefits is
with the government agency or entity granting the allowance or benefit, or the
employee claiming the same, xxx.[46]
In this petition, We cannot rule on the validity of the alleged post facto approval by
the Office of the President as regards the grant of COLA to the PCSO officials and
employees. The PCSO failed to prove its existence since no documentary evidence,
original copy or otherwise, was submitted before Us. Even so, where there is an
express provision of the law prohibiting the grant of certain benefits, the law must
be enforced even if it prejudices certain parties on account of an error committed
by public officials in granting the benefit.[47] An executive act shall be valid only
when it is not contrary to the laws or the Constitution.[48] Likewise, as it
appears, Cruz v. Commission on Audit and GSIS v. Commission on Audit are not on
all fours with this case since their factual antecedents and applicable rules vary.
Non-Diminution of Benefits
The Court has steadily held that, in accordance with second sentence (first
paragraph) of Section 12 of R.A. No. 6758, allowances, fringe benefits or any
additional financial incentives, whether or not integrated into the standardized
salaries prescribed by R.A. No. 6758, should continue to be enjoyed by employees
who were incumbents and were actually receiving those benefits as of July 1, 1989.
[49]
Here, the PCSO failed to establish that its officials and employees who were
recipients of the disallowed COLA actually suffered a diminution in pay as a result of
its consolidation into their standardized salary rates. It was not demonstrated that
such officials and employees were incumbents and already receiving the COLA as of
July 1, 1989. Therefore, the principle of non-diminution of benefits finds no
application to them.
Neither is there merit in the contention that the PCSO officials and employees
already acquired vested rights over the COLA as it has been a part of their
compensation for a considerable length of time. Such representation was not
supported by any evidence showing that a substantial period of time had elapsed.
Nevertheless, practice, without more - no matter how long continued - cannot give
rise to any vested right if it is contrary to law.[50] While We commiserate with the
plight of most government employees who have to make both ends meet, the letter
and the spirit of the law should only be applied, not reinvented or modified. [51]
Liability and Refund
Since the illegality of the released COLA is settled, the Court shall now proceed to
resolve the issue of whether the members of the PCSO Board of Directors, other
responsible officers, and the recipients thereof should be held accountable and be
ordered to refund the amounts received.
With regard to the disallowance of benefits or allowances of government
employees, Our recent rulings[52] provide useful insights. Recipients or payees need
not refund disallowed benefits or allowances when it was received in good faith and
there is no finding of bad faith or malice. On the other hand, officers who
participated in the approval of such disallowed amount are required to refund only
those received if they are found to be: in bad faith or grossly negligent amounting
to bad faith. Public officials who are directly responsible for, or participated in
making the illegal expenditures, as well as those who actually received the amounts
therefrom shall be solidarity liable for their reimbursement. The receipt or nonreceipt of illegally disbursed funds is immaterial to the solidary liability of
government officials directly responsible.
In this case, two administrative issuances are significant: DBM Corporate
Compensation Circular No. 10 (DBM-CCC No. 10) and the Amended Rules and
Regulations Governing the Exercise of the Right of Government Employees to
Organize.
Pursuant to its authority to implement R.A. No. 6758 under Section 23 thereof, the
DBM issued DBM-CCC No. 10[53] on October 2, 1989. It provided that payment by
government corporations of discontinued allowances (i.e., allowances, fringe
benefits and all other forms of compensation granted on top of basic salary,
whether in cash or in kind, which were not mentioned in Sub-paragraphs 5.4 and
5.5 of DBM-CCC No. 10) effective November 1, 1989 shall be considered as illegal
disbursement of public funds. Sub-paragraphs 5.4 and 5.5 do not explicitly include
the COLA in the enumeration, to wit:
5.4 The rates of the following allowances/fringe benefits which are not integrated
into the basic salary and which are allowed to be continued after June 30, 1989
shall be subject to the condition that the grant of such benefits is covered by
statutory authority:
5.4.1 Representation and Transportation Allowances (RATA) of incumbent of the
position authorized to receive the same at the highest amount legally authorized as
of June 30, 1989 for the level of his position within the particular GOCC/GFI;
5.4.2 Uniform and Clothing Allowance at a rate as previously authorized;
5.4.3 Hazard pay as authorized by law;
5.4.4 Honoraria/additional compensation for employees on detail with special
projects or inter-agency undertakings;

5.4.5 Honoraria for services rendered by researchers, experts and specialists who
are of acknowledged authorities in their fields of specialization;
5.4.6 Honoraria for lecturers and resource persons/speakers;
5.4.7 Overtime pay in accordance to Memorandum Order No. 228;
5.4.8 Clothing/laundry allowances and subsistence allowance of marine officers and
crew on board GOCCs/GFIs owned vessels and used in their operations, and of
hospital personnel who attend directly to patients and who by nature of their duties
are required to wear uniforms;
5.4.9 Quarters Allowance of officials and employees who are presently entitled to
the same;
5.4.10 Overseas, Living Quarters and other allowances presently authorized for
personnel stationed abroad;
5.4.11 Night Differential of personnel on night duty;
5.4.12 Per Diems of members of the governing Boards of GOCCs/GFIs at the rate
as prescribed in their respective Charters;
5.4.13 Flying Pay of personnel undertaking aerial flights;
5.4.14 Per Diems/Allowances of Chairman and Members/Staff of collegial bodies
and Committee; and,
5.4.15 Per Diems/Allowances of officials and employees on official foreign and local
travel outside of their official station.
5.5 Other allowances/fringe benefits not likewise integrated into the basic salary
and allowed to be continued only for incumbents as of June 30, 1989 subject to the
condition that the grant of same is with appropriate authorization either from the
DBM, Office of the President or legislative issuances are as follows:
5.5.1
5.5.2
5.5.3
5.5.4
5.5.5
Rice Subsidy
Sugar Subsidy
Death Benefits other than those granted by the GSIS;
Medical/dental/optical allowances/benefits;
Children's allowance;
5.5.6
5.5.7
5.5.8
5.5.9
Special Duty Pay/Allowance;

Meal Subsidy;
Longevity Pay; and
Teller's Allowance
Due, however, to its non-publication in the Official Gazette or in a newspaper of

general circulation in the country, DBM-CCC No. 10 was declared ineffective on
August 12, 1998 in De Jesus v. COA.[54] Nonetheless, on February 15, 1999, it was
re-issued and appears to have been published on March 1, 1999. [55]
Also, under the Amended Rules and Regulations Governing the Exercise of the Right
of Government Employees to Organize dated September 28, 2004 [56] that was
issued by the Public Sector Labor-Management Council (PSLMC), the COLA, again,
is not expressly included as one of those "negotiable matters" between the
management and the accredited employees' organization. It was even made clear
that "[i]ncreases in salary, allowances, travel expenses, and other benefits that are
specifically provided by law are not negotiable." Rule XII of the Amended Rules and
Regulations is quoted below:
RULE XII
COLLECTIVE NEGOTIATIONS
Section 1. Subject of negotiation. - Terms and conditions of employment or
improvements thereof, except those that are fixed by law, may be the subject of
negotiation.
Section 2. Negotiable matters. - The following concerns may be the subject of
negotiation between the management and the accredited employees' organization:
(a) schedule of vacation and other leaves;
(b) personnel growth and development;
(c) communication system - internal (lateral and vertical), external;
(d) work assignment/reassignment/detail/transfer;
(e) distribution of work load;
(f) provision for protection and safety;
(g) provision for facilities for handicapped personnel; (h) provision for first aid
medical services and supplies; (i) physical fitness program;
(j) provision for family planning services for married women:
(k) annual medical/physical examination;
(l) recreational, social, athletic and cultural activities and facilities;
(m) CNA incentive pursuant to PSLMC Resolution No. 4, s. 2002 and Resolution No.
2, s. 2003 ;[57] and,
(n) such other concerns which are not prohibited by law and CSC rules and
regulations.
Section 3. Compensation matters. - Increases in salary, allowances, travel
expenses, and other benefits that are specifically provided by law are not
negotiable..
Section 4. Effectivity of CNA. - The CNA shall take effect upon its signing by the
parties and ratification by the majority of the rank-and-file employees in the
negotiating unit.
Section 5. Other matters. - Nothing herein shall be construed to prevent any of
the parties from submitting proposals regarding other matters to Congress and the
proper authorities to improve the terms and conditions of their employment.
In view of the above issuances, the PCSO Board of Directors who approved
Resolution No. 135 are liable. Their authority under Sections 6 and 9 of R.A. No.
1169, as amended, is not absolute. They cannot deny knowledge of the DBM and
PSLMC issuances that effectively prohibit the grant of the COLA as they are
presumed to be acquainted with and, in fact, even duty-bound to know and
understand the relevant laws/rules and regulations that they are tasked to
implement. Their refusal or failure to do do not exonerate them since mere
ignorance of the law is not a justifiable excuse. As it is, the presumptions of "good
faith" and "regular performance of official duty" are disputable and may be
contradicted and overcome by other evidence.
The same thing can be said as to the five PCSO officials who were held accountable
by the COA. They cannot approve the release of funds and certify that the subject
disbursement is lawful without ascertaining its legal basis. If they acted on the
honest belief that the COLA is allowed by law/rules, they should have assured
themselves, prior to their approval and the release of funds, that the conditions
imposed by the DBM and PSLMC, particularly the need for the approval of the DBM,
Office of the President or legislature, are complied with. Like the members of the
PCSO Board, the approving/certifying officers' positions dictate that they are
familiar of governing laws/rules. Knowledge of basic procedure is part and parcel of
their shared fiscal responsibility. They should have alerted the PCSO Board of the
validity of the grant of COLA. Good faith further dictates that they should have
denied the grant and refrained from receiving the questionable amount.
While the cases of Gutierrez, et al, Maynilad Water Supervisors Association, and
Land Bank of the Philippines were not yet promulgated at the time PCSO Board
Resolution No. 135 was approved on March 4, 2008, National Tobacco
Administration was already promulgated almost a decade earlier on August 5, 1999,
which made a definitive interpretation of Section 12 of R.A. No. 6758. [58] Moreover,
the basis of COA in disallowing the COLA was essentially Section 12 of R.A. No.
6758 and not DBM-CCC No. 10. The nullity of DBM-CCC No. 10 will not affect the
legality of R.A. No. 6758 considering that the validity of R.A. No. 6758 should not
be made to depend on the validity of its implementing rules. [59]
On the other hand, the other PCSO officials and employees who had no
participation in the approval and release of the disallowed benefit can be treated as
having accepted the same on the mistaken assumption that Resolution No. 135 was
issued in the valid exercise of the power vested in the Board of Directors under the
PCSO charter. They are deemed to have acted in good faith in the honest belief that
they were entitled to such benefit. They can properly rely on the presumption that
the Board acted regularly in the performance of its official duties in providing for
the subject benefit. Their acceptance of the disallowed grant, in the absence of any
competent proof of bad faith on their part, will not suffice to render them liable for
a refund.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The June 5, 2014 Decision and December
22, 2014 Resolution of the COA Commission Proper, which affirmed Notice of
Disallowance No. ll-001-101-(10) dated May 16, 2011 on the COLA received by the
officials and employees of PCSO Nueva Ecija Provincial District Office in 2010,
isAFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATION. The PCSO Board of Directors who approved
Resolution No. 135, Series of 2008, and the five PCSO officials who were found
liable by the COA are ordered to REFUND the illegally disbursed amount of
P381,545.43 representing the COLA received by the officials and employees of
PCSO - Nueva Ecija Provincial District Office in 2010.
SO ORDERED.
Sereno, C.J., Carpio, Velasco, Jr., Leonardo-De Castro, Brion, Peralta, Bersamin,
Del Castillo, Perez, Mendoza, Reyes, Perlas-Bernabe, Leonen, Jardeleza,
and Caguioa, JJ., concur.
NOTICE OF JUDGMENT
Sirs/Mesdames:
original of which was received by this Office on May 20, 2016 at 10:20 a.m.
Very truly yours,
(SGD)
Clerk of Court
[1]
Rollo, pp. 19-24.
[2]
Id. at 25.
Entitled "An Act Providing for Charity Sweepstakes Horse Races and Lotteries "
(approved and took effect on June 18, 1954).
[3]
Entitled "Increasing the Rates of Tea on Winnings in Jai-Alai and Horse-Racing

and the Share of the Government from the Sweepstakes Total Prize Fund" (issued
and took effect on June 3, 1977).
[4]
Entitled "An Act Amending the Charter of the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes
Office " (approved and took effect on September 24, 1979).
[5]
Sec. 9 of. E.O. No. 7, which is entitled "Directing the Rationalization of the
Compensation and Position Classification System in the Government-Owned and
Controlled Corporations (GOCCs) and Government Financial Institutions (GFIs), and
for Other Purposes" and issued on September 8, 2010, states:
[6]
SECTION 9. Moratorium on Increases in Salaries, Allowances, Incentives and Other

Benefits. - Moratorium on increases in the rates of salaries, and the grant of new or
increases in the rates of allowances, incentives and other benefits, except salary
adjustments pursuant to Executive Order No. 811 dated June 17, 2009 and
Executive Order No. 900 dated June 23, 2010, are hereby imposed until specifically
authorized by the President.
[7]
[8]
[9]
Rollo, pp. 35-36.

Id. at 36.
Id. at 39-42.
[10]
420 Phil. 102(2001).
[11]
430 Phil. 717(2002).
[12]
Rollo, pp. 91-92.
[13]
Id. at 79-86.
See Sections 2 and 4, in relation to Section 17 (g.), of P.D. No. 985 and Section
1, in relation to Section 5, of P.D. No. 1597.
[14]
[15]
366 Phil. 273 (1999).
Entitled "Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989" (took effect on

July 1, 1989)
[16]
[17]
444 Phil. 859(2003).
Phil. Retirement Authority (PRA) v. Buag, supra, at 869-871. (Citations

omitted).
[18]
See Phil. Retirement Authority (PRA) v. Buag, supra note 17, at 872-873. The
subject provision of Section 2 of P.D. No. 985 stated that notwithstanding a
standardized salary system established for all employees, additional financial
incentives may be established by government corporations and financial institutions
for their employees to be supported fully from their corporate funds and for such
technical positions as maybe approved by the President in critical government
agencies. Section 16 of the law provided for the creation of compensation
committees under the leadership of the Commissioner of the Budget, the purpose
of which is to recommend on compensation standards, policies, rules and
regulations that shall apply to critical government agencies, including those of
government-owned or controlled corporations and financial institutions.
[19]
This Act shall be applicable to all GOCCs, GICPs/GCEs, and government financial
institutions, including their subsidiaries, but excluding the Bangko Sentral ng
Pilipinas, state universities and colleges, cooperatives, local water districts,
economic zone authorities and research institutions: Provided, That in economic
zone authorities and research institutions, the President shall appoint one-third
(1/3) of the board members from the list submitted by the GCG. (Sec. 4, R.A. No.
10149).
[20]
[21]
Sec. 2 (f), R.A. No. 10149.
[22]
Sec. 5 (h), R.A. No. 10149.
[23]
Sec. 8, R.A. No. 10149.
[24]
Sec. 9, R.A. No. 10149.
ADOPTING A COMPENSATION AND POSITION CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM (CPCS)

AND A GENERAL INDEX OF OCCUPATIONAL SERVICES (IOS) FOR THE GOCC
SECTOR COVERED BY REPUBLIC ACT NO. 10149 AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.
[25]
[26]
Sec. 2, E.O No. 203.
[27]
Sec. 6, E.O No. 203.
Maritime Industry Authority v. Commission on Audit, 745 Phil. 300 (2015); Land
Bank of the Philippines v. Naval, G.R. No. 195687, April 14, 2014; Gutierrez, el al.
v. Dept. of Budget and Mgt., et al, 630 Phil. 1, 14 (2010); Bureau of Fisheries and
Aquatic Resources (BFAR) Employees Union v. Commission on Audit, 584 Phil. 132,
139 (2008); NAPOCOR Employees Consolidated Union (NECU) v. National Power
Corporation (NPC), 519 Phil. 372, 384 (2006); and National Tobacco Administration
v. COA, 370 Phil. 793, 805 (1999).
[28]
NAPOCOR Employees Consolidated Union (NECU) v. National Power Corporation

(NPC), supra.
[29]
See Maritime Industry Authority v. Commission on Audit, supra note 28,

and NAPOCOR Employees Consolidated Union (NECU) v. National Power
Corporation (NPC), supra note 20.
[30]

and Gutierrez, et al. v. Dept. of Budget and Mgt., et al, supra note 28, at 16.
[31]

and Gutierrez, et al. v. Dept. of Budget and Mgt., et al., supra note 28, at 16.
[32]
[33]
See Maritime Industry Authority v. Commission on Audit, supra note 28.
See Maritime Industry Authority v. Commission on Audit, supra note 28.

(Citations omitted).
[34]
National Tobacco Administration v. COA, supra note 28. (Citation omitted). See
also Maritime Industry Authority v. Commission on Audit, supra note 28; Bureau of
[35]
Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (BFAR) Employees Union v. Commission on Audit,

supra note 28, at 139-140; and Phil. International Trading Corp. v. COA, 461 Phil.
737, 747-748 (2003).
[36]
Supra note 28.
Gutierrez, et al. v. Dept. of Budget and Mgt., et al., supra note 28, at 16-17.
(Citations omitted).
[37]
[38]
G.R. No. 198935, November 27, 2013,711 SCRA 110.
[39]
Supra note 28.
[40]
Supra note 28.
[41]
Supra note 35.
[42]
Supra note 28.
Re: Request of CJ Narvasa (Ret.) for Re-computation of his Creditable

Government Service, 581 Phil. 272, 280 (2008), as cited in Galang v. Land Bank of
the Phils., 665 Phil. 37, 57 (2011).
[43]
[44]
[45 ]
Id.
DBM Budget Circular No. 12 dated April 7, 1997.
Maritime Industry Authority v. Commission on Audit, supra note 28. (Citations

omitted).
[46]
[47]
Abellanosa, et al. v. Commission on Audit, et al., 691 Phil. 589, 601 (2012).
[48]
See CIVIL CODE, Art. 7 Paragraph (3).
See Public Estates Authority v. Commission on Audit, 541 Phil. 412 (2007); Phil.
National Bank v. Palma, 503 Phil. 917 (2005); and Ambros v. Commission on Audit,
501 Phil. 255 (2005).
[49]
[50]
Abellanosa, et al. v. Commission on Audit, et al, supra note 47.
[51]
Phil. National Bank v. Palma, supra note 49, at 936.
[52]
See Silang v. Commission on Audit, G.R. No. 213189, September 8, 2015
and Maritime Industry Authority v. Commission on Audit, G.R. No. 185812, January
13, 2015.
Entitled "Rules and Regulations for the Implementation of the Revised
Compensation and Position Classification System Prescribed Under R.A. No. 6758
for Government-Owned and/or Controlled Corporations (GOCCS) and Financial
Institutions (GFIS)."
[53]
[54]
355 Phil. 584(1998).
National Home Mortgage Finance Corporation v. Abayari et al., 617 Phil. 446,
453 (2009), citing Magno v, Commission on Audit, 558 Phil. 76, 87 (2007).
[55]
Pursuant to Section 15 of E.O. No. 180 (entitled "Providing Guidelines for the
Exercise of the Right to Organize of Government Employees, Creating a Public
Sector Labor-Management Council, and for Other Purposes" and dated June 1,
1987).
[56]
PSLMC Resolution No. 2, s. 2003 is entitled "Grant of Collective Negotiation

Agreement (CNA) Incentive for Government Owned and Controlled Corporations
(GOCCs) and Government Financial Institutions (GFIs)." It was issued on May 19,
2003 and published in Manila Standard on June 4, 2003.
[57]
[58]
Phil. International Trading Corp. v. COA, supra note 35, at 751.
[59]
Id. at 750.

G.R.
No.
192488
BLUE EAGLE MANAGEMENT, INC., MA. AMELIA S. BONOAN, AND CARMELITA S. DELA RAMA, PETITIONERS, VS.
JOCELYN
April 19, 2016
L.
NAVAL,
RESPONDENT.
FIRST DIVISION
[ G.R. No. 192488, April 19, 2016 ]
BLUE EAGLE MANAGEMENT, INC., MA. AMELIA S. BONOAN,
AND CARMELITA S. DELA RAMA, PETITIONERS, VS. JOCELYN
L. NAVAL, RESPONDENT.
DECISION
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.:
Before the Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of
Court filed by petitioners Blue Eagle Management, Inc. (BEMI), Ma. Amelia S.
Bonoan (Bonoan), and Ma. Carmelita S. Dela Rama (Dela Rama), assailing the
Decision[1] dated March 11, 2010 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 106037.
The appellate court annulled and set aside the Decision[2] dated May 31, 2007 of the
National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) in NLRC NCR CA No. 051363-07 and
reinstated the Labor Arbiter's Decision[3] dated October 12, 2006 in NLRC-NCR Case
No. 00-03-01845-06 finding that respondent Jocelyn L. Naval was illegally
dismissed.
Petitioners and respondent presented two varying accounts of the circumstances
that gave rise to this case.
Petitioners' Account
Petitioner BEMI is a domestic corporation registered with the Philippine Securities
and Exchange Commission in 2004, with the primary purpose of establishing,
owning, operating, or managing a sports complex, and performing any and all acts
necessary and incidental to carrying out the same. It had an authorized capital
stock of P100,000.00, divided into 100,000 shares with P1.00 par value per share;
of which 25,000 shares worth P25,000.00 were subscribed and fully paid for as of
December 31, 2005. It commenced operation on January 2, 2005.
By virtue of a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA), finalized on September 29, 2006,
Ateneo de Manila University (ADMU), owner of the Moro Lorenzo Sports Center
(MLSC) located within the ADMU compound, gave petitioner BEMI the authority to
manage and operate the following businesses at MLSC: (a) sports clinic; (b) fitness
gym; (c) coffee shop; and (d) lease of basketball courts, badminton courts, locker
rooms/storage facilities, weight training room, track oval, martial arts deck, and
office spaces. Under the MOA, ADMU and petitioner BEMI agreed, among other
terms and conditions, that (a) petitioner BEMI would operate the businesses on its
own account and employ its own employees, secure the necessary business licenses
and permits under its name, and pay all taxes related to its operations under its
name; (b) profits or losses from operations would be for the account of petitioner
BEMI; (c) petitioner BEMI would be responsible for the costs of maintaining MLSC in
the same condition as it was when turned over by ADMU excluding ordinary wear
and tear; (d) petitioner BEMI would reimburse ADMU the costs of electrical, water,
telephone, and other utility charges, including the cost of installation fees and
deposits related thereto, which had been separately and exclusively used and
consumed by petitioner BEMI within MLSC; and (e) the agreement would be valid
for a period of three years commencing on October 1, 2006. Petitioner BEMI was
able to conduct its businesses at MLSC from January 2, 2005 to September 30,
2006 under a draft MOA, which was basically the same as the final MOA. [4] When
petitioner BEMI took over the operations of MLSC on January 2, 2005, it also
agreed to absorb all the employees of the previous operator.
Petitioners Bonoan and Dela Rama were then the General Manager [5] and Human
Resources (HR) Manager, respectively, of petitioner BEMI.
Respondent was hired on January 15, 2005 by petitioner BEMI as a member of its
maintenance staff.
During its first year of operation in 2005, petitioner BEMI suffered financial losses in
the total amount of P5,067,409.44. In an attempt to reduce its financial losses, the
Management of petitioner BEMI (Management) resolved sometime in January 2006
to decrease the operational expenses of the company. Since the gross income of
petitioner BEMI was not even enough to cover the costs of the salaries, wages, and
other benefits of its employees, one of the measures the Management intended to
implement was the downsizing of its workforce. Pursuant to such decision of the
Management, petitioners Bonoan and Dela Rama evaluated and identified several
employees who could be the subject of retrenchment proceedings, taking into
consideration the employees' positions and tenures at petitioner BEMI. After their
evaluation, petitioners Bonoan and Dela Rama identified five employees for
retrenchment, namely, Arvin A. Aluad, Alghie B. Domdom, Randell S. Esurena,
Edmund T. Tugay, and respondent. Respondent was included in the list because she
was one of the employees with the shortest tenures.
Before actually commencing retrenchment proceedings (scheduled to be completed
not later than March 31, 2006), petitioner Dela Rama separately met with each of
the five aforementioned employees between February 16 and 24, 2006 and
presented to them the option of resigning instead. The employees who would
choose to resign would no longer be required to report for work after their
resignation but would still be paid their full salary for February 2006 and their prorated 13th month pay, plus financial assistance in the amount of one month salary
for every year of service at petitioner BEMI. This option would also give the
employees free time to seek other employment while still receiving salary from
petitioner BEMI.
Petitioner Dela Rama, together with Ferdinand Chiongson (Chiongson), the officerin-charge of the maintenance staff, spoke to respondent on the morning of February
20, 2006. Petitioner Dela Rama and Chiongson presented to respondent her options
and gave her time to decide. Just several hours after the meeting, respondent
returned to petitioner Dela Rama's office and informed petitioner Dela Rama that
she would voluntarily resign. In petitioner Dela Rama's presence, respondent then
executed a resignation letter in her own handwriting. Respondent's resignation
letter was forwarded to and approved by petitioner Bonoan on the same day. The
other four employees identified for retrenchment similarly opted to voluntarily
resign and executed their respective resignation letters.
Since all the five employees identified for retrenchment decided to voluntarily
resign instead and avail themselves of the financial package offered by petitioner
BEMI, there was no more need for the company to initiate retrenchment
proceedings. The five employees were instructed to return on February 28, 2006 to
comply with the exit procedure of petitioner BEMI and receive the amounts due
them by reason of their voluntary resignation.
On February 28, 2006, the resigned employees, except for respondent, appeared at
the premises of petitioner BEMI, completed their exit procedures, received the
amounts due them, and executed release waivers and quitclaims in favor of
petitioner BEMI. Respondent's non-appearance on February 28, 2006 prompted
petitioner Bonoan to write her a letter dated March 1, 2006 stating that in
connection with respondent's voluntary resignation, she must comply with the exit
procedures of petitioner BEMI; and upon her completion thereof, she would receive
her separation pay, but less her P4,500.00 outstanding financial obligation [6] to the
company. The said letter was mailed to respondent on March 2, 2006.
Respondent appeared at petitioner Bonoan's office on March 3, 2006. Because
respondent was finding it difficult to find new employment, she asked if it was
possible for her to return to work for petitioner BEMI. However, petitioner Bonoan
replied that respondent's resignation had long been approved and that petitioner
BEMI would not be able to rehire respondent given the difficult financial position of
the company. Petitioner Bonoan advised respondent to just receive the amount she
was entitled to by reason of her voluntary resignation. Petitioner Bonoan also

attempted to furnish respondent with a copy of the letter dated March 1, 2006 but
after reading the contents of said letter, respondent refused to receive the same.
On the afternoon of March 3, 2006, respondent filed a complaint for illegal dismissal
against petitioners before the NLRC.
Respondent's Account
According to respondent, she was employed by petitioner BEMI on January 17,
2005 as maintenance staff. Respondent was assigned to the Gym Department with
the primary function of giving assistance to customers who were working-out or
performing aerobic exercises.
In December 2005, one Dr. Florendo, a regular customer, visited the gym to
exercise. As Dr. Florendo made her way to her favorite spot, she said to her
companion,"Andyan na naman yung mga referee." Dr. Florendo was referring to a
group of referees who were exercising on the other side of the gym and whose
presence apparently irked the doctor. As Dr. Florendo was working-out, someone
from the group of referees raised the volume of the television in the middle of the
gym. Irritated by the noise, Dr. Florendo ordered respondent to lower the volume of
the television, angrily uttering, "Ano ba yan? Bakit hindi nyo binabantayan" Dr.
Florendo then immediately complained to the gym manager.
Meanwhile, Mr. Ilagan, who headed the group of referees, approached respondent
to ask what was going on. Respondent relayed Dr. Florendo's complaint to Mr.
Ilagan. Mr. Ilagan wanted to know who among his group raised the volume of the
television, and upon respondent's suggestion, Mr. Ilagan directly approached Dr.
Florendo. Unfortunately, an argument erupted between Mr. Ilagan and Dr. Florendo.
Following the argument between the two customers, Dr. Florendo confronted
respondent and demanded to know why respondent divulged to Mr. Ilagan the
doctor's complaints against the group of referees. Dr. Florendo continued to berate
and insult respondent. Shocked by how Dr. Florendo was treating her, respondent
was unable to defend herself and could only cry. Dr. Florendo's parting words to
respondent were, "Ipatatanggal kita!"
Soon after, respondent was summoned before petitioner Dela Rama, the HR
Manager. Petitioner Dela Rama purportedly received a complaint from a customer
that respondent was not doing her work well, so petitioner Dela Rama would be
issuing a memorandum suspending respondent for three days starting January 3,
2006. Yet, after respondent served just one day of suspension on January 3, 2006,
petitioner Dela Rama already ordered respondent to return to work on January 4,
2006. Respondent was made to sign a document attesting that she was suspended
for only one day, and was also instructed to tell her co-employees that she was not
suspended and she merely took a leave of absence. Ever since respondent was
allowed to return to work, though, petitioner Dela Rama's attitude towards her had
completely become unpleasant. Petitioner Dela Rama was always critical of
respondent's work.
On February 20, 2006, respondent was called to a meeting with petitioner Dela
Rama and Ferdinand Tiongson (Tiongson).[7] During said meeting, Tiongson
informed respondent that petitioner BEMI needed to reduce its manpower as part of
the cost-cutting measures of the company, and respondent was a candidate for
termination. Respondent inquired if the reduction in manpower was legitimate, and
Tiongson, without directly answering respondent's question, warned respondent
against filing a complaint with the NLRC, lest she also put in jeopardy her husband's
employment, which happened to be connected with petitioner BEMI as well.
Respondent was then required to submit a handwritten resignation letter. Petitioner
Dela Rama gave respondent a piece of paper and dictated to the latter the contents
of her resignation letter, but respondent had her resignation letter typed on a
computer and printed. Petitioner Dela Rama insisted on a handwritten resignation
letter and refused to accept respondent's printed letter. Petitioner Dela Rama
additionally advised respondent to just do as she was instructed or she would not
receive anything from petitioner BEMI. Since respondent was already pregnant at
that time and afraid that her husband might also lose his job, respondent was
compelled to prepare the handwritten resignation letter as it was dictated by
petitioner Dela Rama and sign the said letter in petitioner Dela Rama's presence.
After respondent submitted her resignation letter, she was told that she still needed
to secure clearance before she could receive any amount from petitioner BEMI.
Because respondent really had no intention of resigning, she did not secure
clearance and claim any amount from petitioner BEMI, and instead, she filed with
the NLRC a complaint for illegal dismissal with prayer for reinstatement and
payment of backwages, damages, and attorney's fees.
Antecedent Proceedings
When conciliatory conferences were unsuccessful, the parties were directed to
submit their respective position papers.
The Labor Arbiter rendered a Decision on October 12, 2006 finding that respondent
was illegally dismissed. According to the Labor Arbiter, petitioners were not able to
prove that petitioner BEMI was suffering from serious business losses that would
have justified retrenchment of its employees. The Financial Statement of petitioner
BEMI for 2005 by itself was not sufficient and convincing proof of substantial losses
for it did not show whether the losses of the company increased or decreased
compared to previous years. Although petitioner BEMI posted a loss for 2005, it
could also be possible that such loss was considerably less than those previously
incurred, thereby indicating the improving condition of the company. As a result,
the Labor Arbiter held that respondent did not resign voluntarily. There was no
factual or legal basis for giving respondent the option to resign in lieu of the alleged
retrenchment to be implemented by petitioners. Respondent was obviously misled
into believing that there was ground for retrenchment. Respondent's resignation
letter also did not deserve much weight. The resignation letter of respondent had
uniform content as those of her four other co-employees. The assurances of
payment of salaries, separation pay, and 13th month pay at a given date were words
obviously coming from an employer. It was more of a quitclaim rather than a
resignation letter. And the mere fact that respondent protested her act of signing a
resignation letter by immediately filing a complaint for illegal dismissal against
petitioners negated the allegation that respondent voluntarily resigned. Thus, the
Labor Arbiter decreed:
WHEREFORE, the foregoing premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered,
declaring the dismissal of the [respondent] illegal and holding [petitioners] jointly
and severally liable for the following:
1. To reinstate the [respondent] to her former position without loss of seniority
rights and other benefits;
2. To pay [respondent's] full backwages from the time of her dismissal until
actual reinstatement which up to this time has amounted to Php76,972.33[;]
3. To pay [respondent's] moral and exemplary damages in the amount Ten
Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00)[; and]
4. To pay [respondent's] attorney's fee equivalent to 10% of the total monetary
award.[8]
Petitioners appealed before the NLRC. In its Decision dated May 31, 2007, the NLRC
found merit in petitioners' appeal for the following reasons:
In the case at bar, [petitioners] succeeded in persuading this Commission by
presenting its income tax return for the year 2005 and financial statements that the
company had incurred a net loss of three million two hundred ninety-three
thousand eight hundred sixteen pesos and 14/100 (P3,293,816.14) for the said
year. Such amount of loss is likewise indicated in the company's Balance Sheet
which was prepared by an independent auditor in September 2006. More
specifically, the Balance Sheet would show that the company's gross profit (revenue
less direct costs) in the amount of two million three hundred nineteen thousand
eight hundred thirty-two pesos and 39/100 (P2,319,832.39) was not even enough
to cover the amount of salaries, wages and other benefits of the employees in the
total amount of two million nine hundred sixty-nine thousand nine hundred eightysix pesos and 15/100 (P2,969,986.15). It must be noted that such amount
corresponding to salaries, wages and other benefits constitutes only an item in the
administrative expenses which need to be further deducted from the gross profit.
Thus, after deducting the administrative expenses from the gross profit, the
company showed a loss of more than P5,000,000.00.
While the company enjoys a tax benefit of more than one million pesos and its
actual net loss was reduced to P3,293,816.14, such amount is still considered as
substantial loss. In this regard, it was noted that the company has only one
hundred thousand (100,000.00) shares as its authorized capital stock with a par
value of one peso (PI .00) per share.
In connection herewith, [petitioners] correctly noted as baseless the Labor Arbiter's
pronouncement that the company's financial statement for [the] year 2005 does
not sufficiently prove that it already suffered actual serious losses since it failed to
present financial statements for the previous years. According to the Labor Arbiter,
such past statements may show an improvement in its condition. As justified
however by the company, its failure to present such financial statements for the
previous years was brought by the fact that it went on its first year of commercial
operations only in year 2005.
Considering the company's financial condition, We find good faith on its part when it
decided to implement a retrenchment program and see no basis to hold that it was
merely intended to defeat or circumvent the employees' right to security of tenure.
Such finding is further supported by the criterion of shortest tenure in service which
was used by the [petitioners] in determining the employees to be included in the
program.
The company could have implemented a valid retrenchment program had the five
(5) employees not opted to resign. Thus, [respondent] was neither deceived nor
coerced when she was offered to voluntarily resign instead of being included in the
program.[9]
Given its foregoing findings, the NLRC deemed the other issues in the case moot
and academic, viz.:
1. the suspension of the [respondent] which took place prior to the information that
the company is implementing a retrenchment program;
2. the similarity in the tenor of the resignation letters by the [respondent] and
some other resigned employees; and

3. it was only herein [respondent], among the five employees who opted to resign,
who filed a complaint against the [petitioners]. [10]
In the end, the NLRC adjudged:
The reversal of the assailed Decision is without prejudice to the right of the
[respondent] to claim her reinstatement wages as granted by the Labor Arbiter.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, [petitioners'] appeal is hereby GRANTED.
Accordingly, the assailed Decision is hereby SET ASIDE and A NEW ONE
ENTERED declaring [respondent] to have voluntarily resigned from her
employment.[11]
Respondent filed a Partial Motion for Reconsideration of the foregoing Decision but
said Motion was denied for lack of merit by the NLRC in a Resolution dated April 30,
2008.
This prompted respondent to file a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals,
averring grave abuse of discretion on the part of the NLRC when it reversed the
Labor Arbiter's Decision and declared that respondent voluntarily resigned.
Petitioners sought the dismissal of respondent's Petition for Certiorari, insisting that
respondent voluntarily opted to resign instead of being retrenched, as well as
raising procedural defects of the Petition, to wit: (a) respondent failed to indicate
the material dates that would show the timeliness of the Petition; (b) respondent
should have served a copy of the Petition on petitioners directly, not on petitioners'
counsel, because a special civil action under Rule 65 is an original action and not a
mere continuation of the proceedings before the NLRC; and (c) the Verification and
Certification of Non-Forum Shopping attached to the Petition was defective because
respondent's BEMI identification card (ID) was already invalid given that she was no
longer connected with the company, and it was also not a competent evidence of
identity as it was not issued by an official agency.
The Court of Appeals, in a Decision dated March 11, 2010, favored respondent.
To the Court of Appeals, the procedural defects of respondent's Petition
for Certiorari were not sufficient to warrant the dismissal of said Petition.
Respondent's failure to state the material dates under "Timeliness of the Petition"
could be excused considering that after perusal of the records of the case, the dates
of respondent's filing of her Partial Motion for Reconsideration of the NLRC Decision
(i.e., July 13, 2007) and receipt of the NLRC Resolution denying said Motion (i.e.,
June 11, 2008) could be respectively found under the "Nature of the Petition" and
paragraph 14 of the Petition. In addition, it was already well-settled in

jurisprudence that the application of technical rules of procedure may be relaxed to
serve the demands of substantial justice, particularly in labor cases. Further,
respondent had substantially complied with the requirement for competent
evidence of identity by using her Social Security System (SSS) ID in executing the
Verification and Certification of Non-Forum Shopping which she attached to her
Reply.
The Court of Appeals proceeded to rule on the substantive issues of the case, as
follows:
Evidently in this case, the [respondent] had no intention to resign from office had
she not been made to choose to resign or be one of the candidates for the planned
retrenchment program of the company. There could not be any reason for the
[respondent] to resign despite her allegation that she had not been treated well by
her superiors after the incident at the gym where she was suspended for one (1)
day, considering that the said employment was her only source of income and that
at that time, she was already 2 months pregnant. In fact, it is quite unbelievable
that [respondent] would voluntarily resign from work, knowing fully well that she
was only a candidate for the planned retrenchment and in such an event, would
eventually legally receive benefits thereunder.
Also, the fact that the [respondent] was forced to prepare a handwritten resignation
letter, with the words having been dictated to her by the HR Manager, casts doubt
on the voluntariness of the resignation. It bears stressing that whether it be by
redundancy or retrenchment or any of the other authorized causes, no employee
may be dismissed without observance of the fundamentals of good faith. Further,
even though the employer interposed the defense of resignation, it is still
incumbent upon the [petitioners] to prove that the employee voluntarily resigned.
As held in the earlier case of SMC v. NLRC:
"Even if private respondents were given the option to retire, be retrenched or
dismissed, they were made to understand that they had no choice but to leave the
company. More bluntly stated, they were forced to swallow the bitter pill of
dismissal but afforded a chance to sweeten their separation from employment. They
either had to voluntarily retire, be retrenched with benefits, or be dismissed without
receiving any benefit at all."
Similarly in this case, the [respondent] was given no choice but to relinquish her
employment, negating voluntariness in her act.
Moreover, as aptly argued by [respondent], her act of filing of a complaint for illegal
dismissal negates voluntary resignation. Well-entrenched is the rule that resignation
is inconsistent with the filing of a complaint for illegal dismissal. To be valid, the
resignation must be unconditional, with the intent to operate as such; there must
be a clear intention to relinquish the position. In this case, respondent actively
pursued her illegal dismissal case against [petitioners], such that she cannot be
said to have voluntarily resigned from her job.
Given the above disquisition, We hold that the Labor Arbiter correctly found the
[respondent] to have been illegally dismissed and her monetary claims must be
upheld.[12] (Citations omitted.)
The dispositive portion of the Court of Appeals Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED and the assailed decision is
hereby ANNULLED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, the Labor Arbiter's decision is
herebyREINSTATED.[13]
In a Resolution dated June 2, 2010, the Court of Appeals denied the Motion for
Reconsideration of petitioners.
Petitioners now come before the Court via the instant Petition for Review
on Certiorari based on the following assignment of errors:
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN NOT DISMISSING THE PETITION
OF RESPONDENT DESPITE ITS FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH RULES OF PROCEDURE.
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN GRANTING THE PETITION OF
RESPONDENT DESPITE THE ABSENCE OF ANY FINDING OF GRAVE ABUSE OF
DISCRETION ON THE PART OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION.[14]
Ruling of the Court
There is merit in the present Petition.
On the matter of procedure, the Court of Appeals should have, at the outset,
dismissed respondent's Petition for Certiorari in CA-G.R. SP No. 106037 for failure
to state material dates.
A petition for certiorari must be filed within the prescribed periods under Section 4,
Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, as amended:
Section 4. When and where to file the petition. - The petition shall be filed not later
than sixty (60) days from notice of the judgment, order or resolution. In case a
motion for reconsideration or new trial is timely filed, whether such motion is
required or not, the petition shall be filed not later than sixty (60) days counted
from the notice of the denial of the motion.
For the purpose of determining whether or not a petition for certiorari was timely
filed, Section 3, Rule 46 of the Rules of Court, as amended, requires the petition
itself to state the material dates:
SEC. 3. Contents and filing of petition; effect of non-compliance with
requirements. - x x x
In actions filed under Rule 65, the petition shall further indicate the material
dates showing when notice of the judgment or final order or resolution subject
thereof was received, when a motion for new trial or reconsideration, if any, was
filed and when notice of the denial thereof was received.
xxxx
The failure of the petitioner to comply with any of the foregoing requirements shall
be sufficient ground for the dismissal of the petition.
(Emphases supplied.)
The Court, in Vinuya v. Romulo,[15] expounded on the importance of stating the
material dates in a petition for certiorari:
As the rule indicates, the 60-day period starts to run from the date petitioner
receives the assailed judgment, final order or resolution, or the denial of the motion
for reconsideration or new trial timely filed, whether such motion is required or not.
To establish the timeliness of the petition for certiorari, the date of receipt of the
assailed judgment, final order or resolution or the denial of the motion for
reconsideration or new trial must be stated in the petition; otherwise, the petition
for certiorari must be dismissed. The importance of the dates cannot be
understated, for such dates determine the timeliness of the filing of the petition
for certiorari. As the Court has emphasized in Tambong v. R. Jorge Development
Corporation:
There are three essential dates that must be stated in a petition
for certiorari brought under Rule 65. First, the date when notice of the judgment or
final order or resolution was received; second, when a motion for new trial or
reconsideration was filed; and third, when notice of the denial thereof was
received. Failure of petitioner to comply with this requirement shall be
sufficient ground for the dismissal of the petition. Substantial compliance
will not suffice in a matter involving strict observance with the

Rules. (Emphasis supplied)
The Court has further said in Santos v. Court of Appeals:
The requirement of setting forth the three (3) dates in a petition for certiorari under
Rule 65 is for the purpose of determining its timeliness. Such a petition is required
to be filed not later than sixty (60) days from notice of the judgment, order
or Resolution sought to be assailed. Therefore, that the petition for certiorari was
filed forty-one (41) days from receipt of the denial of the motion for reconsideration
is hardly relevant. The Court of Appeals was not in any position to determine when
this period commenced to run and whether the motion for reconsideration itself was
filed on time since the material dates were not stated. It should not be assumed
that in no event would the motion be filed later than fifteen (15) days. Technical
rules of procedure are not designed to frustrate the ends of justice. These are
provided to effect the proper and orderly disposition of cases and thus effectively
prevent the clogging of court dockets. Utter disregard of the Rules cannot justly be
rationalized by harking on the policy of liberal construction. (Citations omitted.)
In respondent's Petition for Certiorari before the Court of Appeals, there was only
one paragraph under the heading of "Timeliness of the Petition," which alleged:
The undersigned counsel received a copy of the decision of the Honorable
Commission denying the [respondent's] Motion for Reconsideration on April 30,
2008. Hence, [respondent had] 60 days from notice of the judgment within which
to file a petition for certiorari pursuant to Sec. 4 of Rule 65. [16]
The aforequoted paragraph in respondent's Petition for Certiorari not only failed to
state all the material dates required by the Rules, but it also erroneously claimed
that April 30, 2008 was the date respondent received the NLRC Resolution denying
her Motion for Partial Reconsideration, when actually, it was the date said
Resolution was issued. Respondent's Petition for Certiorari was totally silent as to
the date when respondent received a copy of the NLRC Decision dated May 31,
2007; while it could be culled from other parts of the Petition that respondent filed
her Motion for Partial Reconsideration of the NLRC Decision on July 13, 2007 and
received the NLRC Resolution dated April 30, 2008 denying said Motion on June 11,
2008.
Absent the date when respondent received the NLRC Decision dated May 31, 2007,
there is no way to determine whether respondent's Motion for Partial
Reconsideration of the same was timely filed. A late motion for reconsideration
would render the decision or resolution subject thereof already final and executory.
Still, respondent argues that her receipt of the NLRC Decision dated May 31, 2007
on July 4, 2007 was stated in her Partial Motion for Reconsideration, which was
attached to her Petition for Certiorari.
It is true that in a number of cases, the Court relaxed the application of procedural
rules in the interest of substantial justice. Nevertheless, the Court is also guided
accordingly in this case by its declarations in Sebastian v. Morales[17]:
Under Rule 1, Section 6 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, liberal construction of
the rules is the controlling principle to effect substantial justice. Thus, litigations
should, as much as possible, be decided on their merits and not on technicalities.
This does not mean, however, that procedural rules are to be ignored or disdained
at will to suit the convenience of a party. Procedural law has its own rationale in the
orderly administration of justice, namely, to ensure the effective enforcement of
substantive rights by providing for a system that obviates arbitrariness, caprice,
despotism, or whimsicality in the settlement of disputes. Hence, it is a mistake to
suppose that substantive law and procedural law are contradictory to each other, or
as often suggested, that enforcement of procedural rules should never be permitted
if it would result in prejudice to the substantive rights of the litigants.
Litigation is not a game of technicalities, but every case must be prosecuted in
accordance with the prescribed procedure so that issues may be properly presented
and justly resolved. Hence, rules of procedure must be faithfully followed except
only when for persuasive reasons, they may be relaxed to relieve a litigant of an
injustice not commensurate with his failure to comply with the prescribed
procedure. Concomitant to a liberal application of the rules of procedure should be
an effort on the part of the party invoking liberality to explain his failure to abide by
the rules. (Citations omitted.)
Respondent herein made no effort at all to explain her failure to state all the
material dates in her Petition for Certiorari before the Court of Appeals. The bare
invocation of "the interest of substantial justice" is not a magic wand that will
automatically compel the Court to suspend procedural rules. [18] Absent compelling
reason to disregard the Rules, the Court of Appeals should have had no other
choice but to enforce the same by dismissing the noncompliant Petition.
There is also basis for granting the Petition at bar on substantive grounds.
The pivotal substantive issue in this case is whether or not respondent was illegally
dismissed; which depends on the question of whether or not respondent's
resignation was voluntary.
The Labor Arbiter held (and the Court of Appeals subsequently affirmed) that
respondent's resignation was involuntary as she only resigned after being deceived
into believing that her removal through retrenchment was inevitable, as well as
after being threatened that her husband's employment would also be at risk if she
did not submit her handwritten resignation letter. The NLRC though found that
respondent, faced with retrenchment, opted to voluntarily resign and avail herself
of the financial package petitioners offered.
Evidently, the instant Petition involves questions of fact that require the Court to
review and re-examine the evidence on record. Generally, the Court does not
review errors that raise factual questions. However, when there is conflict among
the factual findings of the antecedent deciding bodies like the Labor Arbiter, the
NLRC, and the Court of Appeals, it is proper, in the exercise of the equity
jurisdiction of the Court, to review and re-evaluate the factual issues and to look
into the records of the case and re-examine the questioned findings. [19]
The Court defined "resignation" in Chiang Kai Shek College v. Torres,[20] thus:
Resignation is the voluntary act of an employee who is in a situation where one
believes that personal reasons cannot be sacrificed for the favor of employment,
and opts to leave rather than stay employed. It is a formal pronouncement or
relinquishment of an office, with the intention of relinquishing the office
accompanied by the act of relinquishment. As the intent to relinquish must concur
with the overt act of relinquishment, the acts of the employee before and after the
alleged resignation must be considered in determining whether, he or she, in fact,
intended to sever his or her employment. (Citation omitted.)
For the resignation of an employee to be a viable defense in an action for illegal
dismissal, an employer must prove that the resignation was voluntary, and its
evidence thereon must be clear, positive, and convincing. The employer cannot rely
on the weakness of the employee's evidence.[21]
In this case, petitioners, as employers, were able to present sufficient evidence to
establish that respondent's resignation was voluntary.
As borne out by the Financial Statements for 2005 of petitioner BEMI, there was
ground for the company to implement a retrenchment of its employees at the time
respondent resigned.
Under Article 283[22] of Presidential Decree No. 442, otherwise known as the Labor
Code of the Philippines, as amended, retrenchment is one of the authorized causes
for termination of employment which the law accords an employer who is not
making good in its operations in order to cut back on expenses for salaries and
wages by laying off some employees. The purpose of retrenchment is to save a
financially ailing business establishment from eventually collapsing. [23] The
requirements for a valid retrenchment were laid down in Asian Alcohol Corporation
v. National Labor Relations Commission[24]:
The requirements for valid retrenchment which must be proved by clear and
convincing evidence are: (1) that the retrenchment is reasonably necessary and
likely to prevent business losses which, if already incurred, are not merely de
minimis, but substantial, serious, actual and real, or if only expected, are
reasonably imminent as perceived objectively and in good faith by the employer;
(2) that the employer served written notice both to the employees and to the
Department of Labor and Employment at least one month prior to the intended date
of retrenchment; (3) that the employer pays the retrenched employees separation
pay equivalent to one month pay or at least 1/2 month pay for every year of
service, whichever is higher; (4) that the employer exercises its prerogative to
retrench employees in good faith for the advancement of its interest and not to
defeat or circumvent the employees' right to security of tenure; and (5) that the
employer used fair and reasonable criteria in ascertaining who would be dismissed
and who would be retained among the employees, such as status (i.e., whether
they are temporary, casual, regular or managerial employees), efficiency, seniority,
physical fitness, age, and financial hardship for certain workers. (Citations omitted.)
Proof of financial losses becomes the determining factor in proving the legitimacy of
retrenchment. In establishing a unilateral claim of actual or potential losses,
financial statements audited by independent external auditors constitute the normal
method of proof of profit and loss performance of a company. The condition of
business losses justifying retrenchment is normally shown by audited financial
documents like yearly balance sheets and profit and loss statements as well as
annual income tax returns.[25] In Hotel Enterprises of the Philippines, Inc., owner of
Hyatt Regency Manila v. Samahan ng mga Manggagawa sa Hyatt-National Union of
Workers in the Hotel and Restaurant and Allied Industries (SAMASAH-NUWHRAIN),
[26]
the Court affirmed the credence and weight accorded to audited financial
statements as proof of the financial standing of a corporation:
Losses or gains of a business entity cannot be fully and satisfactorily assessed by
isolating or highlighting only a particular part of its financial report. There are
recognized accounting principles and methods by which a company's performance
can be objectively and thoroughly evaluated at the end of every fiscal or calendar
year. What is important is that the assessment is accurately reported, free from any
manipulation of figures to suit the company's needs, so that the company's actual
financial condition may be impartially and accurately gauged.
The audit of financial reports by independent external auditors is strictly governed
by national and international standards and regulations for the accounting
profession. It bears emphasis that the financial statements submitted by petitioner
were audited by a reputable auditing firm and are clear and substantial enough to
prove that the company was in a precarious financial condition. (Citation omitted.)
Petitioners submitted the Annual Income Tax Return and Financial Statements for
2005 of petitioner BEMI. Said Financial Statements of petitioner BEMI were audited
by Armando J. Jimenez, a Certified Public Accountant (CPA) and independent
auditor, whose credibility was never contested by respondent.
That petitioners were not able to present financial statements for years prior to
2005 should not be automatically taken against them. Petitioner BEMI was
organized and registered as a corporation in 2004 and started business operations
in 2005 only. While financial statements for previous years may be material in
establishing the financial trend for an employer, these are not indispensable in all
cases of retrenchment. The evidence required for each case of retrenchment will
still depend on its particular circumstances. In fact, in Revidad v. National Labor
Relations Commission,[27] the Court declared that "proof of actual financial losses
incurred by the company is not a condition sine qua non for retrenchment," and
retrenchment may be undertaken by the employer to prevent even future losses:
In its ordinary connotation, the phrase "to prevent losses" means that retrenchment
or termination of the services of some employees is authorized to be undertaken by
the employer sometime before the anticipated losses are actually sustained or
realized. It is not, in other words, the intention of the lawmaker to compel the
employer to stay his hand and keep all his employees until after losses shall have in
fact materialized. If such an intent were expressly written into the law, that law
may well be vulnerable to constitutional attack as unduly taking property from one
man to be given to another.
The Statement of Income[28] of petitioner BEMI for 2005 showed net loss in the
amount of P3,293,816.14, computed as follows:
REVENUES
DIRECT COSTS
GROSS PROFIT
ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES
LOSS BEFORE TAX
TAX BENEFIT - NOLCO
NET LOSS
13,109,653.19
10,789,820.80
2,319,832.39
7,387,241.83
(5,067,409.44)
1,773,593.30
(3,293,816.14)
Irrefragably, such loss was actual and substantial for a newly-established

corporation during its first year of operation, and there is no showing that such loss
would abate in the near future. By year end of 2005, the stockholders of petitioner
BEMI had to infuse cash advances amounting to P7,361,743.30 to cover the deficit
of P3,293,816.14 just so the company could continue its operations. [29] Actually,
petitioner BEMI continued to suffer loss in 2006 which compelled it to close its
coffee shop at MLSC by August 31, 2006.[30]
Petitioner BEMI had to act swiftly and decisively to avert its loss since its MOA with
ADMU for the conduct of its business at MLSC was for a period of only a little over
three years. The retrenchment of employees appears to be a practical course of
action for petitioner BEMI to prevent more losses considering that: (1) among the
direct costs of the company in 2005, the salaries of its coffee shop and gym
employees was the highest item, totaling P3,791,671.81; and (2) as the NLRC
pointed out, the gross profit of the company amounting to P2,319,832.39 was not
even sufficient to cover its administrative employees' salaries and wages in the
amount of P2,969,986.15, not to mention other administrative expenses. The Court
also bears in mind that petitioner BEMI had to absorb all the employees of the
previous operator when it took over the business.
The evaluation and identification of the employees to be retrenched were jointly
undertaken by petitioners Bonoan and Dela Rama, as the General Manager and HR
Manager, respectively, of petitioner BEMI, based on fair and reasonable criteria, i.e.,
the employees' positions and tenures at the company. Respondent was included in
the final list of five employees to be retrenched because she was one of the
employees with the shortest tenures. That there were four other employees of
petitioner BEMI who were to be retrenched and similarly offered the option of
resigning in exchange for a more favorable financial package refutes respondent's
insinuation of a scheme by petitioners to remove her because of Dr. Florendo's
complaint against her for the incident that took place in December 2005.
Because the five employees to be retrenched opted to voluntarily resign instead and
avail themselves of the financial package offered, there was no more need for
petitioner BEMI to comply with the notice requirement to the Department of Labor
and Employment. Said five employees were to receive more benefits than what the
law prescribed in case of retrenchment, particularly: (a) full salary for February
2006 although they were no longer required to report to work after submission of
their resignation letters in mid-February 2006; (b) pro-rated 13 th month pay; and
(c) financial assistance equivalent to one-month salary for every year of service.
The foregoing circumstances persuade the Court that no fraud or deception was
employed upon respondent to resign because petitioner BEMI was indeed about to
implement in good faith a retrenchment of its employees in order to advance its
interest and not merely to defeat or circumvent the respondent's right to security of
tenure.
Petitioners, moreover, were able to present respondent's resignation letter, written
and signed in her own hand, the material portion of which is reproduced below:
Ako ay magbibitiw sa akingposition bilang maintenance personnel sa Feb. 28, 2006.

Makukuha ko ang aking huling sweldo sa Feb. 28, 2006. At makukuha ko ang aking
separation pay at pro-rated 13' month pay sa Mar so 2006. [31]
Both the Labor Arbiter and the Court of Appeals invoked the oft-repeated ruling of
the Court that resignation is inconsistent with the filing of the complaint for illegal
dismissal.[32] However, the employee's filing of the complaint for illegal dismissal by
itself is not sufficient to disprove that said employee voluntarily resigned. There
must be other attendant circumstances and/or submitted evidence which would
raise a cloud of doubt as to the voluntariness of the resignation.
In the present case, respondent's actions were more consistent with an intentional
relinquishment of her position pursuant to an agreement reached with petitioners.
After respondent submitted her resignation letter on February 20, 2006, she no
longer reported for work. There is no showing that respondent, before March 3,
2006, made any attempt to contest her resignation, or to report for work but was
prevented from doing so by petitioners. Respondent appeared at the premises of
petitioner BEMI on March 3, 2006 when, as stated in her resignation letter, her
salary for February 2006 and other benefits would have already been available for
release. Respondent, unable to find new employment, merely took the chance of
requesting to be rehired by petitioner BEMI and when she was refused, belatedly
decried illegal dismissal.
According to respondent, during her meeting with petitioner Dela Rama and
Chiongson/Tiongson on February 20, 2006, she was threatened that if she did not
follow instructions and execute a handwritten resignation letter, her husband's
employment would also be in jeopardy.
The Court is not swayed.
Aside from respondent's bare allegations, there is no proof of such threat ever
being made. While respondent claimed that her husband's employment was also
connected with petitioner BEMI, she did not provide any other details. Without such
details, there is no basis for determining the extent of control or influence
petitioners actually had over the employment of respondent's husband as to make
said threat plausible. Therefore, it could not be said that respondent's consent to
execute the resignation letter was vitiated by coercion or intimidation. Pertinent
herein are the findings made by the Court in Gan v. Galderma Philippines, Inc.
[33]
that:
Gari could not have been coerced. Coercion exists when there is a reasonable or
well-grounded fear of an imminent evil upon a person or his property or upon the
person or property of his spouse, descendants or ascendants. Neither do the facts
of this case disclose that Gan was intimidated. In St. Michael Academy v. NLRC, we
enumerated the requisites for intimidation to vitiate one's consent, thus:
x x x (1) that the intimidation caused the consent to be given; (2) that the
threatened act be unjust or unlawful; (3) that the threat be real or serious, there
being evident disproportion between the evil and the resistance which all men can
offer, leading to the choice of doing the act which is forced on the person to do as
the lesser evil; and (4) that it produces a well-grounded fear from the fact that the
person from whom it comes has the necessary means or ability to inflict the
threatened injury to his person or property x x x.
The instances of "harassment" alleged by Gan are more apparent than real. Aside
from the need to treat his accusations with caution for being self-serving due to
lack of substantial documentary or testimonial evidence to corroborate the same,
the acts of "harassment," if true, do not suffice to be considered as "peculiar
circumstances" material to the execution of the subject resignation letter. (Citations
omitted.)
It is inconsequential that the contents of respondent's resignation letter was
dictated by petitioner Dela Rama and, per the Labor Arbiter's observation, reads
more of a quitclaim rather than a resignation letter, for as long as respondent wrote
down and signed said letter by her own volition. In Samaniego v. National Labor
Relations Commission,[34] the Court accorded weight to the resignation letters of the
employees because although said letters were prepared by the company, the
employees signed the same voluntarily. Granted that the employees
in Samaniego were managerial employees, while respondent in the present case
was a rank and file employee, the financial situation of petitioner BEMI, the need for
retrenchment, and the option to voluntarily resign and the financial package which
respondent could avail herself of were duly explained to respondent during the
meeting on February 20, 2006; and respondent's resignation letter was in Filipino,
using simple terms which could be easily understood.
Furthermore, even if said resignation letter also constituted a quitclaim, respondent
cannot simply renege on the same. The Court once more quotes from Asian Alcohol
Corporation:
Finally, private respondents now claim that they signed the quitclaims, waivers and
voluntary resignation letters only to get their separation package. They maintain
that in principle, they did not believe that their dismissal was valid.
It is true that this Court has generally held that quitclaims and releases are
contrary to public policy and therefore, void. Nonetheless, voluntary agreements
that represent a reasonable settlement are binding on the parties and should not
later be disowned. It is only where there is clear proof that the waiver was wangled
from an unsuspecting or gullible person, or the terms of the settlement are
unconscionable, that the law will step in to bail out the employee. While it is our
duty to prevent the exploitation of employees, it also behooves us to protect the
sanctity of contracts that do not contravene our laws.
In the case at bar, there is no showing that the quitclaims, waivers and voluntary
resignation letters were executed by the private respondents under force or duress.
In truth, the documents embodied separation benefits that were well beyond what
the company was legally required to give private respondents. We note that out of
more than one hundred workers that were retrenched by Asian Alcohol, only these
six (6) private respondents were not impressed by the generosity of their employer.
Their late complaints have no basis and deserve our scant consideration. [35]
As a final note in this case, it is worthy to reiterate the following pronouncements of
the Court in Solidbank Corporation v. National Labor Relations Commission [36]:
Withal, the law, in protecting the rights of the laborers, authorizes neither
oppression nor self-destruction of the employer. While the Constitution is committed
to the policy of social justice and the protection of the working class, it should not
be supposed that every labor dispute will be automatically decided in favor of labor.
The management also has its own rights, as such, are entitled to respect and
enforcement in the interest of simple fair play. Out of its concern for those with less
privileges in life, the Supreme Court has inclined more often than not toward the
worker and upheld his cause in his conflicts with the employer. Such favoritism,
however, has not blinded the Court to the rule that justice is in every case for the
deserving, to be dispensed in the light of the established facts and applicable law
and doctrine. (Citation omitted.)
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant Petition for Review
on Certiorari is GRANTED. The Decision dated March 11, 2010 and Resolution
dated June 2, 2010 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 106037
are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Decision dated May 31, 2007 of the National
Labor Relations Commission in NLRC NCR CA No. 051363-07 is REINSTATED.
SO ORDERED.
Sereno, C.J., (Chairperson), Bersamin, Perlas-Bernabe, and Caguioa, JJ., concur.
Rollo, pp. 26-39; penned by Associate Justice Romeo F. Barza with Associate
Justices Magdangal M. de Leon and Ruben C. Ayson concurring.
[1]
[2]
Id. at 40-46; penned by Commissioner Romeo L. Go with Presiding Commissioner
Gerardo C. Nograles and Commissioner Perlita B. Velasco concurring.

[3]
Id. at 136-145; penned by Labor Arbiter Virginia T. Luyas-Azarraga.
[4]
Id. at 62-63.
Petitioner Bonoan eventually became the Vice President for Operations of

petitioner BEMI.
[5]
A loan extended to respondent by petitioner BEMI but remained unpaid as of

respondent's resignation.
[6]
Presumably the same Ferdinand Chiongson referred to by the petitioners, there

being a difference only in the spelling of the person's surname.
[7]
[8]
Rollo, pp. 144-145.
[9]
Id. at 43-44.
[10]
Id. at 44-45.
[11]
Id. at 45.
[12]
Id. at 36-38.
[13]
Id. at 38-39.
[14]
Id. at 11.
[15]
G.R. No. 162230, August 12, 2014, 732 SCRA 595, 605-606.
[16]
CA rollo, p. 3.
[17]
445 Phil. 595, 605 (2003).
[18]
Bergonia v. Court of Appeals, 680 Phil. 334, 343 (2012).
[19]
Javier v. Fly Ace Corporation/Flordelyn Castillo, 682 Phil. 359, 371 (2012).
[20]
G.R. No. 189456, April 2, 2014, 720 SCRA 424, 434.
DM. Consunji Corporation v. Bello, G.R. No. 159371, July 29, 2013, 702 SCRA
347, 358.
[21]
ART. 283. Closure of establishment and reduction of personnel. - The employer

may also terminate the employment of any employee due to the installation of
labor-saving devices, redundancy, retrenchment to prevent losses or the closing or
cessation of operation of the establishment or undertaking unless the closing is for
the purpose of circumventing the provisions of this Title, by serving a written notice
on the worker and the Ministry of Labor and Employment at least one (1) month
before the intended date thereof. In case of termination due to the installation of
labor-saving devices or redundancy, the worker affected thereby shall be entitled to
a separation pay equivalent to at least his one (1) month pay or to at least one (1)
month pay for every year of service, whichever is higher. In case of retrenchment
to prevent losses and in cases of closures or cessation of operations of
establishment or undertaking not due to serious business losses or financial
reverses, the separation pay shall be equivalent to one (1) month pay or at least
one-half (1/2) month pay for every year of service, whichever is higher. A fraction
of at least six (6) months shall be considered one (1) whole year.
[22]
J.A.T. General Services v. National Labor Relations Commission, 465 Phil 785
794 (2004).
[23]
[24]
364 Phil. 912, 926-927 (1999).
[25]
Waterfront Cebu City Hotel v. Jimenez, 687 Phil. 171, 182 (2012).
[26]
606 Phil. 490, 506-507 (2009).
[27]
315 Phil. 372, 390(1995).
[28]
Rollo, p. 59.
[29]
Id. at 63.
[30]
Id. at 71.
[31]
Id. at 73.
[32]
Magis Young Achievers' Learning Center v. Manalo, 598 Phil. 886, 905 (2009).
[33]
701 Phil. 612, 640-641 (2013).
[34]
275 Phil. 126, 134 (1991).
[35]
Asian Alcohol Corporation v. National Labor Relations Commission, supra note
24 at 933-934.
[36]
631 Phil. 158, 174 (2010).

G.R.
No.
210273
BIBIANO C. RIVERA AND LUIS K. LOKIN, JR., PETITIONERS, VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS (COMELEC), THE
SECRETARY-GENERAL OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SHERWIN N. TUGNA AND CINCHONA C. CRUZGONZALES,
RESPONDENTS.
[G.R.
NO.
213069]
CITIZENS' BATTLE AGAINST CORRUPTION (CIBAC) FOUNDATION AS REPRESENTED BY JESUS EMMANUEL L. VARGAS,
PETITIONER, VS. CIBAC NATIONAL COUNCIL AS REPRESENTED BY EMMANUEL JOEL VILLANUEVA, AND THE
COMMISSION
ON
ELECTIONS
(COMELEC),
RESPONDENTS.
April 19, 2016
EN BANC
[ G.R. No. 210273, April 19, 2016 ]
BIBIANO C. RIVERA AND LUIS K. LOKIN, JR., PETITIONERS,
VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS (COMELEC), THE
SECRETARY-GENERAL OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
SHERWIN N. TUGNA AND CINCHONA C. CRUZ-GONZALES,
RESPONDENTS.
[G.R. NO. 213069]
CITIZENS' BATTLE AGAINST CORRUPTION (CIBAC)

FOUNDATION AS REPRESENTED BY JESUS EMMANUEL L.
VARGAS, PETITIONER, VS. CIBAC NATIONAL COUNCIL AS
REPRESENTED BY EMMANUEL JOEL VILLANUEVA, AND THE
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS (COMELEC), RESPONDENTS.
DECISION
REYES, J.:
Before the Court are two petitions assailing the legitimacy of Citizens' Battle Against
Corruption (CIBAC) Party-List's representation. One is a petition
for certiorari[1]under Rule 64 in relation to Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, docketed
as G.R. No. 210273, filed by Bibiano C. Rivera (Rivera) and Luis K. Lokin, Jr. (Luis),
alleged lawful nominees of the CIBAC Party-List, against the Commission on
Elections (COMELEC). The second is a petition for quo warranto[2] under Rule 66 of
the Rules of Court, docketed as G.R. No. 213069, filed by CIBAC Foundation, Inc.
against the CIBAC National Council and COMELEC. Upon the recommendation of the
Clerk of Court en banc in its Memorandum[3] dated February 15, 2016, the Court in
a Resolution dated February 23, 2016 resolved to consolidate [4] the petitions.
Antecedent Facts
On February 10, 2001, CIBAC was registered as a multi-sectoral party with the
COMELEC under Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7941, otherwise known as the Party-List
System Act.[5]
On April 18, 2012, Emmanuel Joel J. Villanueva (Villanueva), CIBAC National
Council's Chairman and President, submitted to COMELEC a "Manifestation of Intent
to Participate in the Party-List System of Representation in the May 13, 2013
Elections" as well as a "Certificate of Nomination" containing the following nominees
to represent CIBAC in the House of Representatives: [6]
1. Sherwin N. Tugna
2. Cinchona C. Cruz-Gonzales
3. Armi Jane R. Borje
4. Virginia S. Jose, and
5. Stanley Clyde C. Flores
On May 31, 2012, CIBAC Foundation, headed by Maria Blanca Kim Bernardo-Lokin
(Maria Blanca), who claimed to be CIBAC's President, also submitted a
"Manifestation of Intent to Participate in the Party-List System of Representation in
the May 13, 2013 Elections"[7] and a "Certificate of Nomination"[8] of the following
persons as CIBAC's nominees:
1. Luis K. Lokin, Jr.
2. Bibiano C. Rivera, Jr.
3. Antonio P. Manahan, Jr.
4. Teresita F. Planas, and
5. Jesus Emmanuel L. Vargas
On September 3, 2012, the COMELEC conducted a summary hearing, pursuant to

its Resolution No. 9513 dated August 2, 2012, to settle the issue of whose
nominees should represent CIBAC in the 2013 elections. [9] Villanueva's group filed a
Motion for Clarificatory Judgment,[10] dated April 30, 2013, claiming that Maria
Blanca was neither CIBAC's President nor a member of its National Council; and
that it was CIBAC National Council which, on March 28, 2012, resolved to authorize
its President or Secretary-General to sign and submit all necessary documents to
signify its participation in the May 2013 elections.[11]
Maria Blanca's group filed its Comment/Opposition[12] on May 29, 2013, insisting
that: (1) CIBAC National Council has been superseded by the Board of Trustees
(BOT) of the CIBAC Foundation, following the latter's registration with the Securities
and Exchange Commission (SEC) as a non-stock foundation in 2003; (2) since
CIBAC National Council is now non-existent, CIBAC's true and legitimate President
who has been duly authorized by its BOT to file its Certificate of Nomination for the
May 2013 elections is Maria Blanca and not Villanueva; and (3) Pia B. Derla (Derla),
CIBAC's Secretary-General, was duly authorized to file the Manifestation of Intent
to Participate in the Party-List System of Representation in the May 2013 elections.
On June 5, 2013, CIBAC was proclaimed as one of the winning party-list groups in
the May 2013 elections and was given two seats in the House of Representatives.
[13]
Consequently, CIBAC National Council nominees Sherwin N. Tugna[14] (Tugna) and
Cinchona C. Cruz-Gonzales[15] (Gonzales) were sworn in by House Speaker Feliciano
Belmonte, Jr. as party-list members of the House of Representatives representing
CIBAC.
In the meantime, the COMELEC issued the National Board of Canvassers (NBOC)
Resolution No. 0011-13[16] dated June 5, 2013 recognizing as CIBAC's nominees
those names listed in its Certificate of Nomination dated April 18, 2012, without
expressly resolving Villanueva's clarificatory motion. Thereafter, the COMELEC
issued, on July 10, 2013, the second assailed NBOC Resolution No. 001313[17] ruling as moot the "Manifestation and Motion for Proclamation as First
Nominee of CIBAC" filed by Luis.
G.R. No. 210273
On December 20, 2013, Rivera and Luis filed a petition for certiorari,[18] docketed as
G.R. No. 210273, seeking to nullify the assailed COMELEC resolutions. They claimed
that they were served a certified copy of NBOC Resolution No. 0011-13 only on
November 21, 2013, after they had requested the COMELEC for a copy thereof on
November 14 2013.
Rivera and Luis argued that: (1) the registration of CIBAC with the SEC as CIBAC
Foundation was precisely intended to forestall questions raised in the past as to its
qualification to participate in the party-list election as a multi-sectoral party; [19] (2)
CIBAC National Council has become "defunct", having been replaced by the BOT of
CIBAC Foundation since its registration with the SEC in 2003; [20] (3) pursuant to
Section 6(7) of R.A. No. 7941, CIBAC National Council has lost its authority to
represent CIBAC in the COMELEC;[21] and (4) it was, in fact, the SEC-registered
CIBAC which had been participating in the 2004 and 2007 party-list elections, and
not the CIBAC National Council.[22]
To support their petition, Rivera and Luis invoke the consolidated cases of Lokin, Jr.
v. COMELEC, et al.[23] (consolidated Lokin case), where the Court annulled the
proclamation of Gonzales, nominated by Villanueva's group as a CIBAC party-list
representative in the 15th Congress, and ordered the proclamation of Luis as its
legitimate second nominee. They also cited the case of Amoves v. House of
Representatives Electoral Tribunal, et al.,[24] where the Court declared that
Villanueva, CIBAC National Council's President, was ineligible to hold office as a
member of the House of Representatives representing the CIBAC Party-list.
Thus, Rivera and Luis sought to nullify the following resolutions of the COMELEC en
banc in connection with the May 2013 elections:
1. NBOC Resolution No. 0011-13[25] dated June 5, 2013, ordering the issuance
of a Certificate of Canvass and Proclamation to the CIBAC Party-List, and
recognizing its legitimate nominees as follows:
Sherwin N. Tugna,
Cinchona C. Cruz-Gonzales,
Armi Jane R. Borje,
Virginia S. Jose, and
Stanley Clyde C. Flores
2. NBOC Resolution No. 0013-13,[26] dated July 10, 2013, where the COMELEC
considered as moot the Manifestation and Motion for Proclamation as first
nominee of CIBAC filed by Luis.
G.R. No. 213069

CIBAC Foundation filed a petition for quo warranto,[27] posted on June 30, 2014,
docketed as G.R. No. 213069, arguing in the main that the CIBAC National Council
lost its legal existence following the registration of CIBAC with the SEC as CIBAC
Foundation by reason of which it is now governed by a BOT. By recognizing the
nominees of CIBAC National Council, CIBAC Foundation insists that the COMELEC
unlawfully deprived it of its right and authority to represent CIBAC in Congress.
Thus, CIBAC Foundation raised the issue of whether they are the rightful and
legitimate representatives of CIBAC Party-List in the 16th Congress.
Ruling of the Court
As a factual backdrop, Villanueva's group, representing CIBAC National Council, first
sought registration in November 2000 with the COMELEC as a multi-sectoral partylist organization for the May 2001 elections. Under its Constitution and By-Laws,
[28]
the CIBAC National Council is the governing body empowered to formulate the
policies, plans, and programs of CIBAC and to issue decisions and resolutions
binding on party members and officers.[29]
CIBAC's registration, participation in the May 2001 elections, and eventual
proclamation as a winner, was hounded by controversy after the COMELEC ruled
that it did not belong to any marginalized sectoral group. In Ang Bagong BayaniOFW Labor Party v. COMELEC,[30] the Court issued a Temporary Restraining Order
(TRO) directing the COMELEC to refrain from proclaiming the winners in the May
2001 party-list elections, which included CIBAC. In the subsequent
Decision[31] dated June 26, 2001, the Court reiterated the TRO but ordered the
COMELEC to immediately conduct summary evidentiary hearings on the
qualifications of the party-list participants in light of the guidelines laid down
therein.[32]
In its first compliance report, the COMELEC excluded CIBAC from the qualified
party-list groups. The Court, however, issued a Resolution dated January 29, 2002,
qualifying CIBAC and lifted the TRO to enable the COMELEC to proclaim CIBAC,
whose nominee was Villanueva, as one of the party-list winners. This was reiterated
in the Court's Resolution[33] dated June 25, 2003 as follows:
[W]e accept Comelec's submission, per the OSG, that APEC and CIBAC have
sufficiently met the 8-point guidelines of this Court and have garnered sufficient
votes to entitle them to seats in Congress. Since these issues are factual in
character, we are inclined to adopt the Commission's findings, absent any patent
arbitrariness or abuse or negligence in its action. There is no substantial proof that
CIBAC is merely an arm of JIL, or that APEC is an extension of PHILRECA. The OSG
explained that these are separate entities with separate memberships. Although
APEC's nominees are all professionals, its membership is composed not only of
professionals but also of peasants, elderly, youth and women. Equally important,
APEC addresses the issues of job creation, poverty alleviation and lack of electricity.
Likewise, CIBAC is composed of the underrepresented and marginalized and is
concerned with their welfare. CIBAC is particularly interested in the youth and
professional sectors.[34]
The Court also subsequently lifted the TRO against the proclamation of CIBAC's
additional nominee since it garnered 4.96% of the votes cast, entitling it to two
seats in the House of Representatives.[35]
Interestingly, the present case is a virtual reprise of Lokin, Jr., et al. v. COMELEC,
et al.,[36] which was invoked by the COMELEC in the assailed NBOC Resolution No.
0011-13.[37]
By way of background, the same two contending entities as above, each claiming to
represent CIBAC, filed with the COMELEC a "Manifestation of Intent to Participate in
the Party-List System of Representation in the May 10, 2010 Elections." The first
Manifestation,[38] filed on November 20, 2009, was signed by Derla, who claimed to
be CIBAC's acting Secretary-General, according to an authority granted by the BOT
of CIBAC Foundation. However, at 1:30 p.m. of the same day, another Manifestation
was submitted by Gonzales and Virginia Jose (Jose), CIBAC's Vice-President and
Secretary-General, respectively, by authority of the CIBAC National Council. [39]
Claiming that the nomination of Luis and Teresita F. Planas was unauthorized,
Villanueva's group filed with the COMELEC a Petition to Expunge From The Records
And/Or For Disqualification, seeking to nullify the Certificate of Nomination filed by
Derla. They contended that: (1) Derla misrepresented herself as "acting secretarygeneral" since she was not even a member of CIBAC; (2) the Certificate of
Nomination and other documents she submitted were unauthorized by the party;
and (3) it was Villanueva who was duly authorized to file the Certificate of
Nomination on its behalf.[40]
The COMELEC First Division granted the petition, ordered the Certificate of
Nomination filed by Derla expunged from the records, and declared Villanueva's
group's nominees as the legitimate nominees of CIBAC. [41] On motion for
reconsideration, the COMELEC en banc in a per curiam Resolution[42] dated August
31, 2010 affirmed the First Division's findings, reiterating that Derla was unable to
prove her authority to file the said Certificate, whereas Villanueva presented
overwhelming evidence that CIBAC Secretary General Jose was duly deputized to
submit the Certificate of Nomination pursuant to CIBAC's Constitution and by-laws.
[43]
On petition for certiorari to this Court, Maria Blanca's group insisted that it was
CIBAC Foundation which participated in the party-list elections in the 2004 and
2007, not the CIBAC National Council, which had become defunct since 2003, the
year when CIBAC Foundation was registered with the SEC. Villanueva's group
countered that CIBAC Foundation was established solely for the purpose of acting
as CIBAC's legal and financial arm, as provided in the party's Constitution and bylaws, and never to substitute for, or oust CIBAC, the party-list itself.[44]
The Court affirmed the COMELEC's ruling that the nominees of Villanueva's group
were the legitimate CIBAC nominees. The Court's decision became final and
executory on October 20, 2012, thereby settling with finality the question of who
are the true nominees of CIBAC Party-List. Significantly, the Court expressly ruled
that the BOT of CIBAC Foundation and its acting Secretary-General Derla, were not
affiliated with the CIBAC multi-sectoral party, which is registered with
COMELEC, viz:
[Derla], who is not even a member of CIBAC, is thus a virtual stranger to the partylist, and clearly not qualified to attest to petitioners [Luis and Teresita F. Planas] as
CIBAC nominees, or certify their nomination to the COMELEC. Petitioners cannot
use their registration with the SEC as a substitute for the evidentiary
requirement to show that the nominees, including Derla, are bona fide
members of the party. Petitioners Planas and [Luis] have not even presented
evidence proving the affiliation of the so-called [BOT] to the CIBAC Sectoral Party
that is registered with COMELEC.
Petitioners cannot draw authority from the [BOT] of the SEC-registered entity,
because the Constitution of CIBAC expressly mandates that it is the National
Council, as the governing body of CIBAC, that has the power to formulate
the policies, plans, and programs of the Party, and to issue decisions and
resolutions binding on party members and officers. Contrary to petitioners'
allegations, the National Council of CIBAC has not become defunct, and has
certainly not been replaced by the [BOT] of the SEC-registered entity. The
COMELEC carefully perused the documents of the organization and outlined the
process followed by the National Council before it complied with its task of choosing
the party's nominees. This was based on the "Minutes of Meeting of CIBAC PartyList National Council" held on 12 November 2009, which respondents attached to
their Memorandum.[45](Citations omitted and emphasis and underscoring ours)
The Court also reiterated that the COMELEC's jurisdiction to settle the struggle for
leadership within the party is well established, emanating from one of its
constitutional functions, under Article IX-C, Section 2, Paragraph 5, of the 1987
Constitution, which is to "register, after sufficient publication, political parties,
organizations, or coalitions which, in addition to other requirements, must present
their platform or program of government," and that this singular power of COMELEC
to rule upon questions of party identity and leadership is an incident to its
enforcement powers.[46]
The Court reiterates, then, that: (1) the petitioners have shown no evidence of the
affiliation of the BOT of CIBAC Foundation to the CIBAC sectoral party which is
registered with the COMELEC; (2) it is the CIBAC National Council, the COMELECregistered governing body of CIBAC under its Constitution, which is empowered to
formulate its policies, plans, and programs, and to issue decisions and resolutions
binding on party members and officers; and (3) the CIBAC National Council alone
can authorize the party's participation in party-list elections and the submission of
its nominees. Thus, in view of CIBAC's subsisting registration with the COMELEC as
a multi-sectoral organization, CIBAC National Council has not become defunct or
non-existent, nor replaced by the BOT of the SEC-registered entity, CIBAC
Foundation, whose registration with the SEC will not per se dispense with the
evidentiary requirement under R.A. No. 7941 that its nominees must be bona
fide members and nominees of the party.
The petitioners erred in citing the consolidated Lokin Case.[47] In the said case,
CIBAC manifested its intent to participate in the May 2007 synchronized national
and local elections through Villanueva, and submitted a Certificate of Nomination
containing five nominees for representatives, namely: Villanueva, Luis, Gonzales,
Tugna and Emil L. Galang (Galang). However, Villanueva filed a "Certificate of
Nomination, Substitution and Amendment" whereby CIBAC withdrew the
nominations of Luis, Tugna and Galang and substituted Armi Jane R. Borje (Borje)
as its third and last nominee. With CIBAC having won two seats, Villanueva
transmitted to then COMELEC Chairman Benjamin Abalos the signed petitions of
81% of CIBAC members confirming the withdrawal of the nomination of Luis, Tugna
and Galang and the substitution of Borje. The COMELEC en bane accepted CIBAC's
amended list of nominees, and Gonzales took her oath of office as CIBAC's second
party-list representative.
Thus, what was at issue in the consolidated Lokin case was not whether the CIBAC
National Council, headed by Villanueva, could no longer represent CIBAC in the
COMELEC for purposes of party-list elections, but whether the withdrawal by
Villanueva, as CIBAC President, of the nomination of Luis in favor of a new list of
nominees was valid. The Court ruled that: (1) Villanueva's act was contrary to
Section 8[48] of R.A. No. 7941, which requires the submission, not later than 45 days
before the election, of a list of not less than five (5) nominees; and (2) Section 13
of Resolution No. 7804, containing the Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A.
No. 7941 issued by the COMELEC, invalidly expanded the exceptions in Section 8 of
R.A. No. 7941 for the substitution of nominees.
Lastly, the petitioners invoke Amores,[49] where it was declared that Villanueva was
ineligible to hold office as a member of the House of Representatives representing
the youth sector of CIBAC. The subject of the case was NBOC Resolution No. 07-60
dated July 9, 2007, where the COMELEC partially proclaimed CIBAC as a winner in
the May 2007 elections, along with other party-list organizations. The Court found
that at the time of the filing of his certificates of nomination and acceptance,
Villanueva was already 31 years old and beyond the age limit of 30 provided under
Section 9 of R.A. No. 7941, and that his change of affiliation from CIBAC's youth
sector to its overseas Filipino workers and their families sector was not effected at
least six months prior to the May 2007 elections, in violation of Section 15 of R.A.
No. 7941.
Nonetheless, the Court also clarified that NBOC Resolution No. 07-60 was not a
proclamation of Villanueva himself, but of CIBAC as one of the party-list winners,
since Section 13 of R.A. No. 7941 separately provides that, "[p]arty-list
representatives shall be proclaimed by the COMELEC based on the list of names
submitted by the respective parties, organizations, or coalitions to the COMELEC
according to their ranking in said list."
Concerning now the quo warranto petition, G.R. No. 213069, of CIBAC Foundation,
the Court reminds the petitioners that under Section 17 of Article IV of the 1987
Constitution, the sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns and
qualifications of the Members of the House of Representatives is the House of
Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET). Section 17 reads:
Section 17. The Senate and the House of Representatives shall each have an
Electoral Tribunal which shall be the sole judge of all contests relating to the
election, returns, and qualifications of their respective Members, x x x.
Because the nominees of CIBAC National Council, Tugna and Gonzales, assumed
their seats in Congress on June 26, 2013 and July 22, 2013, respectively, G.R. No.
213069 should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. It should be noted that since
they had been already proclaimed, the jurisdiction to resolve all election contests
lies with the HRET as it is the sole judge of all contests relating to the election,
returns, and qualifications of its Members.
In a long line of cases[50] and more recently in Reyes v. COMELEC, et al.,[51] the
Court has held that once a winning candidate has been proclaimed, taken his oath,
and assumed office as Member of the House of Representatives, the COMELEC's
jurisdiction over election contests relating to his election, returns, and qualifications
ends, and the HRET's own jurisdiction begins. Since the nominees of CIBAC
National Council have already assumed their seats in Congress, the quo
warranto petition should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petitions are DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.
Sereno, C.J., Carpio, Leonardo-De Castro, Brion, Peralta, Bersamin, Del Castillo,
Perez, Mendoza, Reyes, and Perlas-Bernabe, JJ., concur.
Velasco, Jr., J., pls. see concurring opinion.
Leonen, J., see separate concurring and dissenting opinion.
Jardeleza, J., no part prior action Sol Gen.
Caguioa, J., no part due to relationship to a party.
NOTICE OF JUDGMENT
Sirs/Mesdames:
Very truly yours,
(SGD)
Clerk of Court
[1]
Rollo (G.R. No. 210273), pp. 3-49.
[2]
Rollo (G.R. No. 213069), pp. 3-34.
[3]
Id. at 449-455.
[4]
Internal Rules of the Supreme Court, Rule 9, Section 5 provides:
Section 5. Consolidation of cases. - The Court may order the consolidation of cases
involving common questions of law or of act. The Chief Justice shall assign the
consolidated cases to the Member-in-Charge to whom the case having the lower or
lowest docket number has been raffled, subject to equalization of case load by
raffle. The Judicial Records Office shall see to it that (a) the rollos of the
consolidated cases are joined together to prevent the loss, misplacement or
detachment of any of them; and (b) the cover of each rollo indicates the G.R. or
UDK number of the case with which the former is consolidated.
The Member-in-Charge who finds after study that the cases do not involve common
questions of law or of fact may request the Court to have the case or cases
returned to the original Member-in-Charge.
[5]
Rollo (G.R. No. 213069), p. 49.
[6]
Rollo (G.R. No. 210273), p. 539.
[7]
Rollo (G.R. No. 213069), pp. 114-115.
[8]
Id. at 116-117.
[9]
Rollo (G.R. No. 210273), pp. 65-66.
[10]
Id. at 65-88.
[11]
Id. at 75-76.
[12]
Id. at 89-113.
[13]
Rollo (G.R. No. 213069), pp. 299-300.
[14]
Id. at 328.
[15]
Id. at 329.
[16]
Rollo (G.R. No. 210273), pp. 50-54.
[17]
Id. at 55-60.
[18]
Id. at 3-49.
[19]
Id. at 25-32.
[20]
Id. at 22-24. Id.
[22]
Id. at 25-26.
[23]
635 Phil. 372(2010).
[24]
636 Phil. 600(2010).
[25]
Rollo (G.R. No. 210273), pp. 50-54.
[26]
Id. at 55-60.
[27]
Rollo (G.R. No. 213069), pp. 3-30.
[28]
Id. at 301-318.
[29]
Id. at 310.
[30]
G.R. Nos. 147589 and 147613, May 9, 2001.
[31]
Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW Labor Party v. COMELEC, 412 Phil. 308 (2001).
[32]
Id. at 346-347.
[33]
Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW Labor Party v. COMELEC, 452 Phil. 899 (2003).
[34]
Id. at 908-909.
[35]
Resolution dated November 20, 2003.
[36]
689 Phil. 200(2012).
[37]
Rollo (G.R. No. 210273), p. 52.
[38]
Rollo (G.R. No. 213069), pp. 79-80.
[39]
Lokin, Jr., et al. v. COMELEC, et al, supra note 36.
[40]
Id.
[41]
Rollo (G.R. No. 213069), pp. 273-282.
[42]
Id. at 283-291.
[43]
Lokin, Jr., et al. v. COMELEC, et al., supra note 36.
[44]
Id.
[45]
Id. at 216.
[46]
Id.
[47]
Supra note 23.
Section 8. Nomination of Party-List Representatives-Each registered party,

organization or coalition shall submit to the COMELEC not later that forty-five (45)
days before the election a list of names, not less than five (5), from which party-list
representatives shall be chosen in case it obtains the required number of votes.
[48]
A person may be nominated in one (1) list only. Only persons who have given their
consent in writing may be named in the list. The list shall not include any candidate
of any elective office or a person who has lost his bid for an elective office in the
immediately preceding election. No change of names or alteration of the order of
nominees shall be allowed after the same shall have been submitted to the
COMELEC except in cases where the nominee dies, or withdraws in writing his
nomination, becomes incapacitated in which case the name of the substitute
nominee shall be placed last in the list. Incumbent sectoral representatives in the
House of Representatives who are nominated in the party-list system shall not be
considered resigned.
[49]
Supra note 24.
Please see Lazatin v. COMELEC, G.R. No. L-80007, January 25, 1988, 157 SCRA
337; Guerrero v. COMELEC, 391 Phil. 344 (2000).
[50]
[51]
720 Phil. 174(2013).
<HR ALIGN="CENTER" WIDTH="60%" SIZE="1" NOSHADE>

CONCURRING OPINION
VELASCO, JR., J.:

This treats the consolidated petitions for certioriari and quo warranto, docketed as
G.R. Nos. 210273 and 213069, respectively.
Res Judicata by conclusiveness of
judgment bars the re-litigation of the
central issue in G.R. No, 210273
The certiorari petition seeks to nullify COMELEC NBOC Resolution No. 0011-13,
which recognized as nominees of Citizen's Battle Against Corruption (CIBAC) partylist those names submitted by respondent Emmanuel Joel Villanueva, CIBAC
National Council's Chairman and President. It is petitioners' contention that the
CIBAC National Council has become defunct, having been replaced by the Board of
Trustees (BOT) of the CIBAC Foundation, Inc. registered with the SEC. They then
argue that it is CIBAC Foundation's own list that ought to be considered by the
COMELEC as CIBAC party-list's nominees.
I agree with the ponencia that the extant case is but a reprise of G.R. No. 193808,
which the Court had resolved on June 26, 2012.1 Petitioners are, therefore,
estopped by res judicata from re-litigating in G.R. No. 210273 the settled facts and
issues in G.R. No. 193808.
Res judicata embraces two concepts: bar by prior judgment[2] and by
conclusiveness of judgment.[3] For the legal principle to apply, the following
elements must concur: (1) the judgment sought to bar the new action must be
final; (2) the decision must have been rendered by a court having jurisdiction over
the subject matter and the parties; (3) the disposition of the case must be a
judgment on the merits; and (4) there must be as between the first and second
action, identity of parties, subject matter, and causes of action. Anent the fourth
element, res judicata in the concept of conclusiveness of judgment only requires
the identity of parties and issues, not necessarily of the causes of action. [4]
The doctrine of conclusiveness of judgment prescribes that a fact or question
settled by final judgment or order binds the parties to that action, persons in privity
with them, and their successors-in-interest, and continues to bind them while the
judgment or order remains standing and unreversed by proper authority. The
conclusively settled fact or question cannot again be litigated in any future or other
action between those bound by the final judgment, either for the same or for a
different cause of action.[5]
As aptly observed by the ponencia, the Court resolved in G.R. No. 193808 which
between the CIBAC Foundation, Inc. and CIBAC National Council is authorized to
field nominees in behalf of CIBAC party-list for the party-list elections. The Court
held therein that it is CIBAC National Council, the COMELEC-registered governing
body of the CIBAC party-list, that is empowered to formulate the policies, plans,
and programs of the party, and to issue decisions and resolutions binding on party
members and officers.[6] This ruling, which has long attained finality, was issued
pursuant to the Court's valid exercise of its jurisdiction to review rulings of the
COMELEC. It is, therefore, binding on substantially the same parties and bars them
from re-litigating the same issue.
Needless to state, the case at bench involves parties privy to the Court's ruling in
G.R. No. 193808, albeit raising a different cause of action. [7] Petitioner Luis K. Lokin
as well as respondents Sherwin C. Tugna and Cinchona C. Cruz-Gonzales directly
participated in the proceedings in G.R. No. 193808. The involvement of CIBAC
National Council and CIBAC Foundation, Inc. in the case cannot also be disclaimed.
Verily, all the elements for res judicata by conclusiveness of judgment obtain
herein. The instant petition for certiorarit which substantially raised the same issues
as those in G.R. No. 193808, should, thus, be dismissed.
The controversy in G.R. No. 213069
falls within the jurisdiction of the
House of Representatives Electoral
Tribunal
I likewise concur with the ponencia that the quo warranto case falls outside the
jurisdictional bounds of the Court, as it should have been lodged with the House of
Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET). Article VI, Section 17 of the Constitution
pertinently reads:
Section 17. The Senate and the House of Representatives shall each have an
election, returns, and qualifications of their respective Members. Each Electoral
Tribunal shall be composed of nine Members, three of whom shall be Justices of the
Supreme Court to be designated by the Chief Justice, and the remaining six shall be
Members of the Senate or the House of Representatives, as the case may be, who
shall be chosen on the basis of proportional representation from the political parties
and the parties or organizations registered under the party-list system represented
therein. The senior Justice in the Electoral Tribunal shall be its Chairman, (emphasis
added)
Reyes v. COMELEC (Reyes)[8] delineated the blurred boundaries between the
COMELEC and the HRET, explicitly ruling where one ends and the other begins.
[9]
This landmark case instructs that the HRET has jurisdiction over Members of the
House of Representatives (HoR) and that to be considered a "Member" the following
requisites must concur: (1) a valid proclamation, (2) a proper oath, and (3)
assumption of office.[10]
Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen (Justice Leonen) submits that the elements
for membership are not independent events, and that mere proclamation suffices to
vest the HRET of jurisdiction over the winning congressional candidate, citing the
cases of Limkaichong v. COMELEC (Limkaichong)[11] and Vinzons-Chato v. COMELEC
(Vinzons-Chato).[12] However, these very cases relied upon served as jurisprudential
basis in the Court's ruling in Reyes. To demonstrate, the opening salvo of
Limkaichong reads:
Once a winning candidate has been proclaimed, taken his oath, and assumed
office as a Member of the House of Representatives, the jurisdiction of the House
of Representatives Electoral Tribunal begins, (emphasis added)
And as the Court held in Vinzons-Chato:
x x x [I]n an electoral contest where the validity of the proclamation of a
winning candidate who has taken his oath of office and assumed his postas
Congressman is raised, that issue is best addressed to the HRET. The reason for this
ruling is self-evident, for it avoids duplicity of proceedings and a clash of jurisdiction
between constitutional bodies, with due regard to the people's mandate, (emphasis
added)
Evidently, the Court's doctrine in Reyes is in hew with jurisprudence. The Court
merely adhered to its long-standing criteria for membership in Congress that all
three indispensable requirementsa valid proclamation, a proper oath, and
assumption of officemust concur.
Contrary to Justice Leonen's postulation, the subsequent case of Taada v.
COMELEC (Taada)[13] did not deviate from our ruling in Reyes. Markworthy is that
before disposing the petition in Taada, the Court made the following observations:
x x x [Considering that Angelina had already been proclaimed as Member of the

House of Representatives for the 4th District of Quezon Province on May 16, 2013,
as she has in fact taken her oath and assumed office past noon time of June 30,
2013, the Court is now without jurisdiction to resolve the case at bar. As they
stand, the issues concerning the conduct of the canvass and the resulting
proclamation of Angelina as herein discussed are matters which fall under the scope
of the terms "election" and "returns" as above-stated and hence, properly fall under
the HRET's sole jurisdiction, (emphasis added)
Indubitably, the Court's ruling in Taada disclaiming jurisdiction in favor of the
HRET is premised on the concurrence of the three (3) requirements for membership
in the HoR, in clear consonance with our ruling in Reyes.[14] Hence, the
statement[15] in Taada cited by Justice Leonen--that proclamation alone vests the
HRET with jurisdiction over election, returns, and qualification of the winning
congressional candidateis mere obiter dictum. This lone statement in the Taada
Resolution pales in comparison with the academic discussion in Reyes, which was
the product of a more extensive discussion and incisive scrutiny of the issue
regarding the HRET's jurisdiction.[16]
Taada is clearly not intended as a reversal of Reyes. It could not have overturned
nor abandoned Reyes for they are, in fact, consistent in their holdings. Thus, the
Reyes doctrine remains to be the litmus test in ascertaining whether or not the
winning candidate can already be deemed a "Member" of Congress over whom the
HRET can validly exercise jurisdiction. This is even affirmed in the February 3, 2015
ruling in Bandara v. COMELEC (Bandara),[17] which was decided by the Court after
the October 22, 2013 Taada Resolution. As held in Bandara:
It is a well-settled rule that once a winning candidate has been proclaimed, taken
his oath, and assumed office as a Member of the House of representatives, the
jurisdiction of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) over election contests
relating to his/her election, returns, and qualification ends, and the HRET's own
jurisdiction begins. Consequently, the instant petitions for certiorari are not the
proper remedies for the petitioners in both cases to question the propriety of the
National Board of Canvassers' proclamation, and the events leading thereto,
(emphasis added)
In view of the foregoing, the doctrine in Reyes, as affirmed
in Taada and Bandara, must now be applied herein. In so doing, it must first be
noted that the petition forquo warranto was filed on July 11, 2014.[18] By that date,
private respondents Sherwin Tugna and Cinchona C. Cruz-Gonzales have already
taken their respective oaths and assumed office as CIBAC party-list's
representatives to Congress. The occurrence of these events effectively divested
the Court of the power to adjudicate the case for quo warranto. The quo
warranto petition should then be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

G.R. No. 213069 should be dismissed
for lack of cause of action
Even assuming arguendo that the Court has jurisdiction over the quo
warranto proceeding, G.R. No. 213069 should nevertheless be dismissed for lack of
cause of action.[19]
A ruling in G.R. No. 210273 that is favorable to petitioners is a precondition before
the petition for quo warranto in G.R. No. 213069 can prosper. Otherwise stated,
thecertiorari case is so closely intertwined with the quo warranto case that
dismissal of the former necessarily results in the dismissal of the latter. Thus, as a
consequence of the Court's ruling in G.R No. 210273, as earlier discussed, so too
must G.R. No. 213069 be dismissed.
To recall, the quo warranto case was filed on the postulation that petitioners are the
rightful and legitimate representatives of CIBAC party-list in Congress. [20] Raising
grounds for the allowance of the petition similar to those in the certiorari case,
petitioners argued in the main that CIBAC National Council has already lost its legal
existence, and that CIBAC Foundation, Inc.'s BOT is the governing body of CIBAC
party-list. Clearly, petitioners' case for quo warranto presupposes that the COMELEC
gravely abused its discretion in recognizing CIBAC National Council's list of
nominees, thereby allegedly depriving petitioners of their right to represent CIBAC
in Congress.
These presuppositions, however, are bereft of factual basis.
Guilty of reiteration, it has already been resolved that it is the CIBAC National
Council, not the CIBAC Foundation, Inc.'s BOT, which can validly nominate CIBAC
party-list representatives to Congress. This holding in G.R. No. 193808, as now
affirmed in G.R. No. 210273, automatically renders petitioners' contentions
meritless and their claimed right to field party-list nominees, illusory. The pivotal
allegations in the petition are just as easily belied by settled facts. Therefore, in
view of the majority vote to dismiss G.R. No. 210273, the Court is constrained to
likewise dismiss G.R. No. 213069.
Entitled Luis K. Lokin, Jr. and Teresita F. Planas v. Commission on Elections,

Citizen's Battle Against Corruption Party List represented by Virginia S. Jose,
Sherwin C. Tugna, and Cinchona C. Cruz-Gonzales, decided by the this Court on
June 26, 2012.
[1]
[2]
RULES OF COURT, Rule 39, Sec. 47(b).
[3]
Id., Rule 39, Sec. 47(c).
Social Security Commission v. Rizal Livestock and Poultry Association, Inc., G.R.
No. 167050, June 1, 2011; see also Pryce Corporation v. China Banking
Corporation, G.R. No. 172302, February 18, 2014.
[4]
[5]
Degayo v. Magbanua-Dinglasan G.R. No. 173148, April 6, 2015
Page 8 of the Decision; see also Lokin v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 193808, June 26,
2012.
[6]
The cause of action in G.R. No. 193808 pertains to the lists of party-list nominees
submitted to the COMELEC in connection to the 2010 National and Local Elections,
while the instant petition relates to those submitted in connection with the 2013
polls.
[7]
[8]
G.R. No. 207264, June 25, 2013.
Concurring Opinion of Associate Justice Jose P. Perez, Velasco v. Belmonte, Jr.,

G.R. No. 211140, January 12,2016.
[9]
[10]
Reyes v. COMELEC, supra.
[11]
G.R. Nos. 178831-32 & 179120, 179132-33, 179240-41, April 1, 2009.
[12]
G.R. No. 172131, April 2, 2007.
[13]
G.R. No. 207199-200, October 22, 2013.
Concurring Opinion of Associate Justice Jose P. Perez in Velasco v. Delmonte, Jr.,

G.R. No. 211140, January 12,2016.
[14]
"Case law states that the proclamation of a congressional candidate following

the election divests the COMELEC of jurisdiction over disputes relating to the
election, returns, and qualifications of the proclaimed representative in favor of the
HRET."
[15]
Concurring Opinion of Associate Justice Jose P. Perez in Taada v. HRET, G.R.

No. 217012, March 1, 2016
[16]
[17]
G.R. Nos. 207144 and 208141, February 3, 2015.
[18]
Page 5 of Decision.
"Failure to state a cause of action and lack of cause of action are distinct
grounds to dismiss a particular action. The former refers to the insufficiency of the
allegations in the pleading, while the latter to the insufficiency of the factual basis
for the action. Dismissal for failure to state a cause of action may be raised at the
earliest stages of the proceedings through a motion to dismiss under Rule 16 of the
Rules of Court, while dismissal for lack of cause of action may be raised any time
after the questions of fact have been resolved on the basis of stipulations,
admissions or evidence presented by the plaintiff." Zuiga-Santos v. SantosGran, G.R. No. 197380, October 8, 2014.
[19]
[20]
Page 5 of Decision.
CONCURRING AND DISSENTING OPINION
LEONEN, J.:
I concur with the ponencia in holding that the consolidated Petitions must be
dismissed. More particularly, I concur in holding that the Petition for Quo Warranto
(docketed as G.R. No. 213069) directly filed before this court by petitioner Citizens'
Battle Against Corruption (CIBAC) Foundation should be dismissed for lack of
jurisdiction. This Petition is not within this Court's original jurisdiction. Instead, it
falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of the House of Representatives Electoral
Tribunal.
However, I express my reservations on the reference to a list of three (3) events
proclamation, taking of the oath of office, and assumption of dutiesthat are made
to appear as entirely separate and distinct and, thus, are intimated to be events
that must all occur before any petition is deemed to be exclusively cognizable by
the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal. Rather than having to await the
consummation of all such occurrences, it suffices that a candidate for member of
the House of Representatives shall have been proclaimed a winner in order for
contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of any such member to
be within the exclusive jurisdiction of the House of Representatives Electoral
Tribunal. Parenthetically, this is also true of senators in relation to the Senate
Electoral Tribunal, and the President and Vice President in relation to the
Presidential Electoral Tribunal.
Article VI, Section 17 of the 1987 Constitution creates separate electoral tribunals
for the Senate and the House of Representatives. It also provides for each tribunal's
composition and jurisdiction:
SECTION 17. The Senate and the House of Representatives shall each have an
election, returns, and qualifications of their respective Members. Each Electoral
Tribunal shall be composed of nine Members, three of whom shall be Justices of the
Supreme Court to be designated by the Chief Justice, and the remaining six shall be
Members of the Senate or the House of Representatives, as the case may be, who
shall be chosen on the basis of proportional representation from the political parties
and the parties or organizations registered under the party-list system represented
therein. The senior Justice in the Electoral Tribunal shall be its Chairman. (Emphasis
supplied)
The term "contest" is understood to refer to post-election disputes. In Tecson v.
Commission on Elections,[1] this Court interpreted this term as used in the
analogous provision in Article VII[2] of the 1987 Constitution, which spells out the
jurisdiction of the Presidential Electoral Tribunal:
Ordinary usage would characterize a "contest" in reference to a post-election
scenario. Election contests consist of either an election protest or a quo warranto
which, although two distinct remedies, would have one objective in view, i.e., to
dislodge the winning candidate from office. A perusal of the phraseology in Rule 12,
Rule 13, and Rule 14 of the "Rules of the Presidential Electoral Tribunal,"
promulgated by the Supreme Court en bane on 18 April 1992, would support this
premise
....
The rules categorically speak of the jurisdiction of the tribunal over contests relating
to the election, returns and qualifications of the "President" or "Vice-President," of
the Philippines, and not of "candidates" for President or Vice-President. . . .
It is fair to conclude that the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, defined by Section
4, paragraph 7, of the 1987 Constitution, would not include cases directly brought
before it questioning the qualifications of a candidate for the presidency or vicepresidency before the elections are held.[3]
An election protest is "a contest between the defeated and winning candidates on
the ground of frauds [sic] or irregularities in the casting and counting of the ballots,
or in the preparation of the returns. It raises the question of who actually obtained
the plurality of the legal votes and therefore is entitled to hold the office." [4] A
successful election protest results in the revision or a recount of the ballots to
determine the true winner of the election.[5]
Tecson explained quo warranto proceedings as follows:
A quo warranto proceeding is generally defined as being an action against a person
who usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or exercises a public office. In such
context, the election contest can only contemplate a post-election scenario. In Rule
14, only a registered candidate who would have received either the second or third
highest number of votes could file an election protest. This rule again presupposes
a post-election scenario.[6] (Citation omitted)
In the 2013 case of Taada, Jr. v. Commission on Elections, [7] this Court En Bane
unanimously sustained the jurisdiction of the House of Representatives Electoral
Tribunal "over disputes relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of the
proclaimed representative[.]"[8] We emphasized that a candidate's proclamation as
winner was the definitive event that strips the Commission on Elections of
jurisdiction, jurisdiction that is then vested exclusively in the House of
Representatives Electoral Tribunal:
Case law states that the proclamation of a congressional candidate following the
election divests the COMELEC of jurisdiction over disputes relating to the election,
returns, and qualifications of the proclaimed representative in favor of the HRET.
The phrase "election, returns, and qualifications" refers to all matters affecting the
validity of the contesteeV title. In particular, the term "election" refers to the
conduct of the polls, including the listing of voters, the holding of the electoral
campaign, and the casting and counting of the votes; "returns" refers to the
canvass of the returns and the proclamation of the winners, including questions
concerning the composition of the board of canvassers and the authenticity of the
election returns; and "qualifications" refers to matters that could be raised in a quo
warranto proceeding against the proclaimed winner, such as his disloyalty or
ineligibility or the inadequacy of his CoC.[9] (Emphasis supplied)
This Court has even clarified that allegations of irregularity as to a candidate's
proclamation as winner shall not prevent the House of Representatives Electoral
Tribunal from assuming jurisdiction. In Limkaichong v. Commission on Elections:[10]
Petitioners (in G.R. Nos. 179120, 179132-33, and 179240-41) steadfastly
maintained that Limkaichong's proclamation was tainted with irregularity, which will
effectively prevent the HRET from acquiring jurisdiction.
The fact that the proclamation of the winning candidate, as in this case, was alleged
to have been tainted with irregularity does not divest the HRET of its jurisdiction.
The Court has shed light on this in the case of Vinzons-Chalo, to the effect that:
In the present case, it is not disputed that respondent Unico has already been
proclaimed and taken his oath of office as a Member of the House of
Representatives (Thirteenth Congress); hence, the COMELEC correctly ruled that it
had already lost jurisdiction over petitioner Chato's petition. The issues raised by
petitioner Chato essentially relate to the canvassing of returns and alleged invalidity
of respondent Unico's proclamation. These are matters that are best addressed to
the sound judgment and discretion of the HRET. Significantly, the allegation that
respondent Unico's proclamation is null and void does not divest the-HRET of its
jurisdiction:
xxx [I]n an electoral contest where the validity of the proclamation of a winning
candidate who has taken his oath of office and assumed his post as congressman is
raised, that issue is best addressed to the HRET. The reason for this ruling is selfevident, for it avoids duplicity of proceedings and a clash of jurisdiction between
constitutional bodies, with due regard to the people's mandate.
Further, for the Court to take cognizance of petitioner Chato's election protest
against respondent Unico would be to usurp the constitutionally mandated functions
of the HRET.
In fine, any allegations as to the invalidity of the proclamation will not prevent the
HRET from assuming jurisdiction over all matters essential to a member's
qualification to sit in the House of Representatives.
....
Accordingly, after the proclamation of the winning candidate in the congressional
elections, the remedy of those who may assail
one'seligibility/ineligihility/qualification/disqualification is to file before the HRET a
petition for an election protest, or a petition for quo warranto, within the period
provided by the HRET Rules. In Pangilinan v. Commission on Elections, we ruled
that where the candidate has already been proclaimed winner in the congressional
elections, the remedy of petitioner is to file an electoral protest with the Electoral
Tribunal of the House of Representatives. [11] (Emphasis supplied, citation omitted)
A winning candidate's taking of the oath of office and assumption of duties are but
natural and necessary consequences of his or her proclamation as winner. They are
mere incidents, transpiring precisely and only because a candidate has been
previously proclaimed as a winner. Thus, they should not be appreciated separately
of proclamation, as though they are entirely non-aligned and self-sufficient
occurrences.
In Codilla, Si. v. Hon. de Venecia,[12] this Court described as "no longer a matter of
discretion"[13] the task of the Speaker of the House of Representatives to administer
the oath to proclaimed winners for membership in the House of Representatives:
The distinction between a ministerial and discretionary act is well delineated. A
purely ministerial act or duty is one which an officer or tribunal performs in a given
state of facts, in a prescribed manner, in obedience to the mandate of a legal
authority, without regard to or the exercise of his own judgment upon the propriety
or impropriety of the act done. If the law imposes a duty upon a public officer and
gives him the right to decide how or when the duty shall be performed, such duty is
discretionary and not ministerial. The duty is ministerial only when the discharge of
the same requires neither the exercise of official discretion or judgment[.]
In the case at bar, the administration of oath and the registration of the petitioner
in the Roll of Members of the House of Representatives representing the
4th legislative district of Leyte is no longer a matter of discretion on the part of the
public respondents. The facts are settled and beyond dispute: petitioner garnered
71,350 votes as against respondent Locsin who only got 53,447 votes in the May
14, 2001 elections. The COMELEC Second Division initially ordered the proclamation
of respondent Locsin; on Motion for Reconsideration the COMELEC en bane set
aside the order of its Second Division and ordered the proclamation of the
petitioner. The Decision of the COMELEC en bane has not been challenged before
this Court by respondent Locsin and said Decision has become final and executory.
[14]
(Citation omitted)
Only a winner in an electionthat is, one who has been proclaimed as suchcan
proceed to take the oath of office. Further, only one who has won and taken his or
her oath may proceed to validly exercise the functions of an elective public office.
Therefore, it remains that the definite occurrence is proclamation as winner: it
defines the competencies of the erstwhile candidate (now a winner) and identifies
the body with the competence to rule on contests arising from this victory. From
this, it follows that it is an error to demand taking of the oath of office and
assumption of duties as separate requisites before a contest is deemed to fall within
the exclusive jurisdiction of the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal.
When the Commission on Elections proclaimed CIBAC the winner in the party-list
elections and issued National Board of Canvassers Resolution No. 0011-13 on June
5, 2013, it also recognized the nominees identified by the CIBAC National Council
as the legitimate nominees. At this juncture, any petition contesting the election,
returns and/or qualifications of CIBAC and, by extension, of its nominees should
have been filed before the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal.
As CIBAC acquired more than four percent (4%) of the votes cast for the party-list
system, taking the oath of office and assuming duties as members of the House of
Representatives necessarily followed for CIBAC s first two (2) nominees, Sherwin N.
Tugna and Cinchona C. Cruz-Gonzales. As soon as CIBAC was proclaimed, their
taking of oaths and assumption of duties became certain. As soon as this
proclamation transpired, petitioner CIBAC Foundation should have filed an election
protest, quo warranto, or mandamus petition before the House of Representatives
Electoral Tribunal within 10 days from May 18, 2013.[15] Instead, it erroneously filed
its quo warranto petition before this Court.
ACCORDINGLY, I vote to DISMISS the consolidated Petitions.
[1]
468 Phil. 421 (2004) [Per J. Vitug, En Banc].
CONST., art. VII, sec. 4 provides: ARTICLE VII. Executive Department SECTION
4. . . .
....
[2]
The Supreme Court, sitting en bane, shall be the sole judge of all contests relating
to the election, returns, and qualifications of the President or Vice-President, and
may promulgate its rules for the purpose.
Tecson v. Commission on Elections, 468 Phil. 421, 461-462 (2004) [Per J. Vitug,
En Banc].
[3]
Samad v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 107854, July 16, 1993, 224 SCRA
631, 639-640 [Per J. Cruz, En Banc].
[4]
Pasandalan v. Commission on Elections, 434 Phil. 161, 173 (2002) [Per J. Carpio,
En Bane].
[5]
Tecson v. Commission on Elections, 468 Phil. 421, 462 (2004) [Per J. Vitug, En
Banc].
[6]
G.R. Nos. 207199-200, October 22, 2013, 708 SCRA 188 [Per J. Perlas-Bernabe,
En Banc).
[7]
[8]
Id. at 195.
Id. at 195-196, citing Jaiosjos, Jr. v. Commission on Elections, et al, 689 Phil.
192, 198 (2012) [Per J. Abaci, En Banc] and Vimons-Chalo v. Commission on
Elections,548 Phil. 712, 725 (2007) [Per J. Callejo, Sr., En Banc].
[9]
[10]
601 Phil. 751 (2009) [Per J. Peralta, En Banc].
[11]
Id. at 782-783.
[12]
442 Phil. 139 (2002) [Per J. Puno, En Banc].
[13]
Id. at 189,
[14]
Id. at 189-190.
[15]
2011 HRET Rules, Rules 16 and 17 provide:
RULE 16. Election Protest. - A verified petition contesting the election or returns of
any Member of the House of Representatives shall be filed by any candidate who
has duly filed a certificate of candidacy and has been voted for the same office,
within fifteen (15) days after the proclamation of the winner. The party filing the
protest shall be designated as the protestant while the adverse party shall be
known as the protestee.
"No joint election protest shall be admitted, but the Tribunal, for good and sufficient
reasons, may consolidate individual protests and hear and decide them jointly.
Thus, where there are two or more protests involving the same protestee and
common principal causes of action, the subsequent protests shall be consolidated
with the earlier case to avoid unnecessary costs or delay. In case of objection to the
consolidation, the Tribunal shall resolve the same. An order resolving a motion for
or objection to the consolidation shall be unappealable.
The protest is verified by. an affidavit that the affiant has read it and that the
allegations therein are true and correct of his knowledge and belief or based on
verifiable information or authentic records. A verification based on "information and
belief," or upon "knowledge, information and belief," is not a sufficient verification.
An unverified election protest shall not suspend the running of the reglementary
period to file the protest.
An election protest shall state:
1. The date of proclamation of the winner and the number of votes obtained by the
parties per proclamation;
2. The total number of contested individual and clustered precincts per municipality
or city;
3. The individual and clustered precinct numbers and location of the contested
precincts; and
4. The specific acts or omissions complained of constituting the electoral frauds,

anomalies or irregularities in the contested precincts.
RULE 17. Quo Warranto. - A verified petition for quo warranto contesting the
election of a Member of the Mouse of Representatives on the ground of ineligibility
or of disloyalty to the Republic of the Philippines shall be filed by any registered
voter of the district concerned within fifteen (15) days from the date of the
proclamation of the winner. The party filing the petition shall be designated as the
petitioner while the adverse party shall be known as the respondent.
The provisions of the preceding paragraph to the contrary notwithstanding, a
petition for quo warranto may be filed by any registered voter of the district
concerned against a member of the House of Representatives, on the ground of
citizenship, at any time during his tenure.
The rule on verification 'and consolidation provided in Section 16 hereof shall apply
to petitions for quo warranto.

G.R.
No.
191699
WILLIAM GO QUE CONSTRUCTION AND/OR WILLIAM GO QUE, PETITIONER, VS. COURT OF APPEALS AND DANNY
SINGSON,
RODOLFO
PASAQUI,[1] LENDO
LOMINIQUI,[2] AND
JUN
ANDALES,
RESPONDENTS.
April 19, 2016
FIRST DIVISION
[ G.R. No. 191699, April 19, 2016 ]
WILLIAM GO QUE CONSTRUCTION AND/OR WILLIAM GO

QUE, PETITIONER, VS. COURT OF APPEALS AND DANNY
SINGSON, RODOLFO PASAQUI,[1] LENDO LOMINIQUI,[2] AND
JUN ANDALES, RESPONDENTS.
DECISION
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:
Assailed in this petition for certiorari[3] are the Resolutions dated November 12,
2009[4] and February 5, 2010[5] of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No.
109427, holding that the photocopies of the identification cards (ID) submitted by
private respondents Danny Singson (Singson), Rodolfo Pasaqui (Pasaqui), and
Lendo Lominiqui (Lominiqui), as well as their Joint Affidavit[6] attesting to the
identity of private respondent Jun Andalos (Andales) and the fact that he was a copetitioner in the case, served as competent evidence of private respondents'
identities and, thus, cured the defect in the Verification/Certification of Non-Forum
Shopping of their petition for certiorari before the CA.
The Facts
Private respondents filed complaints[7] for illegal dismissal against petitioner William
Go Que Construction and/or William Go Que (petitioner) before the National Labor
Relations Commission (NLRC), National Capital Region-North Sector Arbitration
Branch, claiming that they were hired as steelmen on various dates, and were
regular employees of petitioner until their illegal dismissal on June 3, 2006.
Moreover, they alleged that petitioner failed to pay their monetary benefits, such as
service incentive leave pay, holiday pay, and 13th month pay.[8]
For his part, petitioner averred that private respondents were hired as project
employees, and were informed of the specific period or phase of construction
wherein their services were needed. Sometime in May 2006, petitioner learned that
some workers were getting excess and cutting unused steel bars, and selling them
to junk shops, prompting him to announce that he will bring the matter to the
proper authorities. Thereafter, private respondents no longer reported for work, and
were identified by the other workers as the thieves.[9]
Meanwhile, petitioner filed a complaint for theft against private respondents and a
certain Jimmy Dulman before the Office of the City Prosecutor, Quezon City.[10] After
preliminary investigation, the investigating prosecutor found probable cause against
them[11] and filed the corresponding Information[12] before the Regional Trial Court of
Quezon City, docketed as Criminal Case No. Q-07-149245.
The LA Ruling
In a Decision[13] dated March 23, 2007, the Labor Arbiter (LA) found petitioner to
have illegally dismissed private respondents, and declared them to be regular
employees entitled to reinstatement to their former positions without loss of
seniority rights and backwages.[14]
The LA rejected petitioner's claim that private respondents were contractual or
project employees, considering that petitioner: (a) failed to present any written
contract duly signed by private respondents containing details such as the work or
service to be rendered, the place of work, the wage rate, and the term or duration
of employment; (b) continuously employed private respondents to perform the
same tasks for a period of two (2) to eight (8) years; and (c) failed to comply with
the mandatory requirement of submitting termination reports to the appropriate
Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE). The LA likewise rejected petitioner's
claim that private respondents have abandoned their jobs in the absence of written
notice requiring them to explain why they should not be dismissed on the ground of
abandonment.[15]
On the other hand, the LA denied private respondents' monetary claims for lack of
factual basis.[16]
Aggrieved, petitioner appealed[17] to the NLRC, arguing, among others, that Andales
should not have been included as party litigant, considering the apparent
falsification of his signature in the complaint and Verification[18] attached to their
Position Paper,[19] and the fact that he could not be contacted.[20]
The NLRC Ruling
In a Decision[21] dated December 8, 2008 (December 8, 2008 Decision), the NLRC
reversed and set aside the LA ruling, holding that private respondents were validly
dismissed as they stole from petitioner. It noted the Resolution of the Quezon City
Prosecutor's Office finding probable cause for theft against the private respondents
and that the latter abandoned their employment after they were identified by their
former co-workers as the thieves. However, considering petitioner's failure to accord
them procedural due process, the NLRC ordered him to pay each of the private
respondents the amount of P5,000.00 as nominal damages. [22]
Dissatisfied, private respondents moved for reconsideration,[23] which the NLRC
denied in a Resolution[24] dated March 31, 2009, prompting them to elevate their
case to the CA via a petition for certiorari,[25] docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 109427,
[26]
with Motion to Litigate as Pauper[27] (motion).
The CA Proceedings
In a Resolution[28] dated July 3, 2009, the CA granted private respondents' motion
but noted that the Affidavit of Service[29] and the Verification/Certification of NonForum Shopping[30] contained a defective jurat. Thus, private respondents were
directed to cure the defects within five (5) days from notice. [31]
Meanwhile, the NLRC issued an entry of judgment[32] in the case on July 15, 2009.
Petitioner filed an Urgent Manifestation[33] before the CA pointing out the variance
and dissimilarities in the signatures of private respondents as appearing in the
annexes to their petition for certiorari.[34]
Private respondents submitted their Manifestation and Compliance [35] dated July 21,
2009, wherein they admitted that Andales could not be located as he was
purportedly on vacation in Samar,[36] but they attached (a) a verification[37] dated
December 7, 2006 bearing their signatures including Andales's; (b) a
photocopy[38]of private subdivision IDs of Singson, Pasaqui, and Lominiqui; and (c)
a photocopy of the driver's license[39] of the affiant in the Affidavit of Service.
In a Resolution[40] dated August 13, 2009, the CA required private respondents
anew to submit a Verification/Certification of Non-Forum Shopping with a properly
accomplished jurat indicating competent evidence of their identities.
On September 10, 2009, private respondents submitted a Manifestation and
Compliance and Submission of Joint Affidavit[41] wherein Singson, Pasaqui, and
Lominiqui stated that: (a) they personally knew Andales who used to be their coworker[42] and one of the original complainants in the illegal dismissal case; (b)
Andales is in the province and is not in a position to submit his ID; (c) despite
Andales's absence and failure to submit his ID, he should be maintained as a
petitioner before the CA; and (d) they had already submitted their IDs.[43]
Thereafter, in a Resolution[44] dated November 12, 2009, the CA held that the
photocopies of the IDs submitted by Singson, Pasaqui, and Lominiqui, as well as
their Joint-Affidavit[45] attesting to the identity of Andales who was unable to submit
his ID, served as competent evidence of private respondents' identities and cured
the defect in the Affidavit of Service, and Verification/Certification of Non-Forum
Shopping. Without giving due course to the petition, the CA directed petitioner to
submit his Comment within ten (10) days from receipt of the Resolution, and
private respondents to file their Reply within five (5) days from receipt of the said
Comment.[46]
Unperturbed, petitioner moved for reconsideration,[47] which the CA denied in a
Resolution[48] dated February 5, 2010; hence, the instant petition.

On June 15, 2010, Singson and Pasaqui, assisted by their counsel, Atty. Ricardo M.
Perez (Atty. Perez), amicably settled with petitioner, and executed a Satisfaction of
Judgment/Release of Claim[49] in the latter's favor, and, thereafter, filed the
corresponding Motion to Withdraw Petition[50] (motion to withdraw) before the CA.
On the other hand, the adjudged amount in favor of Lominiqui and Andales were
deposited with the NLRC[51] because of their inability to show up and receive the
amounts.
In a Resolution[52] dated July 15, 2010, the CA partially granted the motion to
withdraw and dismissed the petition insofar as Singson and Pasaqui are concerned.
On the other hand, the NLRC issued an Order[53] dated July 20, 2010 directing the
release of the surety bond posted by petitioner.
Subsequently, the CA issued a Resolution[54] dated November 4, 2010 suspending
the proceedings in view of the pendency of the petition for certiorari before the
Court.
The issue for the Court's resolution is whether or not the CA acted with grave abuse
of discretion in refusing to dismiss the petition for certiorari before it on the ground
of non-compliance with the requirements of verification and certification against
forum shopping.
The Court's Ruling
At the outset, it should be pointed out that in a Resolution [55] dated July 15, 2010,
the CA had already dismissed the petition for certiorari in CA-G.R. SP No. 109427
with respect to private respondents Singson and Pasaqui on account of the
Satisfaction of Judgment/Release of Claim[56] they executed in petitioner's favor
subsequent to the filing of the instant case. Notably, Singson and Pasaqui, thru
their counsel, Atty. Perez, moved that the instant petition be dismissed, without
prejudice to the claims of the other private respondents, Lominiqui and Andales,
who are "on the run."[57] The settled rule is that legitimate waivers resulting from
voluntary settlements of laborers' claims should be treated and upheld as the law
between the parties.[58] In view of the foregoing developments, there is no longer
any justiciable controversy between petitioner and private respondents Singson and
Pasaqui, rendering the instant case moot and academic, and dismissible [59] with
respect to them.
On the other hand, private respondents Lominiqui and Andales do not appear to
have any proper representation before the Court in view of Atty. Perez's denial of
any subsisting lawyer-client relationship with them. In fact, it was disclosed that
they were reportedly in hiding for fear of being arrested. [60] Thus, in a
Resolution[61]dated July 24, 2013, they were deemed to have waived the filing of
their comment to the instant petition since the notices addressed to them were
returned unserved.
The foregoing circumstances notwithstanding, the Court delved on the merits of the
instant petition, and found the same to be well taken.
The instant controversy revolves on whether or not the CA gravely abused its
discretion in holding that private respondents substantially complied with the
requirements of a valid verification and certification against forum shopping.
Section 4, Rule 7 of the Rules of Civil Procedure states that "[a] pleading is verified
by an affidavit that the affiant has read the pleading and that the allegations
therein are true and correct of his personal knowledge or based on authentic
records." "A pleading required to be verified which x x x lacks a proper verification,
shall be treated as an unsigned pleading."
On the other hand, Section 5, Rule 7 of the Rules of Civil Procedure provides that
"[t]he plaintiff or principal party shall certify under oath in the complaint or other
initiatory pleading asserting a claim for relief, or in a sworn certification annexed
thereto and simultaneously filed therewith: (a) that he has not theretofore
commenced any action or filed any claim involving the same issues in any court,
tribunal or quasi-judicial agency and, to the best of his knowledge, no such other
action or claim is pending therein; (b) if there is such other pending action or claim,
a complete statement of the present status thereof; and (c) if he should thereafter
learn that the same or similar action or claim has been filed or is pending, he shall
report that fact within five (5) days therefrom to the court wherein his aforesaid
complaint or initiatory pleading has been filed." "Failure to comply with the
foregoing requirements shall not be curable by mere amendment of the complaint
or other initiatory pleading but shall be cause for the dismissal of the case without
prejudice, unless otherwise provided x x x."
In this case, it is undisputed that the Verification/Certification against Forum
Shopping[62] attached to the petition for certiorari in CA-G.R. SP No. 109427 was not
accompanied with a valid affidavit/properly certified under oath. This was because
the jurat thereof was defective in that it did not indicate the pertinent details
regarding the affiants' (i.e., private respondents) competent evidence of identities.
Under Section 6, Rule II of A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC[63] dated July 6, 2004, entitled the
"2004 Rules on Notarial Practice" (2004 Rules on Notarial Practice), & jurat refers to
an act in which an individual on a single occasion:
(a) appears in person before the notary public and presents an instrument or
document;
(b) is personally known to the notary public or identified by the notary public
through competent evidence of identity as defined by these Rules;
(c) signs the instrument or document in the presence of the notary; and
(d) takes an oath or affirmation before the notary public as to such instrument or
document.
Under Section 12, Rule II of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, "competent
evidence of identity" as used in the foregoing provision refers to the identification of
an individual based on:
(a) at least one current identification document issued by an official agency
bearing the photograph and signature of the individual, such as but not
limited to, passport, driver's license, Professional Regulations Commission ID,
National Bureau of Investigation clearance, police clearance, postal ID, voter's ID,
Barangay certification, Government Service and Insurance System (GSIS) e-card,
Social Security System (SSS) card, Philhealth card, senior citizen card, Overseas
Workers Welfare Administration (OWWA) ID, OFW ID, seaman's book, alien
certificate of registration/immigrant certificate of registration, government office ID,
certification from the National Council for the Welfare of Disabled Persons (NCWDP),
Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD) certification; or
(b) the oath or affirmation of one credible witness not privy to the
instrument, document or transaction who is personally known to the notary
public and who personally knows the individual, or of two credible witnesses neither
of whom is privy to the instrument, document or transaction who each personally
knows the individual and shows to the notary public documentary identification.
Evidently, not being documents of identification issued by an official agency, the
photocopies of the IDs[64] of private respondents Singson, Pasaqui, and Lominiqui
from La Vista Association, Inc., R.O. Barra Builders & Electrical Services, and St.
Charbel Executive Village, respectively, do not constitute competent evidence of
their identities under Section 12 (a), Rule II of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice.
In the same vein, their Joint-Affidavit[65] identifying Andales and assuring the CA
that he was a party-litigant is not competent evidence of Andales's identity under

Section 12 (b), Rule II of the same rules, considering that they (i.e., Singson,
Pasaqui, and Lominiqui) themselves are privy to the instrument, i.e., the
Verification/Certification of Non-Forum Shopping, in which Andales's participation is
sought to be proven. To note, it cannot be presumed that an affiant is personally
known to the notary public; the jurat must contain a statement to that effect.
[66]
Tellingly, the notarial certificate of the Verification/Certification of Non-Forum
Shopping[67] attached to private respondents' petition before the CA did not state
whether they presented competent evidence of their identities, or that they were
personally known to the notary public, and, thus, runs afoul of the requirements of
verification and certification against forum shopping under Section 1, [68] Rule 65, in
relation to Section 3,[69] Rule 46, of the Rules of Court.
In Fernandez v. Villegas[70] (Fernandez), the Court pronounced that non-compliance
with the verification requirement or a defect therein "does not necessarily render
the pleading fatally defective. The court may order its submission or correction or
act on the pleading if the attending circumstances are such that strict compliance
with the Rule may be dispensed with in order that the ends of justice may be
served thereby."[71] "Verification is deemed substantially complied with when one
who has ample knowledge to swear to the truth of the allegations in the complaint
or petition signs the verification, and when matters alleged in the petition have
been made in good faith or are true and correct." [72] Here, there was no substantial
compliance with the verification requirement as it cannot be ascertained that any of
the private respondents actually swore to the truth of the allegations in the petition
for certiorari in CA-G.R. SP No. 109427 given the lack of competent evidence of any
of their identities. Because of this, the fact that even one of the private respondents
swore that the allegations in the pleading are true and correct of his knowledge and
belief is shrouded in doubt.
For the same reason, neither was there substantial compliance with the certification
against forum shopping requirement. In Fernandez, the Court explained that "noncompliance therewith or a defect therein, unlike in verification, is generally not
curable by its subsequent submission or correction thereof, unless there is a need
to relax the Rule on the ground of 'substantial compliance' or presence of'special
circumstances or compelling reasons.'"[73] Here, the CA did not mention - nor does
there exist - any perceivable special circumstance or compelling reason which
justifies the rules' relaxation. At all events, it is uncertain if any of the private
respondents certified under oath that no similar action has been filed or is pending
in another forum.
In fact, on both procedural aspects, the CA failed to address the evident variance in
the signatures[74] of the remaining private respondents, i.e., Lominiqui and Andales,
in their petition for certiorari and their previous pleadings. Earlier, petitioner had
already questioned Andales's participation in the case as he was already missing

when the complaint was filed, and his signature in the Verification attached to
private respondents' Position Paper did not match those in the payroll documents.
[75]
In sum, the authenticity of the signatures of Lominiqui and Andales, and their
participation in the instant case were seriously put into question.
Case law states that "[v]erification is required to secure an assurance that the
allegations in the petition have been made in good faith or are true and correct, and
not merely speculative."[76] On the other hand, "[t]he certification against forum
shopping is required based on the principle that a party-litigant should not be
allowed to pursue simultaneous remedies in different fora." [77] The important
purposes behind these requirements cannot be simply brushed aside absent any
sustainable explanation justifying their relaxation. In this case, proper justification
is especially called for in light of the serious allegations of forgery as to the
signatures of the remaining private respondents, i.e., Lominiqui and Andales. Thus,
by simply treating the insufficient submissions before it as compliance with its
Resolution[78] dated August 13, 2009 requiring anew the submission of a proper
verification/certification against forum shopping, the CA patently and grossly
ignored settled procedural rules and, hence, gravely abused its discretion. All things
considered, the proper course of action was for it to dismiss the petition.
As a final word, it is well to stress that "procedural rules are not to be disdained as
mere technicalities that may be ignored at will to suit the convenience of a party, x
x x. Justice has to be administered according to the Rules in order to obviate
arbitrariness, caprice, or whimsicality."[79] Resort to the liberal application of
procedural rules remains the exception rather than the rule; it cannot be made
without any valid reasons underpinning the said course of action. To merit liberality,
the one seeking such treatment must show reasonable cause justifying its noncompliance with the Rules, and must establish that the outright dismissal of the
petition would defeat the administration of substantial justice. [80] Procedural rules
must, at all times, be followed, save for instances when a litigant must be rescued
from an injustice far graver than the degree of his carelessness in not complying
with the prescribed procedure.[81] The limited exception does not obtain in this case.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Resolutions dated November 12,
2009 and February 5, 2010 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 109427 are
herebyREVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, the petition for certiorari in CAG.R. SP No. 109427 is DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.
Sereno, C. J., (Chairperson), Leonardo-De Castro, Bersamin, and Caguioa, JJ.,
concur.
[1]
"Sumagui" or "Pasagui" in some parts of the records.
"Glendo Lominoque," "Lindo Lominoque," "Lominoque," "Lindo Lomeneque," or

"Lominaqui" in some parts of the records.
[2]
[3]
Erroneously titled as "Petition for Review on Certiorari." Rollo, pp. 3-20.
Id. at 24-25. Penned by Associate Justice Arcangelita M. Romilla-Lontok with

Associate Justices Jose L. Sabio, Jr. and Sixto C. Marella, Jr. concurring.
[4]

Associate Justices Arturo G. Tayag and Amy C. Lazaro-Javier concurring.
[5]
[6]
Dated September 8, 2009. Id. at 194-195.
See Complaint of Singson, Pasaqui, Lominiqui, and a certain Frederick A. Dulman

dated September 18, 2006 (NLRC records, Vol. I, p. 2, including dorsal portion);
and Complaint of Andales dated October 5, 2006 (NLRC records, Vol. II, p. 2,
including dorsal portion).
[7]
[8]
See rollo, pp. 56 and 111-112.
[9]
See id. at 57-58.
[10]
Id. at 58.
[11]
See id. at 62-63.
[12]
Id. at 138-139.
[13]
Id. at 111-118. Penned by LA Felipe P. Pati.
[14]
See id. at 117-118.
[15]
See id. at 115-117.
[16]
See id. at 117.
[17]
See Memorandum of Appeal dated April 30, 2007; id. at 119-132.
[18]
Id. at 85.
[19]
Dated November 28, 2006. Id. at 80-85.
[20]
See id. at 120 and 126-127.
Id. at 55-65. Penned by Presiding Commissioner Raul T. Aquino with

Commissioner Victoriano R. Calaycay concurring. Commissioner Angelita A. Gacutan
took no part.
[21]
[22]
See id. at 60-64.
[23]
See motion for reconsideration dated January 23, 2009; id. at 69-78.
Id. at 67-68. Penned by Presiding Commissioner Raul T. Aquino with

Commissioner Angelita A. Gacutan concurring.
[24]
[25]
Dated June 1 5, 2009. Id. at 29-53.
[26]
Formerly CA-G.R. SP-UDK No. 6231. See id. at 150.
[27]
Id. at 143-145.

Associate Justices Josefina Guevara-Salonga and Romeo F. Barza concurring.
[28]
[29]
CA rollo, p. 35.
[30]
Rollo, p. 53.
[31]
Id. at 151.
[32]
NLRC records, Vol. I, p. 384.
[33]
Dated July 15, 2009. Rollo, pp. 154-156.
[34]
See id. at 155.
[35]
Id. at 168-169.
[36]
Id. at 168.
[37]
Id. at 170.
[38]
Id. at 171.
[39]
Id. at 172.
[40]
Id. at 173.
[41]
[42]
See Joint Affidavit dated September 8, 2009; id. at 194.
[43]
See id. at 176-177.
[44]
Id. at 24-25.
[45]
Id. at 194-195.
[46]
Id.
See motion for reconsideration dated November 26, 2009; CA rollo, pp. 195200.
[47]
[48]
Rollo, pp. 27-28.
[49]
[50]
Dated June 16, 2010. Id. at 224-225.
[51]
See Official Receipt No. 7516048; NLRC records, Vol. I, p. 466.
CA rollo, p. 229. Penned by Associate Justice Samuel H. Gaerlan with Associate

Justices Hakim S. Abdulwahid and Ricardo R. Rosario concurring.
[52]
[53]
NLRC records, Vol. I, pp. 392-394.
CA rollo, pp. 439-440. Penned by Associate Justice Samuel H. Gaerlan with

Associate Justices Hakim S. Abdulwahid and Ricardo R. Rosario concurring.
[54]
[55]
Id. at 229.
[56]
Id. at 226-227.
[57]
See Manifestation and Motion dated May 20, 2011; rollo, pp. 228-230.
[58]
Suarez, Jr. v. National Steel Corporation, 590 Phil. 352, 368 (2008).
[59]
See Phil. Savings Bank v. Senate Impeachment Court, 699 Phil. 34, 36 (2012).
[60]
See rollo pp. 229.
Id. at 260-261. Signed by Deputy Division Clerk of Court Teresita Aquino Tuazon
in behalf of Division Clerk of Court Ma. Lourdes C. Perfecto.
[61]
[62]
Id. at 53.
[63]
Effective August 1, 2004.
[64]
Rollo, p. 171.
[65]
[66]
See Kilosbayan Foundation v. Janolo, Jr., 640 Phil. 33, 46 (2010).
[67]
Rollo, p. 53.
Section 1. Petition for certiorari. When any tribunal, board or officer

exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions has acted without or in excess of its or
his jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction, and there is no appeal, nor any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in
the ordinary course of law, a person aggrieved thereby may file a verified
petition in the proper court, alleging the facts with certainty and praying that
judgment be rendered annulling or modifying the proceedings of such tribunal,
board or officer, and granting such incidental reliefs as law and justice may require.
[68]
The petition shall be accompanied by a certified true copy of the judgment, order or
resolution subject thereof, copies of all pleadings and documents relevant and
pertinent thereto, and a sworn certification of non-forum shopping as
provided in the third paragraph of section 3, Rule 46.(Emphases supplied)
Section 3. Contents and filing of petition; effect of noncompliance with
requirements. - xxx.
[69]
xxxx
The petitioner shall also submit together with the petition a sworn certification that
he has not theretofore commenced any other action involving the same issues in
the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals or different divisions thereof, or any other
tribunal or agency; if there is such other action or proceeding, he must state the
status of the same; and if he should thereafter learn that a similar action or
proceeding has been filed or is pending before the Supreme Court, the Court of
Appeals, or different divisions thereof, or any other tribunal or agency, he
undertakes to promptly inform the aforesaid courts and other tribunal or agency
thereof within five (5) days therefrom.
xxxx
The failure of the petitioner to comply with any of the foregoing
requirements shall be sufficient ground for the dismissal of the
petition. (Emphasis supplied)
[70]
G.R. No. 200191, August 20, 2014, 733 SCRA 548.
[71]
Id. at 556.
[72]
Id. at 556-557.
[73]
Id. at 557.
[74]
See rollo, pp. 53, 85, and 135-136.
[75]
See id. at 120 and 126-127.
[76]
Sps. Lim v. CA, 702 Phil. 634, 642 (2013).
[77]
Id. at 643.
[78]
Rollo, p. 173.
See Abadilla v. Spouses Obrero, G.R. No. 210855, December 9, 2015,

citing Bank of the Philippine Islands v. CA, 646 Phil. 617, 627 (2010).
[79]
See Building Care Corp./Leopard Security & Investigation Agency v. Macaraeg,

700 Phil. 749, 755 (2012), citing Daikoku Electronics Phils., Inc. v. Raza, 606 Phil.
796, 803-804 (2009).
[80]
See Sps. Dycoco v. CA, 715 Phil. 550, 568 (2013), citing Republic v. Kenrick
Development Corporation, 529 Phil. 876, 885-886 (2006).
[81]

G.R.
No.
213299
PNCC SKYWAY CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. THE SECRETARY OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT AND PNCC SKYWAY
CORPORATION
EMPLOYEES
UNION,
RESPONDENTS.
April 19, 2016
FIRST DIVISION
[ G.R. No. 213299, April 19, 2016 ]
PNCC SKYWAY CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. THE
SECRETARY OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT AND PNCC
SKYWAY CORPORATION EMPLOYEES UNION, RESPONDENTS.
DECISION
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:
Assailed in this petition for review on certiorari[1] are the Decision[2] dated
September 30, 2013 and the Resolution[3] dated June 11, 2014 of the Court of
Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 111201, which affirmed the Decision [4] dated
August 29, 2008 and the Resolution[5] dated August 26, 2009 of the Secretary of
the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) holding petitioner PNCC Skyway
Corporation (PSC) liable for P30,000.00 as indemnity to each of its terminated
employees, for failure to comply with the thirty (30)-day notice requirement under
Article 298 (formerly Article 283) of the Labor Code, as amended. [6]
The Facts
In October 1977, the Republic of the Philippines, through the Toll Regulatory Board
(TRB), and the Philippine National Construction Corporation [7] (PNCC) entered into a
Toll Operation Agreement (TOA)[8] for the latter's operation and maintenance of the
South Metro Manila Skyway (Skyway).[9]
On November 27, 1995, a Supplemental TOA (STOA)[10] was executed by the TRB,
PNCC, and Citra Metro Manila Tollways Corporation (CITRA), whereby CITRA, as an
incoming investor, agreed, under a build-and-transfer scheme, [11] to finance, design,
and construct the Skyway.[12] However, PNCC retained the right to operate and
maintain the toll facilities,[13] and for such purpose, undertook to incorporate a
subsidiary company that would assume its rights and obligations under the STOA:
6.16. Operator's Subsidiary Company
Subject to all relevant existing laws, rules, and regulations, [PNCC] shall
incorporate a subsidiary company (the "Subsidiary Company") at least 6 months
prior to the Partial Operation Date [PNCC] shall be the sole stockholder of the
Subsidiary Company. The powers and functions of the Subsidiary Company shall
only be to undertake and perform the obligations of [PNCC] under this Agreement,
including without limitation Operation and Maintenance.[14]
Thus, on December 15, 1998, PSC was incorporated as a subsidiary of PNCC to
operate the Skyway on PNCC's behalf. As such, it was tasked to maintain the toll
facilities, ensure traffic safety, and collect toll fees at the Skyway.[15]
On July 18, 2007, the TRB, PNCC, and CITRA entered into an Amended STOA
(ASTOA).[16] Under the ASTOA, the operation and management of the Skyway would
be transferred from PSC to a new Replacement Operator, which turned out to be the
Skyway O & M Corporation (SOMCO).[17] A transition period of 5 1/2 months was
provided commencing on the date of signing of the ASTOA until December 31,
2007, during which period, PSC continued to operate the Skyway.[18]
In line with the above-mentioned transfer, PSC, on December 28, 2007, issued
termination letters to its employees and filed a notice of closure with the DOLE National Capital Region, advising them that it shall cease to operate and maintain
the Skyway, and that the services of the employees would be
consequentlyterminated effective January 31, 2008.[19] In this regard, PSC
offered its employees a separation package consisting of 250% of their basic
monthly salary for every year of service, gratuity pay of P40,000.00 each, together
with all other remaining benefits such as 13th month pay, rice subsidy, cash
conversion of leave credits, and medical reimbursement.[20]
On the same date, the PSC Employees Union (PSCEU) filed a Notice of Strike on the
ground of unfair labor practice resulting in union busting and dismissal of workers.
On December 31, 2007, the DOLE Secretary intervened and assumed jurisdiction
over the labor incident.[21]
The DOLE Secretary's Ruling

In a Decision[22] dated August 29, 2008, the DOLE Secretary dismissed the charges
of unfair labor practice and union busting, as well as the counter-charges of illegal
strike, but ordered PSC to pay its terminated employees P30,000.00 each as
indemnity after finding that the notices of their dismissal were invalid. [23]
The DOLE Secretary held that while there was a valid and sufficient legal basis for
PSC's closure - as it was a mere consequence of the termination of its contract to
operate and maintain the Skyway in view of the amendment of the STOA - PSC,
nonetheless, foiled to comply with the thirty (30)-day procedural notice
requirement in terminating its employees, as provided under Article 283 (now,
Article 298) of the Labor Code.[24] It was observed that while PSC stated in the
notices of termination to the employees (as well as in the notice to the DOLE) that
the dismissal of the employees would take effect on January 31, 2008, it admitted
that it actually ceased to operate and maintain the Skyway upon its turnover to
SOMCO on December 31, 2007.[25] As such, PSC fixed the termination date at
January 31, 2008 only to make it appear that it was complying with the one-month
notice requirement, Thus, citing the case of Agabon v. National Labor Relations
Commission (Agabon),[26] the DOLE Secretary ordered PSC to pay each of its
terminated employees P30,000.00 as indemnity.[27]
On September 12, 2008, PSC filed a Motion for Partial Reconsideration and
Clarification,[28] while the PSCEU filed a Motion for Reconsideration,[29] which were
both denied in a Resolution[30] dated August 26, 2009.[31] Dissatisfied, PSC elevated
the case to the Court of Appeals (CA) through a petition for certiorari.[32]
The CA Ruling
In a Decision[33] dated September 30, 2013, the CA affirmed [34] the DOLE
Secretary's ruling after observing that PSC held inconsistent and conflicting
positions with regard to the date of termination of its employees' services. [35]
The CA pointed out that in the Establishment Termination Report submitted to the
DOLE, PSC stated that it shall close or shut down its operations effective January
31, 2008. However, in its Position Paper submitted to the DOLE, PSC stated that it
"ceased to operate and maintain the [Skyway] upon its turnover to SOMCO
effective December 31, 2007."[36] According to the CA, the apparent inconsistency
as to the date of effectivity of the dismissal of the PSC employees must be resolved
in favor of the employees who must then be deemed to have been terminated on
December 31, 2007, consistent with Article 4[37] of the Labor Code which states that
all doubts shall be resolved in favor of labor.[38]
The CA further held that it is of no moment that the PSC employees were paid their
salaries and benefits for the whole month of January 2008 since they were already
out of service as of December 31, 2007, explaining too that this defeated the
purpose behind the thirty (30)-day notice requirement, which is to give the
employees time to prepare for the eventual loss of their employment. [39]
Anent PSC's argument that the PSCEU had been informed as early as September
2007 of the impending takeover of the operation of the Skyway by a new operator,
the CA cited Smart Communications, Inc. v. Astorga[40] (Smart Communications,
Inc.) and thereby, ruled that "actual knowledge of the reorganization cannot replace
the formal and written notice required by law."[41]
The CA denied PSC's motion for reconsideration[42] in a Resolution[43] dated June 11,
2014; hence, the instant petition.
The sole issue in this case is whether or not the CA erred in affirming the DOLE
Secretary's ruling that PSC failed to comply with the 30-day notice requirement
under Article 298 (formerly, Article 283) of the Labor Code, as amended.
The Court's Ruling
Closure of business is an authorized cause for termination of employment, Article
298 (formerly, Article 283) of the Labor Code, as amended, reads:
ART. 298. Closure of Establishment and Reduction of Personnel. - The employer
may also terminate the employment of any employee due to the installation
of labor-saving devices, redundancy, retrenchment to prevent losses or the closing
or cessation of operation of the establishment or undertaking unless the
closing is for the purpose of circumventing the provisions of this Title, by serving a
written notice on the workers and the Ministry of Labor and Employment at least
one (1) month before the intended date thereof. x x x. In case of retrenchment to
prevent losses and in cases of closures or cessation of operations of establishment
or undertaking not due to serious business losses or financial reverses, the
separation pay shall be equivalent to one (1) month pay or to at least one-half
(1/2) month pay for every year of service, whichever is higher. A fraction of at least
six (6) months shall be considered one (1) whole year. (Emphases supplied)
In this relation, jurisprudence provides that "[t]he determination to cease
operations is a prerogative of management which the State does not usually
interfere with, as no business or undertaking must be required to continue
operating simply because it has to maintain its workers in employment, and such
act would be tantamount to a taking of property without due process of law. As long
as the company's exercise of the same is in good faith to advance its interest and
not for the purpose of circumventing the rights of employees under the law or a
valid agreement, such exercise will be upheld."[44]
Procedurally, Article 298 (formerly, Article 283) of the Labor Code, as amended
provides for three (3) requirements to properly effectuate termination on the
ground of closure or cessation of business operations. These are: (a) service of a
written notice to the employees and to the DOLE at least one (1) month before the
intended date of termination; (b) the cessation of business must be bona fide in
character; and (c) payment to the employees of termination pay amounting to one
(1) month pay or at least one-half month pay for every year of service, whichever
is higher.[45]
Case law has settled that an employer who terminates an employee for a valid
cause but does so through invalid procedure is liable to pay the latter nominal
damages.[46] In Agabon, the Court pronounced that, where the dismissal is for a just
cause, the lack of statutory due process should not nullify the dismissal, or render it
illegal, or ineffectual.[47] However, the employer should indemnify the employee for
the violation of his statutory rights. Thus, in Agabon, the employer was ordered to
pay the employee nominal damages in the amount of P30,000.00. [48] Proceeding
from the same ratio, the Court modified Agabon in the case of Jaka Food Processing
Corporation v. Pacot[49] (Jaka) where it created a distinction between procedurally
defective dismissals due to a just cause, on the one hand, and those due to an
authorized cause, on the other. In Jaka, it was explained that if the dismissal is
based on a just cause under Article 282 (now, Article 297) of the Labor Code but
the employer failed to comply with the notice requirement, the sanction to be
imposed upon him should be tempered because the dismissal process was, in
effect, initiated by an act imputable to the employee; if the dismissal is based on an
authorized cause under Article 283 (now, Article 298) of the Labor Code but the
employer failed to comply with the notice requirement, the sanction should be
stiffer because the dismissal process was initiated by the employer's exercise of his
management prerogative. Hence, in Jaka, where the employee was dismissed for
an authorized cause of retrenchment - as contradistinguished from the employee
in Agabon who was dismissed for a just cause of neglect of duty - the Court ordered
the employer to pay the employee nominal damages at the higher amount of
P50,000.00.[50]
The sole issue in this case is whether or not PSC properly complied with the thirty
(30)-day prior notice rule, which is the first prong of the termination procedure
under Article 298 (formerly Article 283) of the Labor Code, as amended. The Court
rules in the affirmative; hence, there is no basis to award any indemnity in favor of
PSC's terminated employees.
As admitted by both parties, the PSC employees and the DOLE were notified on
December 28, 2007 that PSC intended to cease operations on January 31, 2008.
The PSC employees and the DOLE were, therefore, notified 34 days ahead of the
impending closure of PSC. Clearly, the mere fact that PSC turned over the operation
and management of the Skyway to SOMCO and ceased business operations on
December 31, 2007, should not be taken to mean that the FSC employees
were ipso facto terminated on the same date. The employees were notified
that despite the cessation of its operations on December 31, 2007 - which, as a
consequence thereof, would result in the needlessness of their services - the
effective date of their termination from employment would be on January
31, 2008:
Pursuant to the amended Supplemental Toll Operations Agreement entered into on
July 18, 2007 by and among the Republic of the Philippines thru the Toll Regulatory
Board, Philippine National Construction Corporation and Citra Metro Manila Tollways
Corporation, a new Operation and Maintenance Company (OMCO) has been
nominated to replace the PNCC Skyway Corporation (PSC). As a consequence
thereof, PSC shall then cease to operate and maintain the South Metro
Manila Skyway upon its turn over to the new OMCO which may happen not
earlier than December 31, 2007. It is unfortunate therefore that all PSC
employees shall be separated from service but shall be given a generous separation
package more than, what the law provides.
In this regard please be advised that your employment with PNCC Skyway
Corporation will be terminated effective January 31, 2008. In consideration
thereof, you will accordingly receive the following separation package.
x x x x[51] (Emphases and underscoring supplied)
That the effectivity of the PSC employees' termination is on January 31, 2008, and
not on December 31, 2007, is lucidly evinced by the unrefuted fact that they were
still paid their salaries and benefits for the whole month of January 2008. [52] Surely,
it would go against the stream of practical business logic to retain employees on
payroll a month after they had already been terminated.
On top of that, it deserves mentioning that PSC undisputedly paid its dismissed
employees separation pay in amounts more than that required by law. As the
records show, PSC's separation package to its employees was a generous one
consisting of no less than 250% of the basic monthly pay per year of service, a
gratuity pay of P40,000.00, rice subsidy, cash conversion of vacation and sick
leaves and medical reimbursement.[53] On the other hand, the legally-mandated
rate for separation pay provided under Article 298 (formerly, Article 283) of the
Labor Code, as amended, in cases such as the present, is equivalent to "one (1)
month pay or at least one-half (1/2) month pay for every year of service, whichever
is higher."
Ultimately, it was within PSC's prerogative and discretion as employer to retain the
services of its employees for one month after the turnover date to SOMCO and to
continue paying their salaries and benefits corresponding to that period even when
there is no more work to be done, if only "to ensure a smooth transition and
gradual phasing in of the new operator, which had yet to familiarize itself with the
business."[54]
Case law teaches that an employer may opt not to require the dismissed employees
to report for work during the 30-day notice period.
In Associated Labor Unions - VIMCONTU v. National Labor Relations Commission,
[55]
the Court held that there was "more than substantial compliance" with the
notice requirement where a written notice to the employees on August 5, 1983 had
informed them that their services would cease at the end of that month but that
they would nevertheless be paid their salaries and benefits for five days, from
September 1 to 5, 1983, even if they rendered no service for the period. [56]
Similarly, in Kasapian ng Malayang Manggagawa sa Coca-Cola (KASAMMA-CCO)CFW Local 245 v. CA,[57] the Court dismissed the union employees' argument that
there was non-compliance with the one-month notice because they were no longer
allowed to report for work effective immediately upon receipt of the notice of
termination, ruling therein that the payment of salaries from December 9, 1999 to
February 29, 2000 although the employees did not render service for the period is,
by analogy, "more than substantial compliance with the law." [58]
To clarify, the case of Smart Communications, Inc., which was cited by the CA in
holding that the actual knowledge by the PSCEU of the impending takeover cannot
replace the formal written notice required by law, is inapplicable to this case.
In Smart Communications, Inc., the employee received the notice of her dismissal
only two (2) weeks before its effectivity date although it was issued by the
employer at least thirty (30) days prior to the intended date of her dismissal. Given
that the employee was evidently shortchanged of the mandated period of notice,
the Court ruled that actual knowledge could not replace the formal written notice
required by law.[59]
In contrast, PSC complied with the mandated thirty (30)-day notice requirement.
Although PSC informed its employees that it would be turning over its operations to
SOMCO not earlier than December 31, 2007, they were duly notified that the
effective date of their termination was set on January 31, 2008. In light of valid
business reasons, i.e., the transfer of operations to SOMCO pursuant to the ASTOA,
PSC asked its employees not to report for work beginning December 31, 2007 but
were still retained on payroll until January 31, 2008. Evidently, their employment
with PSC did not cease by the sole reason that they were told not to render any
service.
In addition, since the employees were not reporting for work although retained on
payroll, they had, in fact, more free time to look for job opportunities elsewhere
after December 31, 2007 up until January 31, 2008. As aptly observed by PSC:
Indeed, instead of reporting in their office and wasting time doing nothing in view
of the cessation of PSC's business operation, the concerned employees can and
actually devoted one month to look for another employment with pay.[60]
This meets the purpose of the notice requirement as enunciated in, among others,
the case of G.J.T. Rebuilders Machine Shop v. Ambos:[61]
Notice of the eventual closure of establishment is a "personal right of the employee
to be personally informed of his [or her] proposed dismissal as well as the reasons
therefor." The reason for this requirement is to "give the employee some
time in prepare for the eventual loss of his [or her] job." [62] (Emphasis
supplied)
Ail told, considering that PSC had complied with Article 298 (formerly, Article 283)
of the Labor Code, as amended, the indemnity award in favor of the terminated
employees was grossly improper and must therefore be nullified, in this respect, the
DOLE Secretary gravely abused its discretion and the CA erred in ruling otherwise.
When, a lower court or tribunal patently violates the Constitution, the law, or
existing jurisprudence, grave abuse of discretion is committed, [63] as in this case.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated September 30, 2013
and the Resolution dated June 11, 2014 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No.
111201 are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
SO ORDERED.
concur.
[1]
Rollo, pp, 11-24.
Id. at 32-44. Penned by Associate Justice Rosalinda Asuncion-Vicente with

Associate Justices Priscilla J. Baltazar-Padilla and Ramon A. Cruz concurring.
[2]
Id. at 46-47. Penned by Associate justice Ramon A. Cruz wish Associate Justices
Magdangal M. De Leon and Priscilla J. Baltazar-Padilla concurring.
[3]
[4]
Not attached to the rollo.
[5]
As amended and renumbered by Republic Act No. 10151, entitled "AN ACT
ALLOWING THE EMPLOYMENT OF NIGHT WORKERS, THEREBY REPEALING
ARTICLES 130 AND 131 OF PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NUMBER FOUR HUNDRED
FORTY-TWO, AS AMENDED, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE LABOR CODE OF THE
PHILIPPINES," approved on June 21, 2011.
[6]
[7]
Formerly "Construction and Development Corporation of the Philippines."
[8]
Rollo, pp. 48-61.
[9]
See id. at 33.
[10]
Id. at 66-134.
[11]
Id. at 33.
[12]
Id. at 71.
[13]
Id. at 33.
[14]
Id. at 101.
[15]
Id. at 33.
[16]
Id. at 135-183.
[17]
See id. at 33 and 180.
[18]
Id. at 33.
[19]
Id. at 34.
[20]
Id.
[21]
Id.
[22]
Not attached to the rollo. See id. at 34-38.
[23]
See id. at 38.
[24]
See id. at 35-36.
[25]
Id. at 36.
[26]
485 Phil. 248 (2004).
[27]
Rollo, pp. 36-38.
[28]
[29]
[30]
[31]
Rollo, p. 39.
[32]
Id. at 250-263.
[33]
Id. at 32-44.
[34]
Id. at 43.
[35]
See id. at 40-41.
[36]
Id. at 41.
ART. 4. Construction in Favor of Labor. - All doubts in the implementation and

interpretation of the provisions of this Code, including its implementing rules and
regulations, shall be resolved in favor of labor.
[37]
[38]
[39]
See id. at 41-42.
[40]
566 Phil. 422 (2008)
[41]
See rollo, 42-43.
[42]
[43]
Rollo, pp. 46-47.
[44]
Espina v. CA, 548 Phil. 255, 274 (2007).
[45]
Industrial Timber Corporation v. Ababon, 515 Phil. 805, 819 (2006).
[46]
Abbott Laboratories Philippines v. Alcaraz, 714 Phil. 510, 540 (2013).
[47]
Agabon v. National Labor Relations Commission, supra note 26, at 287.
[48]
See id. at 291.
[49]
See 494 Phil. 114, 119-121 (2005).
[50]
Abbott Laboratories, Philippines v. Alcaraz, supra note 46, at 540-541.
[51]
See letter dated December 27, 2007; rollo, p. 197.
[52]
See id. at 19-20 and 41.
[53]
See id. at 17 and 197.
[54]
Id. at 19.
[55]
G.R. Nos. 74841 and 75667, December 20, 1991, 204 SCRA 913.
[56]
See id. at 921-922.
[57]
521 Phil. 606 (2006).
[58]
See id. at 623-627.
[59]
See Smart Communications, Inc. v. Astorga, supra note 40, at 440.
[60]
Rollo, p. 18.
[61]
See G.R. No. 174184, January 28, 2015.
[62]
See id.
[63]
See Carpio-Morales v. CA, G.R. Nos. 217126-27, November 10, 2015.

A.C.
RUDENIA
No.
L.
TIBURDO,
COMPLAINANT,
VS.
ATTY.
10677
BENIGNO
M.
PUNO,
RESPONDENT.
April 18, 2016
SECOND DIVISION
[ A.C. No. 10677, April 18, 2016 ]
RUDENIA L. TIBURDO, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. BENIGNO
M. PUNO, RESPONDENT.
DECISION
CARPIO, J.:
The Case
Before the Court is a complaint for disbarment filed by Rudenia L. Tiburdo (Tiburdo)
against Atty. Benigno M. Puno (Atty. Puno) for gross misconduct and gross immoral
conduct in accordance with Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court.
The Facts
The Complaint stems from Civil Case No. 2633-G for Quieting of Title,
Reconveyance and Damages (the Civil Case) filed in the Regional Trial Court (RTC)
of Gumaca, Quezon by Gerd Robert Marquard (Marquard) against Spouses Antonino
and Imelda Macaraeg, Fr. Rodrigo F. San Pedro and Araceli Emor.[1] Atty. Puno was
the counsel for Marquard.
Due to the absence of summons to one of the defendants in the Civil Case, the
hearing was reset to enable the service of summons by publication. [2] At the
subsequent hearing, Atty. Puno manifested that this has been duly complied with.
[3]
However, as Atty. Puno did not have the Affidavit of Publication to prove such
manifestation, the RTC required him to present the affidavit at the next hearing.
[4]
Despite repeated orders from the RTC, and more than sufficient time to comply
with such orders,[5] Atty. Puno failed to present the required Affidavit of Publication.
Thus, the counsel for defendant moved to dismiss the case on the ground that the
case has been postponed several times due to the fault of the plaintiff, which shows
lack of interest.[6] The RTC denied this motion and gave Atty. Puno a final chance to
comply with its orders requiring the submission of the Affidavit of Publication.
[7]
Unfortunately, Atty. Puno still failed to comply. Thus, on 3 June 2009, the RTC
eventually dismissed the case in accordance with Section 3, Rule 17 of the Rules of
Court.[8] As no action was further taken on the order dismissing the Civil Case, the
dismissal attained finality on 1 July 2009.[9]
On 4 June 2010, Tiburdo filed her Complaint-Affidavit [10] for the disbarment of Atty.
Puno alleging that: (1) Atty. Puno intentionally and deliberately failed to submit the
Affidavit of Publication to cause great damage and prejudice to Marquard; (2) Atty.
Puno failed to inform her (as the duly authorized attorney-in-fact of Marquard) [11]or
Marquard of the dismissal of the Civil Case despite receipt of the order containing
such dismissal; and (3) the actuations and demeanor of Atty. Puno constituted
gross misconduct and gross immoral conduct which is a ground for his disbarment
in accordance with Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court. [12]
In an Order dated 4 June 2010,[13] the Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) of the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) required Atty. Puno to submit his Answer
within fifteen (15) days from receipt of the Order, failure of which would result in
his default and the ex-parte hearing of the case. Atty. Puno failed to file his Answer.
Nonetheless, Atty. Puno attended the Mandatory Conference before the
Investigating Commissioner. During the Mandatory Conference, Atty. Puno clarified
whether the true complainant in the case was Tiburdo or Marquard, and whether
there was a possible conflict with another disbarment case against him, CBD Case
No. 10-2693.[14]Atty. Donnabel Cristal Tenorio (Atty. Tenorio), counsel for Tiburdo,
manifested that the true complainant was her client Tiburdo. As the parties failed to
arrive at a common issue, the Mandatory Conference was terminated on 17 June
2011 and both parties were required to submit their respective verified position
papers within thirty (30) days therefrom.[15] Tiburdo filed her position paper on 24
July 2011.[16] Atty. Puno, on the other hand, failed to submit his.
IBP Investigation, Report and Recommendation
In the Report and Recommendation dated 30 September 2011, [17] the Investigating
Commissioner found Atty. Puno guilty of gross misconduct under Section 27, Rule
138 of the Rules of Court, in connection with the express mandate of the Lawyer's
Oath of obeying the legal orders of duly constituted authorities. The Investigating
Commissioner reasoned:
Nonetheless, the facts presented and evidence adduced warrant a proper finding of
gross misconduct. The pieces of evidence presented by the complainant clearly and
convincingly proved that respondent Atty. Puno's act of continuously ignoring the
direct orders of the trial court to submit the Affidavit of Publication sans satisfying
explanation by Atty. Puno for his failure to do so despite repeated demands is
evocative of this gross misconduct, x x x.
xxxx
Yet in spite of said directive and final Notice, the records of the case, particularly
the subsequent June 3, 2009 Order of the trial court dismissing the case under Rule
17, Section 3 of the Rules of Court shows the respondent's failure to comply. This
deliberate and patent non-compliance [with] the trial court's Orders is in direct
violation of the Lawyer's Oath i.e. to "obey the laws as well as the legal orders of
the duly constituted authorities therein."
Moreover, the Code of Professional Responsibility clearly mandates for every lawyer
to "serve his client with competence and diligence." In fact, Rule 18.04 of Canon 18
states that: "A lawyer shall keep the client informed of the status of his case and
shall respond within a reasonable time to the client's request for information." Time
and time again the Supreme Court has held that "as an officer of the court, it is the
duty of an attorney to inform his client of whatever information he may have
acquired which is important that the client should have knowledge of. He should
notify his client of any adverse decision to enable his client to decide whether to
seek an appellate review thereof. Keeping the client informed of the developments
of the case will minimize misunderstanding and los[s] of trust and confidence in the
attorney."[18]
While Atty. Puno failed to file any pleadings with the IBP, the Investigating
Commissioner still took note of the argument raised by Atty. Puno during the
Mandatory Conference - that Tiburdo was not the proper party to this disbarment
case. In addressing this issue, the Investigating Commissioner held:
The respondent's query on proper standing is of no moment. "Rule 139.B, Section 1
of the Rules of Court state[s] that: Proceedings for disbarment, suspension or
discipline of attorneys may be taken by the Supreme Court motu proprio, or by the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) upon the verified complaint of any person."
Correspondingly, the Supreme Court in the case of Navarro v. Meneses III, as
reiterated in Ilusorio-Bildner v. Lokin, held that: "x x x The right to institute a
disbarment proceeding is not confined to clients nor is it necessary that the person
complaining suffered injury from the alleged wrongdoing. Disbarment proceedings
are matters of public interest and the only basis for judgment is the proof or failure
of proof of the charges. The evidence submitted by complainant before the
Commission on Bar Discipline sufficed to sustain its resolution and recommended
sanctions."[19]
Finding Atty. Puno guilty of gross misconduct, the Investigating Commissioner made
the following recommendation:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, it is respectfully recommended that Atty.
Benigno M. Puno be SUSPENDED from [the] practice of law for three (3) months for
gross misconduct under Rule 138, Section 27 of the Rules of Court in connection
with the express mandate of the Lawyer's Oath of obeying the legal orders of the
duly constituted authorities, herein Regional Trial Court of Quezon Branch 61 to file
the Affidavit of Publication and of Canon 18, Rule 18.04 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility for his failure to timely and immediately apprise his client of the
adverse decision regarding their case.[20]
In Resolution No. XX-2012-583 dated 29 December 2012, the Board of Governors
of the IBP adopted and approved, with modification, the Report and
Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner:
RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby unanimously ADOPTED and
APPROVED, with modification, the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating
Commissioner in the above-entitled case, herein made part of this Resolution as
Annex "A", and finding the recommendation fully supported by the evidence on
record and the applicable laws and rules, and considering that Respondent violated
Rule 138, Section 27 of the Rules of Court and Canon 18, Rule 18.04 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility, Atty. Benigno M. Puno is hereby ADMONISHED with
Warning that repetition of the same of [sic] similar acts shall be dealt with more
severely.[21]
On 22 March 2013, Atty. Puno filed a Motion for Reconsideration arguing that the
IBP failed to include his defense that he was no longer the counsel of Marquard
when the RTC issued the orders. He alleged that he had no more obligation to
interfere in the cases:
xxx [T]he ground that the RECOMMENDATION upon which the said Resolution is
based had OMITTED herein respondent's DEFENSE that he was already
UNCEREMONIOUSLY REMOVED as counsel of the complainant in the several cases in
one of which, the trial Court [sic] had dismissed one of the complainant's Complaint
in which respondent had no more obligation to interfere in said cases in which he
was already DISCHARGED from handling said case as early as April 13, 2009. [22]
To support his argument, Atty. Puno attached the letter of Tiburdo dated 13 April
2009,[23] terminating his services as counsel for Marquard. Atty. Puno also attached
his Position Paper[24] for CBD Case No. 10-2586[25] where he argued, among others,
that: (1) Tiburdo had no personal knowledge of the facts complained of and thus
had no cause of action against him; and (2) he was already "unceremoniously,
unjustifiably discharged or terminated, in an uncivilized way" before the Civil Case
was dismissed.
On 2 May 2014, the Board of Governors of the IBP denied the Motion for
Reconsideration of Atty. Puno and adopted the recommendation of the Investigating
Commissioner suspending him from the practice of law for three (3) months:
RESOLVED, to DENY Respondent's Motion for Reconsideration, finding gross
misconduct on his part. Thus, the Board hereby SET ASIDE Resolution No. XX2012-583 dated December 29, 2012 and ADOPT and APPROVE the Report and
Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner SUSPENDING Atty. Benigno M.
Puno from the practice of law for three (3) months. [26]
The Ruling of the Court
The Court finds the report of the IBP in order, with modification as to the penalty.
On a preliminary note, we agree with the report of the Investigating Commissioner
as to proper standing. While Tiburdo did not present any evidence to prove that she
was indeed the attorney-in-fact of Marquard, this does not affect a disbarment
case. We have held time and again that the right to institute disbarment
proceedings is not confined to clients nor is it necessary that the complainant
suffered injury from the alleged wrongdoing.[27] As explained in Rayos-Ombac v.
Rayos:[28]
A proceeding for suspension or disbarment is not in any sense a civil action where
the complainant is a plaintiff and the respondent lawyer is a defendant. Disciplinary
proceedings involve no private interest and afford no redress for private grievance.
They are undertaken and prosecuted solely for the public welfare. They are
undertaken for the purpose of preserving courts of justice from the official
ministration of persons unfit to practice in them. The attorney is called to answer to
the court for his conduct as an officer of the court. The complainant or the person
who called the attention of the court to the attorney's alleged misconduct is in no
sense a party, and has generally no interest in the outcome except as all good
citizens may have in the proper administration of justice.
Thus, it is of no moment that Tiburdo was not Atty. Puno's client in the Civil Case.
What matters is whether or not the acts complained of are proven by the evidence
on record.
Failure to obey RTC orders to present Affidavit of Publication
On several occasions, the RTC ordered Atty. Puno to produce the necessary Affidavit
of Publication. We note that based on the records, the affidavit had already been
duly executed and Atty. Puno merely had to present the same to the court.
[29]
However, despite repeated orders from the trial court, he failed to present such
affidavit.
Lawyers, as officers of the court, are particularly called upon to obey court orders
and processes and are expected to stand foremost in complying with court
directives.[30] The Lawyer's Oath expressly mandates lawyers to obey the legal
orders of the duly constituted authorities. In this case, Atty. Puno was mandated, in
accordance with his lawyer's oath and duty to the courts, to obey the orders of the
RTC and submit the necessary documents accordingly. This he repeatedly failed to
do.
This Court has held that a lawyer's failure to file the required pleadings on behalf of
his client constitutes gross negligence in violation of the Code of Professional
Responsibility and subjects him to disciplinary action.[31] Analogously, Atty. Puno's
repeated failure to produce the necessary Affidavit of Publication, in accordance
with the orders of the court, should render him liable for the proper penalty.
Failure to inform client; Withdrawal as counsel
Aside from Atty. Puno's failure to obey the orders of the court and present the
necessary affidavit, he also failed to perform his duty to inform his client of the
dismissal of the Civil Case. Rule 18.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
provides that "a lawyer shall keep the client informed of the status of his case and
shall respond within a reasonable time to the client's request for information." The
records show that the office of Atty. Puno duly received the Order of the RTC
dismissing the Civil Case.[32] However, he never informed Marquard or Tiburdo of
the Order, causing such dismissal to attain finality. Atty. Puno merely argues that he
had no responsibility to interfere in the case as he was no longer the counsel of
Marquard.
The records are bereft, however, of any indication that Atty. Puno has indeed
withdrawn himself as counsel for Marquard in the Civil Case. Until the withdrawal of
a counsel has been approved by the court, he remains counsel of record and is
expected by his client, as well as by the court, to do what the interests of his client
require.[33] This Court has held that the attorney-client relation does not terminate
formally until there is a withdrawal of his appearance on record. [34] Based on the
records, it seems that Atty. Puno never filed such withdrawal with the court - he
merely relies on the letter of Tiburdo terminating his services to support his
argument that he was no longer the counsel for Marquard. However, to the courts,
the letter is not enough to severe their attorney-client relationship. Until the
withdrawal as counsel is made of record, any judicial notice sent to the counsel is
binding upon the client, even though as between them, the professional relationship
may have been terminated.[35]
The Order of the RTC dismissing the Civil Case has been sent accordingly to Atty.
Puno.[36] Despite receipt of this Order, Atty. Puno failed to inform Marquard that the
case has been dismissed. If he truly considered himself discharged as counsel, it is
with more reason that Atty. Puno should have informed Marquard of the dismissal,
to enable the latter and his new counsel to take the necessary and appropriate
actions, if any. This Court has held that a lawyer mindful of the interest of his client
should inform his client of the court's order addressed to him, especially if he
considered himself discharged, in order for the client and the new counsel to be
guided accordingly.[37]
Proper Penalty
The appropriate penalty on an errant lawyer depends on the exercise of sound
judicial discretion based on the surrounding facts.[38] In previous cases, when a
lawyer ignores the lawful orders of duly constituted authorities, as required by the
Lawyer's Oath, this Court imposed the penalty of suspension when the lawyer is
also guilty of violating his duties as a lawyer.[39] Atty. Puno, in addition to his noncompliance with the orders of the RTC, also violated his duty to inform his client of
the status of the case. In analogous cases where lawyers failed in their duty to
inform their clients of the status of their cases, we have meted out the penalty of
suspension, usually for a period of six (6) months. [40]
In this case, however, a more severe sanction is required. We note that this is not
the first instance that Atty. Puno has been suspended by this Court. On 17 April
2013, Atty. Puno was suspended from the practice of law for a period of one (1)
year, as Atty. Puno misrepresented himself to the courts that he had authority to
appear on behalf of the complainant therein, Julian M. Tallano, when he did not
possess such authority.[41] Atty. Puno was found guilty for violations of Section 27,
Rule 138 of the Rules of Court[42] and Rule 10.01[43] of Canon 10 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility.
Taking into consideration the facts in this case, as well as his previous violations of
the Rules of Court and the Code of Professional Responsibility, this Court deems it
proper to impose on Atty. Puno a longer suspension period of one (1) year.
WHEREFORE, we find Atty. Benigno M. Puno GUILTY of gross misconduct.
Accordingly, we SUSPEND him from the practice of law for one (1) year. He
is STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar act in the future
shall merit a more severe sanction.
This Decision shall take effect immediately upon receipt by Atty. Benigno M. Puno of
a copy of this Decision. Atty. Puno shall inform this Court and the Office of the Bar
Confidant in writing of the date he received a copy of this Decision. Copies of this
Decision shall be furnished the Office of the Bar Confidant, to be appended to
respondent's personal record, and the Integrated Bar of the Philippines.
The Office of the Court Administrator is directed to circulate copies of this Decision
to all courts.
SO ORDERED.
[1]
Rollo, pp. 6-10.
[2]
Id. at 14.
[3]
Id. at 17.
[4]
Id. at 23.
[5]
Id. at 18 and 21.
[6]
Id. at 23.
[7]
Id.
Rules of Court, Rule 17, Section 3. Dismissal due to fault of plaintiff. - If, for no
justifiable cause, the plaintiff fails to appear on the date of the presentation of his
evidence in chief on the complaint, or to prosecute his action for an unreasonable
length of time, or to comply with these Rules or any order of the court, the
complaint may be dismissed upon motion of the defendant or upon the court's own
motion, without prejudice to the right of the defendant to prosecute his
counterclaim in the same or in a separate action. This dismissal shall have the
effect of an adjudication upon the merits, unless otherwise declared by the court.
[8]
[9]
Rollo, p. 25.
[10]
Id. at 2-5.
[11]
Id. at 44.
Rule 138, Section 27. Disbarment or suspension of attorneys by Supreme Court;

grounds therefor. - A member of the bar may be disbarred or suspended from his
office as attorney by the Supreme Court for any deceit, malpractice, or other gross
misconduct in such office, grossly immoral conduct, or by reason of his conviction of
a crime involving moral turpitude, or for any violation of the oath which he is
required to take before admission to practice, or for a willful disobedience of any
[12]
lawful order of a superior court, or for corruptly or willfully appearing as an attorney

for a party to a case without authority to do so. x x x.
[13]
Rollo, p. 30.
[14]
Id. at 38.
[15]
Id. at 40.
[16]
Id. at 41-49.
[17]
Id. at 53-62.
[18]
Id. at 59-61.
[19]
Id. at 57.
[20]
Id. at 62.
[21]
Id. at 52.
[22]
Id. at 63.
[23]
Id. at 66.
[24]
Id. at 67-78.
Entitled "Gerd Robert Marquard, represented by Loida Marquard and Rudina L.

Tiburdo v. Benigno M. Puno."
[25]
[26]
Rollo, p. 99.
Figueras v. Jimenez, A.C. No. 9116, 12 March 2014, 718 SCRA 450, citing Heck
v. Judge Santos, 467 Phil. 798, 822 (2004). See also Agno v. Cagatan, 580 Phil. 1
(2008), citing Navarro v. Meneses III, 349 Phil. 520 (1998) and Ilusorio-Bildner v.
Lokin, Jr., 514 Phil. 15 (2005).
[27]
[28]
349 Phil. 7, 15 (1998).
[29]
Rollo, p. 26.
[30]
Sibulo v. Ilagan, 486 Phil. 197, 203-304 (2004).
Tejano v. Baterina, A.C. No. 8235, 27 January 2015, citing Villaflores v. Limos,
563 Phil. 453, 463 (2007).
[31]
[32]
Rollo, p. 28.
[33]
Orcino v. Atty. Gaspar, 344 Phil. 792 (1997).
[34]
Anastacio-Briones v. Atty. Zapanta, 537 Phil. 218 (2006).
[35]
Aromin v. Boncavil, 373 Phil. 612 (1999).
[36]
Rollo, p. 28.
[37]
Anastacio-Briones v. Atty. Zapanta, supra.
[38]
Id.
[39]
Sibulo v. Ilagan, supra note 30.
Tan v. Diamante, A.C. No. 7766, 5 August 2014, 732 SCRA 1, citing Atty.
Mejares v. Atty. Romana, 469 Phil. 619 (2004) and Penilla v. Alcid, Jr., A.C. No.
9149, 4 September 2013, 705 SCRA 1.
[40]
[41]
See Julian M. Tallano v. Atty. Benigno M. Puno, A.C. No. 6512, 17 April 2013.
[42]
Supra note 12.
Rule 10.01 - A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of
any in Court; nor shall he mislead, or allow the Court to be mislead by any artifice.
[43]

G.R.
No.
195176
THE INSULAR LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY, LTD., PETITIONER, VS. PAZ Y. KHU, FELIPE Y. KHU, JR., AND FREDERICK Y.
KHU,
RESPONDENTS.
April 18, 2016
SECOND DIVISION
[ G.R. No. 195176, April 18, 2016 ]
THE INSULAR LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY, LTD.,
PETITIONER, VS. PAZ Y. KHU, FELIPE Y. KHU, JR., AND
FREDERICK Y. KHU, RESPONDENTS.
DECISION
DEL CASTILLO, J.:
The date of last reinstatement mentioned in Section 48 of the Insurance Code
pertains to the date that the insurer approved' the application for reinstatement.
However, in light of the ambiguity in the insurance documents to this case, this
Court adopts the interpretation favorable to the insured in determining the date
when the reinstatement was approved.
Assailed in this Petition for Review on Certiorari[1] are the June 24, 2010
Decision[2] of the Court of Appeals (CA), which dismissed the Petition in CA-GR. CV
No. 81730, and its December 13, 2010 Resolution, [3] which denied the petitioner
Insular Life Assurance Company Ltd.'s (Insular Life) motion for partial
reconsideration.[4]
Factual Antecedents
On March 6, 1997, Felipe N. Khu, Sr. (Felipe) applied for a life insurance policy with
Insular Life under the latter's Diamond Jubilee Insurance Plan. Felipe accomplished
the required medical questionnaire wherein he did not declare any illness or
adverse medical condition. Insular Life thereafter issued him Policy Number
A000015683 with a face value of PI million. This took effect on June 22, 1997. [5]
On June 23, 1999, Felipe's policy lapsed due to non-payment of the premium
covering the period from June 22, 1999 to June 23, 2000. [6]
On September 7, 1999, Felipe applied for the reinstatement of his policy and paid
P25,020.00 as premium. Except for the change in his occupation of being selfemployed to being the Municipal Mayor of Binuangan, Misamis Oriental, all the
other information submitted by Felipe in his application for reinstatement was
virtually identical to those mentioned in his original policy.[7]
On October 12, 1999, Insular Life advised Felipe that his application for
reinstatement may only be considered if he agreed to certain conditions such as
payment of additional premium and the cancellation of the riders pertaining to
premium waiver and accidental death benefits. Felipe agreed to these
conditions[8] and on December 27, 1999 paid the agreed additional premium of
P3,054.50.[9]
On January 7, 2000, Insular Life issued Endorsement No. PN-A000015683, which
reads:
This certifies that as agreed by the Insured, the reinstatement of this policy has
been approved by the Company on the understanding that the following changes
are made on the policy effective June 22, 1999:
1. The EXTRA PREMIUM is imposed; and
2. The ACCIDENTAL DEATH BENEFIT (ADB) and WAIVER OF PREMIUM DISABILITY
(WPD) rider originally attached to and forming parts of this policy [are] deleted.
In consequence thereof, the premium rates on this policy are adjusted to
P28,000.00 annually, P14,843.00 semi-annually and P7,557.00 quarterly, Philippine
currency.[10]
On June 23, 2000, Felipe paid the annual premium in the amount of P28,000.00
covering the period from June 22, 2000 to June 22, 2001. And on July 2, 2001, he
also paid the same amount as annual premium covering the period from June
22,2001 to June 21, 2002.[11]
On September 22, 2001, Felipe died. His Certificate of Death enumerated the
following as causes of death:
Immediate cause: a. End stage renal failure, Hepatic failure
Antecedent cause: b. Congestive heart failure, Diffuse myocardial ischemia.
Underlying cause: c. Diabetes Neuropathy, Alcoholism, and Pneumonia. [12]
On October 5, 2001, Paz Y. Khu, Felipe Y. Khu, Jr. .and Frederick Y. Khu (collectively,
Felipe's beneficiaries or respondents) filed with Insular Life a claim for benefit under
the reinstated policy. This claim was denied. Instead, Insular Life advised Felipe's
beneficiaries that it had decided to rescind the reinstated policy on the grounds of
concealment and misrepresentation by Felipe.
Hence, respondents instituted a complaint for specific performance with damages.
Respondents prayed that the reinstated life insurance policy be declared valid,
enforceable and binding on Insular Life; and that the latter be ordered to pay unto
Felipe's beneficiaries the proceeeds of this policy, among others. [13]
In its Answer, Insular Life countered that Felipe did not disclose the ailments (viz.,
Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus, Diabetes Nephropathy and Alcoholic Liver Cirrhosis with
Ascites) that he already had prior to his application for reinstatement of his
insurance policy; and that it would not have reinstated the insurance policy had
Felipe disclosed the material information on his adverse health condition. It
contended that when Felipe died, the policy was still contestable. [14]
Ruling of the Regional Trial Court (RTC)
On December 12, 2003, the RTC, Branch 39 of Cagayan de Oro City found [15] for
Felipe's beneficiaries, thus:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, plaintiffs having substantiated [their] claim
by preponderance of evidence, judgment is hereby rendered in their favor and
against defendants, ordering the latter to pay jointly and severally the sum of One
Million (P1,000,000.00) Pesos with legal rate of interest from the date of demand
until it is fully paid representing the face value of Plan Diamond Jubilee No. PNA000015683 issued to insured the late Felipe N. Khu[,] Sr; the sum of P20.000.00
as moral damages; P30,000.00 as attorney's fees; P10,000.00 as litigation
expenses.
SO ORDERED.[16]
In ordering Insular Life to pay Felipe's beneficiaries, the RTC agreed with the
latter's claim that the insurance policy was reinstated on June 22, 1999. The RTC
cited the ruling in Malayan Insurance Corporation v. Court of Appeals [17] that any
ambiguity in a contract of insurance should be resolved strictly against the insurer
upon the principle that an insurance contract is a contract of adhesion. [18] The RTC
also held that the reinstated insurance policy had already become incontestable by
the time of Felipe's death on September 22, 2001 since more than two years had
already lapsed from the date of the policy's reinstatement on June 22, 1999. The
RTC noted that' since it was Insular Life itself that supplied all the pertinent forms
relative to the reinstated policy, then it is barred from taking advantage of any
ambiguity/obscurity perceived therein particularly as regards the date when the
reinstated insurance policy became effective.
On June 24, 2010, the CA issued the assailed Decision [19] which contained the
following decretal portion:
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The assailed Judgment of the lower court is
AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that the award of moral damages, attorney's
fees and litigation expenses [is] DELETED.
SO ORDERED.[20]
The CA upheld the RTC's ruling on the non-contestability of the reinstated insurance
policy on the date the insured died. It declared that contrary to Insular Life's
contention, there in fact exists a genuine ambiguity or obscurity in the language of
the two documents prepared by Insular Life itself, viz., Felipe's Letter of Acceptance
and Insular Life's Endorsement; that given the obscurity/ambiguity in the language
of these two documents, the construction/interpretation that favors the insured's
right to recover should be adopted; and that in keeping with this principle, the
insurance policy in dispute must be deemed reinstated as of June 22, 1999. [21]
Insular Life moved for partial reconsideration[22] but this was denied by the CA in its
Resolution of December 13, 2010.[23] Hence, the present Petition.
Issue
The fundamental issue to be resolved in this case is whether Felipe's reinstated life
insurance policy is already incontestable at the time of his death.
Petitioner's Arguments
In praying for the reversal of the CA Decision, Insular Life basically argues that
respondents should not be allowed to recover on the reinstated insurance policy
because the two-year contestability period had not yet lapsed inasmuch as the
insurance policy was reinstated only on December 27, 1999, whereas Felipe died on
September 22, 2001;[24] that the CA overlooked the fact that Felipe paid the
additional extra premium only on December 27, 1999, hence, it is only upon this
date that the reinstated policy had become effective; that the CA erred in declaring
that resort to the principles of statutory construction is still necessary to resolve
that question given that the Application for Reinstatement, the Letter of Acceptance
and the Endorsement in and by themselves already embodied unequivocal
provisions stipulating that the two-year contestability clause should be reckoned
from the date of approval of the reinstatement; [25] and that Felipe's
misrepresentation and concealment of material facts in regard to his health or
adverse medical condition gave it (Insular Life) the right to rescind the contract of
insurance and consequently, the right to deny the claim of Felipe's beneficiaries for
death benefits under the disputed policy.[26]
Respondents'Arguments
Respondents maintain that the phrase "effective June 22, 1999" found in both the
Letter of Acceptance and in the Endorsement is unclear whether it refers to the
subject of the sentence, i.e., the "reinstatement of this policy" or to the subsequent
phrase "changes are made on the policy;" that granting that there was any
obscurity or ambiguity in the insurance policy, the same, should be laid at the door
of Insular Life as it was this insurance company that prepared the necessary
documents that make up the same;[27] and that given the CA's .finding which
effectively affirmed the RTC's finding on this particular issue, it stands to reason
that the insurance policy had indeed become incontestable upon the date of Felipe's
death.[28]
Our Ruling
The Insurance Code pertinently provides that:
Sec. 48. Whenever a right to rescind a contract of insurance is given to the insurer
by any provision of this chapter, such right must be exercised previous to the
commencement of an action on the contract.
After a policy of life insurance made payable on the death of the insured shall have
been in force during the lifetime of the insured for a period of two years from the
date of its issue or of its last reinstatement, the insurer cannot prove that the policy
is void ab initio or is rescindible by reason of the fraudulent concealment or
misrepresentation of the insured or his agent.
The rationale for this provision was discussed by the Court in Manila Bankers Life
Insurance Corporation v. Aban,[29]
Section 48 regulates both the actions of the insurers and prospective takers of life
insurance. It gives insurers enough time to inquire whether the policy was obtained
by fraud, concealment, or misrepresentation; on the other hand, it forewarns
scheming individuals that their attempts at insurance fraud would be timely
uncovered - thus deterring them from venturing into such nefarious enterprise. At
the same time, legitimate policy holders are absolutely protected from unwarranted
denial of their claims or delay in the collection of insurance proceeds occasioned by
allegations of fraud, concealment, or misrepresentation by insurers, claims which
may no longer be set up after the two-year period expires as ordained under the
law.
xxxx
The Court therefore agrees fully with the appellate court's pronouncement thatxxxx
'The insurer is deemed to have the necessary facilities to discover such fraudulent
concealment or misrepresentation within a period of two (2) years. It is not fair for
the insurer to collect the premiums as long as the insured is still alive, only to raise
the issue of fraudulent concealment or misrepresentation when the insured dies in
order to defeat the right of the beneficiary to recover under the policy.
At least two (2) years from the issuance of the policy or its last reinstatement, the
beneficiary is given the stability to recover under the policy when the insured dies.
The provision also makes clear when the two-year period should commence in case
the policy should lapse and is reinstated, that is, from the date of the last
reinstatement'.
In Lalican v. The Insular Life Assurance Company, Limited,[30] which coincidentally
also involves the herein petitioner, it was there held that the reinstatement of the
insured's policy is to be reckoned from the date when the application was processed
and approved by the insurer. There, we stressed that:
To reinstate a policy means to restore the same to premium-paying status after it
has been permitted to lapse. x x x
xxxx
In the instant case, Eulogio's death rendered impossible full compliance with the
conditions for reinstatement of Policy No. 9011992. True, Eulogio, before his death,
managed to file his Application for Reinstatement and deposit the amount for
payment of his overdue premiums and interests thereon with Malaluan; but Policy
No. 9011992 could only be considered reinstated after the Application for
Reinstatement had been processed and approved by Insular Life during Eulogio's
lifetime and good health.[31]
Thus, it is settled that the reinstatement of an insurance policy should be reckoned
from the date when the same was approved by the insurer.
In this case, the parties differ as to when the reinstatement was actually approved.
Insular Life claims that it approved the reinstatement only on December 27, 1999.
On the other hand, respondents contend that it was on June 22, 1999 that the
reinstatement took effect.
The resolution of this issue hinges on the following documents: 1) Letter of
Acceptance; and 2) the Endorsement.
The Letter of Acceptance[32] wherein Felipe affixed his signature was actually drafted
and prepared by Insular Life. This pro-forma document reads as follows:
LETTER OF ACCEPTANCE
Place: Cag. De [O]ro City
The Insular Life Assurance Co., Ltd.
P.O. Box 128, MANILA
Policy No. A000015683
Gentlemen:
Thru your Reinstatement Section, I/WE learned that this policy may be reinstated
provided I/we agree to the following condition/s indicated with a check mark:
[xx] Accept the imposition of an extra/additional extra premium of [P]5.00 a year per thousand
of insurance; effective June 22,1999
[ ] Accept the rating on the WPD at ____ at standard rates; the ABD at ____ the standard rates;
the SAR at P ____ annually perthousand of Insurance;
[xx] Accept the cancellation of the Premium waiver & Accidental death benefit.
[]
I am/we are agreeable to the above condition/s. Please proceed with the
reinstatement of the policy.
Very truly yours,
Felipe N. Khu, Sr.
After Felipe accomplished this form, Insular Life, through its Regional Administrative
Manager, Jesse James R. Toyhorada, issued an Endorsement[33] dated January 7,
2000. For emphasis, the Endorsement is again quoted as follows:
ENDORSEMENT
PN-A000015683
This certifies that as agreed to by the Insured, the reinstatement of this policy has
been approved by the Company on the understanding that the following changes
are made on the policy effective June 22, 1999:
1. The EXTRA PREMIUM is imposed; and
2. The ACCIDENTAL DEATH BENEFIT (ADB) and WAIVER OF PREMIUM DISABILITY
(WPD) rider originally attached to and forming parts of this policy is deleted.
In consequence thereof, the PREMIUM RATES on this policy are adjusted to
[P]28,000.00 annuallly, [P]14,843.00 semi-annually and [P]7,557.00 quarterly,
Philippine Currency.
Cagayan de Oro City, 07 January 2000.
RCV/
(Signed) Authorized Signature
Based on the foregoing, we find that the CA did not commit any error in holding
that the subject insurance policy be considered as reinstated on June 22, 1999. This
finding must be upheld not only because it accords with the evidence, but also
because this is favorable to the insured who was not responsible for causing the
ambiguity or obscurity in the insurance contract. [34]
The CA expounded on this point thus The Court discerns a genuine ambiguity or obscurity in the language of the two
documents.
In the Letter of Acceptance, Khu declared that he was accepting "the imposition of
an extra/additional x x x premium of P5.00 a year per thousand of insurance;
effective June 22, 1999". It is true that the phrase as used in this particular
paragraph does not refer explicitly to the effectivity of the reinstatement. But the
Court notes that the reinstatement was conditioned upon the payment of additional
premium not only prospectively, that is, to cover the remainder of the annual period
of coverage, but also retroactively, that is for the period starting June 22, 1999.
Hence, by paying the amount of P3,054.50 on December 27, 1999 in addition to
the P25,020.00 he had earlier paid on September 7, 1999, Khu had paid for the
insurance coverage starting June 22, 1999. At the very least, this circumstance has
engendered a true lacuna.
hi the Endorsement, the obscurity is patent. In the first sentence of the
Endorsement, it is not entirely clear whether the phrase "effective June 22, 1999"
refers to the subject of the sentence, namely "the reinstatement of this policy," or
to the subsequent phrase "changes are made on the policy."
The court below is correct. Given the obscurity of the language, the construction
favorable to the insured will be adopted by the courts.
Accordingly, the subject policy is deemed reinstated as of June 22, 1999. Thus, the
period of contestability has lapsed.[35]
In Eternal Gardens Memorial Park Corporation v. The Philippine American Life

Insurance Company,[36] we ruled in favor of the insured and in favor of the
erfectivity of the insurance contract in the midst of ambiguity in the insurance
contract provisions. We held that:
It must be remembered that an insurance contract is a contract of adhesion which
must be construed liberally in favor of the insured and strictly against the insurer in
order to safeguard the latter's interest. Thus, in Malayan Insurance Corporation v.
Court of Appeals, this Court held that:
Indemnity and liability insurance policies are construed in accordance with the
general rule of resolving any ambiguity therein in favor of the insured, where the
contract or policy is prepared by the insurer. A contract of insurance, being a
contract of adhesion, par excellence, any ambiguity therein should be
resolved against the insurer; in other words, it should be construed liberally in
favor of the insured and strictly against the insurer. Limitations of liability should be
regarded with extreme jealousy and must be construed in such a way as to
preclude the insurer from noncompliance with its obligations.
xxxx
As a final note, to characterize the insurer and the insured as contracting parties on
equal footing is inaccurate at best. Insurance contracts are wholly prepared by the
insurer with vast amounts of experience in the industry purposefully used to its
advantage. More often than not, insurance contracts are contracts of adhesion
containing technical terms and conditions of the industry, confusing if at all
understandable to laypersons, that are imposed on those who wish to avail of
insurance. As such, insurance contracts are imbued with public interest that must
be considered whenever the rights and obligations of the insurer and the insured
are to be delineated. Hence, in order to protect the interest of insurance applicants,
insurance companies must be obligated to act with haste upon insurance
applications, to either deny or approve the same, or otherwise be bound to honor
the application as a valid, binding, and effective insurance contract. [37]
Indeed, more than two years had lapsed from the time the subject insurance policy
was reinstated on June 22, 1999 vis-a-vis Felipe's death on September 22, 2001.
As such, the subject insurance policy has already become incontestable at the time
of Felipe's death.
Finally, we agree with the CA that there is neither basis nor justification for the
RTC's award of moral damages, attorney's fees and litigation expenses; hence this
award must be deleted.
WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED. The assailed June 24, 2010 Decision and
December 13, 2010 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-GR. CV No. 81730
areAFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
[1]
Rollo, pp. 28-69.
Id. at 70-82; penned by Associate Justice Romuio V. Borja and concurred in by

Associate Justices Edgardo T. Lloren and Ramon Paul L. Hernando.
[2]
[3]
Id. at 83-84.
[4]
Id. at 442-461.
[5]
Id. at 71.
[6]
Id.
[7]
Id
[8]
Id. at unpaginated before p. 72.
[9]
Id. at 72.
[10]
Records, p. 80.
[11]
Rollo, p. 72.
[12]
Id. at 72-73.
[13]
Id. at 70 and 73.
[14]
Id. at unpaginated before p. 74.
[15]
Id. at 277-297; penned by Judge Downey C. Valdevilla.
[16]
Id. at 296-297.
[17]
336 Phil. 977 (1997).
[18]
Id. at 989.
[19]
Rollo, p. 70-82.
[20]
Id. at 81-82.
[21]
Id. at 80-81.
[22]
Id. at 442-461.
[23]
Id. at 83-84.
[24]
Id. at 583.
[25]
Id. at 581-582.
[26]
Id. at 592.
[27]
Id. at 611.
[28]
Id. at 607.
[29]
GR. No. 175666, July 29, 2013, 702 SCRA 417, 427-429.
[30]
613 Phil. 518 (2009).
[31]
Id. at 535-537.
[32]
Records, p. 85, dorsal side.
[33]
Id. at 80.
CIVIL CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Art. 1377. The interpretation of obscure

words or stipulations in a contract shall not favor the party who caused the
obscurity.
[34]
[35]
Rollo, pp. 80-81.
[36]
574 Phil. 161 (2008).
[37]
Id. at 172-174.

G.R.
No.
217930
SPOUSES JORGE NAVARRA AND CARMELITA NAVARRA, PETITIONERS, VS. YOLANDA LIONGSON, RESPONDENT.
April 18, 2016
SECOND DIVISION
[ G.R. No. 217930, April 18, 2016 ]
SPOUSES JORGE NAVARRA AND CARMELITA NAVARRA,
PETITIONERS, VS. YOLANDA LIONGSON, RESPONDENT.
DECISION
MENDOZA, J.:
This is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court
assailing the August 28, 2014 Amended Decision [1] and the April 16, 2015
Resolution[2] of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 105568, which reversed
its December 8, 2011 Decision[3] and recalled and set aside the entry of judgment
issued on January 6, 2012.
The Antecedents:
On September 23, 1993, Jose Liongson (Jose), the deceased husband of
respondent Yolanda Liongson (Yolanda), filed a complaint for damages based on
malicious prosecution against spouses Jorge and Carmelita Navarra (Spouses
Navarra) and spouses Ruben and Cresencia Bernardo (Spouses Bernardo)
[collectively referred as defendant spouses], before the Regional Trial Court, Branch
255, Las Pias City (RTC).
After the presentation and formal offer of their respective evidence, the parties
were required to file their respective memoranda.
On January 4, 2001, Atty. Salvador B. Aguas (Atty. Aguas), counsel of Jose, filed
the Motion for Time to Submit Motion for Substitution of Plaintiff with Motion For
Suspension/Commencement of Counting of Period in Filing Pleadings [4] informing
the RTC of the death of Jose and praying for time to submit a motion for
substitution pending receipt of the death certificate.
On May 2, 2001, a Decision[5] was rendered in favor of Jose ordering defendant
spouses to pay P500,000.00 for moral damages; P200,000.00 for exemplary
damages; P20,000.00 for reimbursement of expenses; P35,000.00 for substantial
number of appearance, P50,000.00 for attorney's fees; and the costs of suit.
On July 13, 2001, defendant spouses filed their Motion for Declaration of Nullity of
the Decision and/or Notice of Appeal[6] based on the absence of a valid substitution
of Jose.
Consequently, Atty. Aguas filed the Motion for Substitution, [7] dated July 30, 2001,
praying that Jose be substituted by his surviving wife, Yolanda.
In its Order,[8] dated May 13, 2002, the RTC denied the motion for declaration of
nullity of the May 2, 2001 decision. Defendant spouses then elevated the matter
before the CA, docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 74988. In a Resolution, [9] dated July 30,
2004, the CA dismissed the petition for want of appellant's brief. On August 30,
2004, an entry of judgment[10] was issued.
Thereafter, Atty. Aguas filed a motion for execution,[11] but it was opposed by
defendant spouses on the ground that no valid substitution had been made, and
that the continued appearance of Atty. Aguas was ultra vires.[12]
In the Order,[13] dated October 28, 2005, the motion for execution was deemed
withdrawn upon motion of Atty. Aguas.
On November 20, 2005, Atty. Aguas filed a pleading denominated as Motions to
Resolve Motion for Substitution of Parties, dated July 31, 2001 or Considered it
Deemed Admitted, and Thereafter Issue Writ of Execution of the Judgment, dated
May 2, 2001, in the name of Yolanda Liongson as Substituting Party for Plaintiff
Jose Liongson.[14] In the said motion, it was prayed that Yolanda be allowed to
substitute her deceased husband and that a writ of execution be issued in her favor.
Attached to the motion was a copy of the death certificate [15] of Jose indicating that
the latter died on November 28, 2000.
In the Order,[16] dated March 17, 2006, the RTC denied the motion to resolve the
motion for substitution of parties and the motion for issuance of a writ of execution
for lack of merit.
In the meantime, Yolanda filed a petition for issuance of letters of administration of
the estate of Jose, her deceased husband, before the Regional Trial Court, Branch
274, Paraaque City. In the December 29, 2006 Order, the Letter of Administration
was issued appointing Yolanda as administratix of the estate of Jose.
Thus, acting as the administratix of the estate of Jose, Yolanda filed a motion for
execution of the May 2, 2001 decision.[17] It was, however, denied in an Order,
[18]
dated September 14, 2007, on the ground that no proper substitution had been
made yet.
Unperturbed, Yolanda, thru her new counsel, Atty. Bonifacio G. Caboboy (Atty.
Caboboy), filed her Motion to Substitute the Plaintiff Jose Liongson [19] which was
finally granted by the RTC in the Order,[20] dated January 25, 2008.
Defendant spouses then filed a motion for reconsideration of the January 25, 2008
Order.[21] On May 22, 2008, the RTC denied the said motion.[22]
Defendant spouses then filed a petition for certiorari before the CA, docketed
as CA-G.R. SP No. 104667, assailing the January 25, 2008 and May 22, 2008
orders of the RTC. They insisted that the issue of substitution had been laid to rest
by the RTC on three (3) occasions and Yolanda did not question the propriety of its
denial. Hence, she was forever barred from effecting the substitution.
Meanwhile, Yolanda filed her Motion for Execution of Judgment [23] which was
granted by the RTC in its Order,[24] dated July 25, 2008. On August 1, 2008, a writ
of execution[25] was issued and the Notice to Pay,[26] dated August 5, 2008, was
served upon defendant spouses. The latter then filed a motion to recall or hold in
abeyance the implementation of the writ of execution and the sheriffs notice to pay.
Without waiting for the RTC to rule on the said motion, defendant spouses
filed another petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court before the
CA, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 105568, this time questioning the July 25, 2008
Order and the August 1, 2008 Writ of Execution issued by the RTC. Defendant
spouses insisted that the RTC gravely abused its discretion when it allowed the
substitution and then issued the writ of execution.
In its January 16, 2009 Order,[27] the RTC denied the motion to recall or hold in
abeyance the implementation of the August 1, 2008 writ of execution and the
August 5, 2008 sheriffs notice to pay for lack of merit. Thereafter, the notice of
garnishment and the notice of levy were issued. Spouses Navarra's property,
covered by TCT No. 103473, was levied and subsequently sold in a public auction
pursuant to the writ of execution.[28]
Meanwhile, on October 28, 2009, the CA rendered a Decision, [29] in CA-G.R. SP No.
104667, dismissing the petition for certiorari and declaring the substitution of
plaintiff in order. The CA held that the rule on substitution was not a matter of
jurisdiction but a requirement of due process; and that considering that both
parties had already completed the presentation of their evidence in chief before
Jose died, neither of them was denied due process of law. Thus, the CA stated that
the belated substitution of Jose as plaintiff to the case did not affect the validity of
the final and executory judgment.
On December 8, 2011, a decision[30] was rendered in CA-G.R. SP No. 105568, in
favor of defendant spouses. The CA reversed and set aside the questioned RTC
order granting the motion for execution and the issuance of the writ of execution.
The CA held that the complaint for damages, arising from malicious prosecution
filed by Jose against defendant spouses was a purely personal action that did not
survive upon his death; and because the action was deemed abated upon his death,
the RTC was found to have gravely abused its discretion when it allowed the
substitution of Jose and issued the writ of execution. The CA further stated that
upon the death of Jose, the RTC lost jurisdiction over the case and the decision
rendered therein was a void judgment; hence, all acts performed pursuant thereto
and all claims emanating therefrom had no legal effect.
On January 6, 2012, the December 8, 2011 decision of the CA in CA-G.R. SP No.
105568 became final and executory and the entry of judgment [31] was issued.
On December 16, 2013; almost two years later, Yolanda filed her Urgent Omnibus
Motion[32] praying for the recall/lifting of the entry of judgment and for the
admission of the attached motion for reconsideration. Yolanda contended that she
was totally unaware of this petition for certiorari filed before the CA and docketed
as CA-G.R. SP No. 105568; that although notices were sent to her counsel, Atty.
Caboboy, the latter did not inform or furnish her with copies of the notices and the
petition; that Atty. Caboboy did not file any comment on the petition or a motion for
reconsideration; and that Atty. Caboboy's gross negligence and mistake should not
bind her because the said negligence and mistake would amount to deprivation of
her property without due process of law.
On August 28, 2014, the CA promulgated an amended decision in CA-G.R. SP No.
105568. While the CA took note that no comment was filed by defendant spouses
despite notice, it granted the omnibus motion and the motion for reconsideration
filed by Yolanda. The appellate court recalled and set aside the entry of judgment
and reversed its December 8, 2011 decision in the interest of substantial justice.
The CA discovered that the appellate court rendered two conflicting decisions in CAG.R. SP No. 104667 and CA-G.R. SP No. 105568. In CA-G.R. SP No. 104667, earlier
filed by defendant spouses, the appellate court arrived at a decision allowing the
substitution of Jose. The same issue of substitution was debunked in the December
8, 2011 CA decision in CA-G.R. SP No. 105568.
In its amended decision, the CA did not apply the general rule that the negligence
of counsel would bind the client so as not to deprive Yolanda of her right to due
process of law. On the merits, the CA ruled that the action filed by Jose before the
RTC was not extinguished upon his death as it was one for recovery of damages for
injury to his person caused by defendant spouses tortuous conduct of maliciously
filing an unfounded suit.
Spouses Navarra (petitioners) filed their separate motions for reconsideration, but
both were denied by the CA in a Resolution,[33] dated April 16, 2015.
Hence, this petition anchored on the following GROUNDS FOR THE PETITION
THE COURT OF APPEALS DECIDED THE INSTANT CASE IN A WAY NOT IN
ACCORD WITH LAW AND WITH THE APPLICABLE DECISIONS OF THE
SUPREME COURT.
A. THE COURT OF APPEALS BREACHED THE WELL-SETTLED RULE THAT A
FINAL AND EXECUTORY JUDGMENT MAY NO LONGER BE MODIFIED
IN ANY RESPECT, EVEN IF THE MODIFICATION IS MEANT TO
CORRECT WHAT IS PERCEIVED TO BE AN ERRONEOUS CONCLUSION
OF LAW OR FACT.
B. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED WHEN IT AMENDED A FINAL AND
EXECUTORY DECISION UPON PRIVATE RESPONDENT'S MERE MOTION
FOR RECONSIDERATION.
C. THE COURT OF APPEALS LEGALLY ERRED IN EXCEPTING THE
INSTANT CASE FROM THE RULE THAT THE MISTAKE OR NEGLIGENCE
OF COUNSEL BINDS THE CLIENT.
D. AT ALL EVENTS, THE COURT OF APPEALS LEGALLY ERRED IN
DISMISSING THE PETITION IN CA-G.R. SP NO. 105568.[34]
Petitioners argue that it is beyond the power of the CA to amend its original
decision in this case, dated December 8, 2011, for it violates the principle of finality
of judgment and its immutability. They point out that the said CA decision had
acquired finality, hence, it could no longer be modified in any respect even if the
modification was meant to correct erroneous conclusions of fact or law, or it would
be made by the court that rendered it or by the highest court of the land.
Petitioners also aver that there was no conflict in the decisions rendered by the CA
in CA-G.R. SP No. 104667 and in the present case as the two cases involved
different issues. The former case ruled on the validity of the January 25, 2008
Order of the RTC which granted the substitution of Jose by Yolanda, while the
present case questioned the July 25, 2008 Order of the RTC which granted the
motion for execution of judgment filed by Yolanda.
Finally, petitioners assert that the CA erred when it granted the motion for
reconsideration filed by Yolanda after almost two years from the time the decision
was rendered. They point out that Yolanda did not even indicate in her motion for
reconsideration the exact date of her receipt of the copy of the December 8, 2011
decision,and that it could not be presumed that she learned of it only two (2) years
after its issuance. They contend that the respondent was negligent because she
waited for two long years before she filed a motion for reconsideration. They added
that she should have made efforts to ascertain the status of the case considering
that she was appointed administratix of the estate of Jose.
Respondent Yolanda counters that the CA was correct when it reversed and set
aside its December 8, 2011 decision and dismissed the petition for certiorari as the
issues therein had already been laid to rest in the October 28, 2009 CA decision in
CA-G.R. SP No. 104667. She argues that because the petitions in both CA-G.R. SP
No. 104667 and CA-G.R. SP No. 105568, involved the same issues and parties
under similar factual and legal settings, the decision rendered in the first case
became final and could no longer be changed, revised or reversed.
All the arguments by both parties boil down to the lone issue of whether or not the
CA erred and violated the principle of immunity of judgment when it amended its
December 8, 2011 decision.
The Court's Ruling
The petition is not meritorious.
Well-settled is the rule that a judgment that has acquired finality "becomes
immutable and unalterable, and may no longer be modified in any respect, even if
the modification is meant to correct erroneous conclusions of fact and law, and
whether it be made by the court that rendered it or by the Highest Court of the
land."[35]The rationale of this doctrine is to avoid delay in the administration of
justice and in order to put an end to judicial controversies. In the case of Manotok
Realty, Inc. v. CLT Realty Development Corp.,[36] the Court explained the principle
of immunity of judgment in this wise:
The doctrine of finality of judgment is grounded on fundamental considerations of
public policy and sound practice, and that, at the risk of occasional errors, the
judgments or orders of courts must become final at some definite time fixed by
law; otherwise, there would be no end to litigations, thus setting to naught the
main role of courts of justice which is to assist in the enforcement of the rule of law
and the maintenance of peace and order by settling justiciable controversies with
finality.[37]
Nonetheless, this doctrine may be relaxed in order to serve substantial justice in
case compelling circumstances that clearly warrant the exercise of the Court's
equity jurisdiction are extant.[38] Thus, like any other rule, it has exceptions, such
as: (1) the correction of clerical errors; (2) the so-called nunc pro tunc entries
which cause, no prejudice to any party; (3) void judgments; and (4) whenever
circumstances transpire after the finality of the decision rendering its execution
unjust and inequitable.[39] After all, the rules of procedure intend to promote the
ends of justice, thus, their strict and rigid application must always be eschewed
when it would subvert its primary objective.[40]
The issue posed before the Court is not of first impression. It involves three
conflicting final and executory judgments rendered by the RTC and the CA. The first
is the May 2, 2001 RTC decision which granted the complaint for damages. The
second is the October 28, 2009 CA decision in CA-G.R. SP No. 104667 which
granted the motion for substitution and the motion for execution. The third, which
is obviously in conflict with the first and second judgment, is the December 8, 2011
CA decision in CA-G.R. SP No. 105568 which not only reversed and set aside the
motion for execution but also declared the May 2, 2001 RTC decision a void
judgment.
Where a certain case comprises two or more conflicting judgments which are final
and executory, the Court, in the case of Collantes v. Court of Appeals[41] (Collantes),
offered three (3) options in resolving the same. First, the court may opt to require
the parties to assert their claims anew; second, to determine which judgment came
first; and third, to determine which of the judgments had been rendered by a court
of last resort.
In the case of Heirs of Maura So v. Obliosco,[42] the Court stated that it was more
equitable to apply the second and third options mentioned in Collantes. It, thus,
sustained the earlier decisions over the current ones, as they already had vested
rights over the winning party, and accorded more respect to the decisions of this
Court than those made by the lower courts.
The Court, in Government Service Insurance System v. Group Management

Corporation,[43] also resorted to the second and third options and affirmed the
finality of the earlier decisions rendered by the Court. The Court held that:
In Collantes, this Court applied the first option and resolved the conflicting issues
anew. However, resorting to the first solution in the case at bar would entail
disregarding not only the final and executory decisions of the Lapu-Lapu RTC and
the Manila RTC, but also the final and executory decisions of the Court of Appeals
and this Court. Moreover, it would negate two decades worth of litigating. Thus, we
find it more equitable and practicable to apply the second and third options
consequently maintaining the finality of one of the conflicting judgments. The
primary criterion under the second option is the time when the decision was
rendered and became final and executory, such that earlier decisions should prevail
over the current ones since final and executory decisions vest rights in the winning
party. In the third solution, the main criterion is the determination of which court or
tribunal rendered the decision. Decisions of this Court should be accorded more
respect than those made by the lower courts. [44]
Guided by these jurisprudence, the Court agrees with the CA that it would be more
equitable to make use of the second option mentioned in Collantes and sustain the
finality of the earlier decisions rendered by the RTC and the CA in CA-G.R. SP No.
104667. To recall, the RTC decision in the complaint for damages was promulgated
as early as May 2, 2001 and became final and executory on August 30, 2004.
[45]
The only reason why the said decision was not immediately executed was the
petitioners' insistence on the improper substitution of plaintiff. This issue, however,
was laid to rest on October 8, 2009 by the CA when it rendered, its decision in CAG.R. SP No. 104667. The CA declared that the decision and the proceedings in the
said case were not rendered nugatory notwithstanding the belated compliance with
the rules on substitution as none of the parties was denied due process. The
appellate court further stated that the rule on the substitution by heirs was not a
matter of jurisdiction, but a requirement of due process. It follows therefore, that
when due process is not violated as when the right of the representative or heir is
recognized and protected, noncompliance or belated formal compliance with the
rules cannot affect the validity of a promulgated decision. [46] Moreover, the Court
notes that petitioners did not question the propriety of the May 2, 2001 decision in
their petition in CA-G.R. SP No. 104667 but even admitted the finality and
executory nature of the said decision and their only concern was how the said
decision would be executed without a valid substitution of the plaintiff.
Clearly, the October 28, 2009 decision of the CA in CA-G.R. SP No. 104667
constituted res judicata with respect to the latter case in CA-G.R. SP No. 105568.
"Res judicata is defined as 'a matter adjudged; a thing judicially acted upon or
decided; a thing or matter settled by judgment.' [47]" Based on this principle, a final
judgment or order on the merits, rendered by a competent court on any matter
within its jurisdiction, "is conclusive in a subsequent case between the same parties
and their successor-in-interest by title subsequent to the commencement of the

action or special proceeding, litigating for the same thing and under the same title
and in the same capacity."[48] Simply put, "a final judgment on the merits rendered
by a court of competent jurisdiction, is conclusive as to the rights of the parties and
their privies and constitutes an absolute bar to subsequent actions involving the
same claim, demand, or cause of action."[49]
For res judicata to serve as an absolute bar to a subsequent action, the following
requisites must concur: (a) the former judgment is final;, (b) it was rendered by a
court having jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties; (c) it is a
judgment on the merits; and, (d) there is, between the first and second actions,
identity of parties, of subject matter and of cause of action. [50]
In the present case, there is no quibble that all the elements adverted to above
obtain in this case. There is no dispute that the May 2, 2001 RTC decision had
become final and executory arid the entry of judgment was issued on August 30,
2004. There is no question either that the RTC had jurisdiction over the subject
matter and the parties, and that the decision was a judgment on the merits.
The controversy arose when petitioners questioned the propriety of the substitution
of Jose before the CA in CA-G.R. SP No. 104667 and subsequently the July 25,
2008 RTC order and its August 1, 2008 writ of execution in CA-G.R. SP No. 105568,
which was raffled to a different division of the CA. Although petitioners would like to
impress to this Court that the issues raised in two cases before the CA were
anchored on different causes of action, the Court rules otherwise. Under the
doctrine of conclusiveness of judgment, facts and issues actually and directly
resolved in a former suit can never again be raised in any future case between the
same parties even involving a different cause of action.[51] The CA decision in CAG.R. SP No. 104667 concerning the validity of plaintiffs substitution became
conclusive on the parties. Thus, petitioners cannot again seek refuge by filing their
second petition (CA-G.R. SP No. 105568) in the guise of questioning the order of
execution but actually invoking the alleged nullity of the substitution of plaintiff.
Petitioners cannot evade or avoid the application of res judicata by simply varying
the form of his action or adopting a different method of presenting their case. [52]
Indeed, it is time to put an end to this litigation as the enforcement of the final
judgment has long been delayed. In the interest of justice, petitioners are ordered
to respect and comply with the final and executory judgment of the Court. As
stated in the case of Selga v. Sony Entierro Brar:[53]
It must be remembered that it is to the interest of the public that there should be
an end to litigation by the parties over a subject fully and fairly adjudicated. The
doctrine of res judicata is a rule that pervades every well-regulated system of
jurisprudence and is founded upon two grounds embodied in various maxims of the
common law, namely: (1) public policy and necessity, which dictates that it would
be in the interest of the State that there should be an end to litigation republicae ut
sit litium; and (2) the hardship on the individual that he should be vexed twice for
the same cause nemo debet bis vexari pro una et eadem causa. A contrary doctrine
would subject public peace and quiet to the will and neglect of individuals and
prefer the gratification of the litigious disposition on the part of suitors to the
preservation of public tranquility and happiness. [54]
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The August 28, 2014 Amended Decision
and the April 16, 2015 Resolution of the-Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 105568
areAFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
Carpio, (Chairperson), Brion, Del Castillo, and Leonen, JJ., concur.
Rollo, pp. 39-48. Penned by Associate Justice Samuel H. Gaerlan with Associate
Justices Ramon R. Garcia and Danton Q. Bueser, concurring.
[1]
[2]
Id. at 50-52.
Records (Vol. I), pp. 1072-1084. Penned by then Associate Justice Rosalinda
Asuncion-Vicente with Associate Justices Normandie B. Pizarro and Ramon R.
Garcia, concurring.
[3]
[4]
Id. at 668-669.
[5]
Id. at 672-674. Penned by then Presiding Judge Florentino M. Alumbres.
[6]
Id. at 677-679.
[7]
Id. at 684-684-A.
[8]
Id. at 794.
[9]
Id. at 800.
[10]
Id. at 801.
[11]
Id. at 802-803.
[12]
Id. at 807-812.
[13]
Id. at 859.
[14]
Id. at 864-868.
[15]
Id. at 869.
[16]
Id. at 903-907.
[17]
Id. at 909-912.
[18]
Id. at 932-934.
[19]
Id. at 945.
[20]
Id. at 952-953.
[21]
Id. at 965-974.
[22]
Id. at 1009-1013.
[23]
Id. at 959-960.
[24]
Id. at 1016-1018.
[25]
Id. at 1029-1030.
[26]
Id. at 1028.
[27]
Id. at 1064-1066.
[28]
Certificate of Sale, Records (Vol. II), p. 1148.
Records (Vol. I), pp. 1072-1084. Penned by then Associate Justice Rosalinda
Asuncion-Vicente with Associate Justices Normandie B. Pizarro and Ramon R.
Garcia, concurring.
[29]
Rollo, pp. 106-116. Penned by then Associate Justice Amelita G. Tolentino with
Associate Justices Ramon R. Garcia and Samuel H. Gaerlan, concurring.
[30]
[31]
Records (Vol. II), p. 1166.
[32]
Id. at 1206-1223.
Rollo, pp. 50-52. Penned by Associate Justice Samuel H. Gaerlan with Associate
Justices Ramon R. Garcia and Danton Q. Bueser, concurring.
[33]
[34]
Id. at 9-10.
FGU Insurance Corporation (now BPI/MS Insurance Corp.) v. RTC of Makati,

Branch 66, 659 Phil. 117, 122-123 (2011).
[35]
[36]
512 Phil. 679, 708 (2005).
[37]
Id. at 708.
FGU Insurance Corporation (now BPI/MS Insurance Corp.) v. RTC of Makati,

Branch 66, supra note 35, at 123.
[38]
[39]
Id.
[40]
Ginete v. Court of Appeals, 357 Phil. 36, 51 (1998).
[41]
546 Phil. 391, 407 (2007).
[42]
566 Phil. 397 (2008).
[43]
666 Phil. 277 (2011).
[44]
Id. at 322-323.
[45]
Entry of Judgment, Records (Vol. I), p. 801.
[46]
Spouses De la Cruz v. Joaquin, 502 Phil. 803, 811 (2005).
[47]
Mallion v. Alcantara, 536 Phil. 1049, 1054 (2006).
[48]
PCGG v. Sandiganbayan, 590 Phil. 383, 392-393 (2008).
Republic of the Philippines (Civil Aeronautics Administration) v. Yu, 519 Phil.

391, 398 (2006).
[49]
[50]
Enriquez v. Boyles, G.R. No. 51025. September 22, 1993, 226 SCRA 666, 674.
Republic of the Philippines (Civil Aeronautics Administration) v. Yu, supra note

50, at 397.
[51]
[52]
Mallion v. Alcantara, 536 Phil. 1049, 1057 (2006).
[53]
673 Phil. 581 (2011).
[54]
Id. at 591-592.

G.R.
No.
207408
HEIRS OF FELINO M. TIMBOL, JR., NAMELY, MICHAEL JOHN JORGE TIMBOL, FELINO JAMES JORGE TIMBOL, AND
MARILOU
TIMBOL,
PETITIONERS,
VS.
PHILIPPINE
NATIONAL
BANK,
RESPONDENT.
April 18, 2016
SECOND DIVISION
[ G.R. No. 207408, April 18, 2016 ]
HEIRS OF FELINO M. TIMBOL, JR., NAMELY, MICHAEL JOHN
JORGE TIMBOL, FELINO JAMES JORGE TIMBOL, AND
MARILOU TIMBOL, PETITIONERS, VS. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL
BANK, RESPONDENT.
DECISION
CARPIO, J.:
The Case
Before this Court is a petition for review[1] on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules
of Court assailing the Decision[2] dated 26 September 2012 and Resolution[3] dated
31 May 2013 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 84649. The Court of
Appeals reversed and set aside the 5 January 2005 Decision [4] of the Regional Trial
Court (RTC) of Makati City, Branch 150, in Civil Case No. 00-946.
The Facts
Civil Case No. 00-946 stems from a Complaint[5] for annulment of real estate
mortgage, foreclosure of mortgage, and auction sale; accounting and damages,
with prayer for temporary restraining order and/or injunction filed by Felino M.
Timbol, Jr. and his wife Emmanuela R. Laguardia (Spouses Timbol) against the
Philippine National Bank (PNB), Atty. Ricardo M. Espina, in his capacity as notary
public of Makati, and the Register of Deeds of Makati.
The facts of the case are as follows:
Sometime in December 1996, Karrich Holdings Ltd. ["KHL"], based in Hong Kong
and owned by Felino M. Timbol, Jr. ["Timbol"] applied with Philippine National Bank
["PNB"]'s wholly-owned Hong Kong-based subsidiary, PNB International Finance
Limited ["PNB-IFL"] for credit facilities. Karrich Auto Exchange ["KAE"], then named
Superkinis Auto Sales, a sole proprietorship based in the Philippines and also owned
by Timbol, acted as co-borrower. The credit facilities were granted in the total
amount of USD 850,000.00, or PhP 22,796,200.00.
As security, Timbol executed real estate mortgages on his behalf and on behalf of
Emmanuela Laguardia ["Laguardia"], over nine (9) different parcels of real estate
registered in the name of Mr. and Mrs. Felino M. Timbol, Jr. Timbol was supposedly
made to sign the real estate mortgage forms and Promissory Note forms in blank,
among other documents, and thereafter returned the same to PNB. Timbol was
allegedly never furnished with copies of the finished forms, a statement PNB would
later categorically deny.
The first Real Estate Mortgage was in consideration of credit accommodations in the
amount of Thirteen Million Fifty Three Thousand Six Hundred Pesos (Php
13,053,600.00, Philippine currency) and further read pertinently as follows:
WITNESSETH: That for and in consideration of credit accommodations obtained
from the Mortgagee and to secure the payment of the same x x x the Mortgagors
hereby transfer and convey by way of mortgage unto the Mortgagee its successors
or assigns, the following:
Seven (7) real estate properties covered by TCT Nos. 196111, 196112, 196113,
196114, 196115, 196116 and 196117 with their technical descriptions detailed in
the attached Annex A.
xxx
The consideration for the second Real Estate Mortgage amounted to Seven Million
Five Hundred Ninety-Eight Thousand Eight Hundred Fifty Pesos and 0/100 (PhP
7,598,850.00, Philippine currency). The mortgage was constituted over a 293-sq.m.
parcel of land covered by TCT No. 177564. The third Real Estate Mortgage secured
an obligation amounting to Two Million One Hundred Forty-Three Thousand Seven
Hundred Fifty Pesos and 0/100 (Php 2,143,750.00, Philippine currency) and
covered an 87.5 sq.m. parcel of land under TCT No. 207636.
The real estate mortgages were annotated on the aforementioned transfer
certificates of title. On later perusal of the transfer certificates of title, however,
Timbol supposedly discovered that the amounts annotated as mortgaged added up
to One Hundred One Million One Hundred Seventeen Thousand Eight Hundred Pesos
and 0/100 (PhP 101,117,800.00). Over time, Timbol signed several Promissory
Notes, attesting to availments under the credit line amounting to Eight Hundred
Forty-Nine Thousand Five Hundred Ninety-Five US Dollars and 7/100 (USD
849,595.07). On April 1, 1998, the credit facilities were reduced to Eight Hundred
Forty-Eight Thousand Three Hundred US Dollars and 0/100 (USD 848,300.00),
pursuant to the letter sent by PNB-IFL to KAE/ KHL.
When Timbol, KAE, and KHL defaulted on the payment 6f their loan obligation, PNB,
on behalf of PNB-IFL, sent a demand letter dated September 2, 1999, advising
them that their total outstanding obligation stood at Thirty-Eight Million, EightyEight Thousand One Hundred Seventy-Three Pesos and 59/100 (PhP
38,088,173.59), inclusive of penalties and interests. In a response apparently dated
October 19, 1999, Timbol, signing in representation of KHL, manifested that he was
"well aware" of the "P33 Million" outstanding obligation and that he was awaiting
the outcome of a pending application for another loan. Timbol thus requested for
additional time to settle the obligation with PNB-IFL and for the conversion of the
same to Philippine currency.
On November 15, 1999, PNB caused the foreclosure of the mortgaged properties,
claiming that Timbol/KAE/KHL had violated the terms of the real estate mortgage
by defaulting on the payment of the loan obligation despite demands. As of the
date of the foreclosure, the outstanding obligation already amounted to One Million
Twenty-One Thousand Seven Hundred Forty-Three US Dollars and 40/100 (USD
1,021,743.40) or Forty-Two Million Three Hundred Twenty Thousand Six Hundred
Eleven Pesos and 62/100 (PhP 42,320,611.62). Atty. Ricardo M. Espina ["Espina"]
notarized the Notice of Extra-Judicial Sale.
PNB was allegedly the highest bidder at the public auction sale with a bid price of
Thirty-Five Million Six Hundred Sixty-Nine Thousand Pesos and 0/100 (PhP
35,669,000.00). Espina issued the corresponding Certificate of Sale dated
December 10, 1999.
On August 4, 2000, Timbol and Laguardia filed suit against PNB, Espina, and the
Register of Deeds of Makati City for annulment of the real estate mortgage, of the
foreclosure and auction sale, for accounting and damages, and for a temporary
restraining order and/or injunction. They accused PNB of deliberately "bloating" the
amount of the obligation. They furthermore assailed the foreclosure proceedings as
highly irregular, invalid, and illegal, because the petition for the extra-judicial
foreclosure had not been filed in accordance with Supreme Court Administrative
Order No. 3; the Notice of Notary Public's Sale did not specify the newspaper in
which the Notice of Sale would be published, and was neither raffled for this
purpose nor properly posted; and the Notary did not conduct an actual public
bidding. They moreover faulted Defendant Espina for refusing to furnish Timbol with
copies of documents relative to the supposed auction sale. Meanwhile, the Makati
City Register of Deeds gave plaintiff Timbol a Certification that no December 11,
1996 Deed of Mortgage in favor of PNB-IFL covering the transfer certificates of title
in question was located in the records. Nor had any certificate of sale been
registered on the titles. Plaintiffs thus prayed that the mortgage and Promissory
Notes, and the extra-judicial foreclosure, the foreclosure sale, and any subsequent
Certificate of Sale, be declared null and void; that the mortgage liens annotated on
the transfer certificates of title be cancelled; that PNB be directed to render an
accounting of plaintiffs' true and actual obligation; and that damages and attorney's
fees be awarded. Plaintiffs also prayed for preliminary and permanent injunctive
relief to restrain PNB from consolidating its title to and ownership over the real
properties, and to restrain the Makati City Registry of Deeds from canceling
plaintiffs' titles and issuing new ones in lieu thereof.
During the hearings on his prayer for a temporary restraining order or writ of
preliminary injunction, Timbol affirmed the Affidavit he executed for that purpose.
By Order dated September 8, 2000, the RTC granted the issuance of a writ of
preliminary injunction prayed for. The RTC denied PNB's Motion for Reconsideration
and Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration, while granting the plaintiffs' Motion
to Reduce Bond. PNB elevated the RTC's Order all the way to the Supreme Court
which would ultimately nullify and set aside the same in its February 11, 2005
Decision in G.R. No. 157535.
Meanwhile, in his Answer, Espina defended the validity of the foreclosure sale
proceedings and explained that it was PNB's Atty; Geromo who rejected Plaintiff
Timbol's request for copies of the mortgage documents and promissory notes.
Espina pointed out that the1 alleged Special Power of Attorney supposedly
authorizing plaintiff Timbol to represent Laguardia had already been revoked by a
July 20, 1998 Order of the Regional Trial Court of Paraaque City, where a petition
for legal separation was already pending. Espina further accused Plaintiff Timbol of
coming to court with unclean hands, having also breached his obligations to PNBIFL. Espina made crossclaims for indemnification as well as counterclaims for moral
and exemplary damages, attorney's fees, and litigation expenses.
For its part, PNB insisted that the Real Estate Mortgage contracts had been "already
in printed form" at the time Timbol signed the same, and that it was not PNB-IFL's
practice that these be signed in blank. PNB also argued that the total amount of
Timbol/KAE/KHL's obligation already included interest at agreed-upon rates and
that the foreclosure proceedings had been proper and valid. Thus PNB asserted that
any damage that might result to plaintiffs were merelydamnum absque injuria. PNB
added that the proceedings were governed by Act No. 3135, not Administrative
Order No. 3, as stipulated in the mortgage contracts themselves. PNB moreover
explained that the mortgage over seven (7) properties covered by TCT Nos. 196111
thru 196117, all of the Register of Deeds of Makati, altogether secured an
obligation of only Thirteen Million Fifty-Three Thousand Six Hundred Pesos and
0/100 (PhP 13,053,600.00), with each of the other mortgages over two (2)
properties securing obligations of only Two Million One Hundred Forty-Three
Thousand Seven Hundred Fifty Pesos and 0/100 (PhP 2,143,750.00) and Seven
Million Five Hundred Ninety-Eight Thousand Eight Hundred Fifty Pesos and 0/100
(PhP 7,598,850.00), rendering plaintiffs' computation; erroneous. PNB advanced
counterclaims for actual, moral, and exemplary, damages as well as litigation
expenses and attorney's fees.[6]
The Ruling of the RTC
On 5 January 2005, the RTC issued its assailed decision, the dispositive portion of
which reads:
WHEREFORE, the foreclosure of mortgage made by the defendant bank on
November 15, 1999 is hereby declared null and void over the properties covered by
TCTs Nos. 196111, 196112, 196113, 196114, 196115, 196116, 196117, 207636
and 177564 of the Registry of Deeds of Makati City.
SO ORDERED.[7]
The RTC found that "[t]he mortgage loan annotated at the back of the titles did not
reflect the actual amount of the loan obtained by the plaintiffs." This, the RTC held,
"vitiated the subsequent foreclosure of the mortgage initiated by the defendant
bank."[8]
The RTC also held that there was an "obviously deliberate act of the defendant bank
in refusing to furnish the plaintiff copies of the loan documents" which, the RTC
stated strengthens "the claim of the [Spouses Timbol] that they were virtually led
by the defendant bank to sign blank loan documents by merely affixing their
signatures thereto."[9] Further, the RTC interpreted PNB's actions as an attempt "to
hide the correct amount of the obligation," confirming the Spouses Timbol's claim
that PNB bloated the amount of their obligation.[10]

The RTC further held that PNB failed "to show proof that when it filed the petition
for foreclosure with defendant notary public, [it] was duly empowered by a board
resolution, as evidenced by a secretary's certificate x x x to foreclose the mortgage
constituted over the subject properties."[11] There was no evidence, the RTC said,
"that this subsidiary, obviously a partnership entity, was duly authorized by a
resolution that empowered it to assign all its rights and interest in the mortgage in
favor of defendant bank."[12]
Lastly, the RTC found no basis to grant the claim for damages and attorney's fees.
[13]
The Ruling of the Court of Appeals

Without filing a motion for reconsideration of the RTC decision, PNB elevated the
case to the Court of Appeals. While the case was pending, Timbol died [14] and was
substituted by his heirs, herein petitioners. [15]
In its 26 September 2012 decision, the Court of Appeals reversed the RTC's
decision, to wit:
WHEREFORE, the appeal is PARTIALLY GRANTED. The January 5, 2005 Decision of
Branch 150 of the Makati City RTC is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. However,
Defendant-Appellant's plea for moral and exemplary damages, together with
attorney's fees and costs^ is DENIED. A new judgment is hereby entered
DISMISSING the complaint.
SO ORDERED.[16]
The Court of Appeals held that factual issues raised by PNB have been "definitively
laid to rest" by this Court's decision in PNB v. Timbol[17] where it was found that
"respondents never denied that they defaulted in the payment of the
obligation."[18] In the same decision, this Court upheld PNB's argument that
"Supreme Court Administrative Order No. 3 does not apply, the extrajudicial
foreclosure having been conducted by a notary public to which mode of foreclosure
respondents agreed in the REMs, hence, proper."
As to the allegation that PNB bloated the amount of the obligation, the same
decision found as follows:
x x x the 7 titles collectively secured the amount of P13,053,600.00. Such claim
despite respondent Timbol's admission in his October 27, 1999 letter to petitioner's
counsel that he and his company's outstanding obligation was P33,000,000.00 is
grossly misleading and is a gross [m]isrepresentation.[19]
The Court of Appeals noted that the Court's pronouncements in PNB v. Timbol settle
the question on PNB's "attempt to hide something" and the alleged bloating of the
amounts in the mortgage documents.[20] On the other hand, the Court of Appeals
held that "PNB sufficiently demonstrated plaintiffs-appellees' satisfaction with the
loan transaction, proving that Timbol never questioned his obligation and even
repeatedly made partial payments on his principal obligations and the interests
accruing thereon."[21]
The Court of Appeals also found "that the Real Estate Mortgage contracts
themselves amply provide for x x x PNB's authority to foreclose the mortgage as
PNB-IFL's agent and attorney-in-fact."[22] Moreover, the Court of Appeals said that
Spouses Timbol never "disputed the authority of xxx PNB in instituting foreclosure
proceedings. This implicit admission binds them." [23]
Finally, as to the claim for moral and exemplary damages, the Court of Appeals
denied the same for lack of basis.[24]
Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied in the assailed
Resolution dated 31 May 2013.
Petitioners are now before this Court on a petition for review on certiorari praying
for the reversal of the Court of Appeals' decision.
Petitioners argue that the Court of Appeals committed the following errors:
A.
The court a quo erred in not dismissing the appeal outright because PNB did not
even bother filing a motion for reconsideration of the RTC Decision.
B.
The court a quo erred in applying the Decision of the Honorable [Court] in G.R. No.
157535 as the issue on that case is on the injunction only.
C.
The court a quo erred in not holding that PNB deliberately did not provide Felino M.
Timbol, Jr. with copies of the loan and mortgage documents.
D.
The court a quo erred in not sustaining the factual findings of the RTC that PNB
deliberately failed to provide Timbol with the documents.
E.
The court a quo erred in not holding that there was an absence of a proper
authority coming from PNB-IFL as to the assignment of its rights and interest in
favor of PNB.[25]
Petitioners contend that "[PNB] should have first filed a motion for reconsideration
of the RTC Decision before interposing its appeal." [26]
Likewise, petitioners argue that the Court of Appeals' application of the ruling
in PNB v. Timbol[27] is misplaced. They emphasize that the earlier case dealt only
with the application for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction, and not the
validity of the mortgage.[28]
Petitioners also insist that the RTC's findings on PNB's alleged refusal to furnish the
Spouses Timbol with copies of the mortgage documents and the lack of evidence to
show PNB-IFL's authority to assign its rights and interests to PNB should have been
upheld by the Court of Appeals.[29]
Respondent's Arguments
PNB, in its Comment, counters that the petition for review must be dismissed for
"failing to show special and important reasons warranting the exercise of this
Honorable Court's discretionary reviewing power."[30] PNB points out that petitioners
are raising factual issues that have already been "exhaustively discussed and
resolved" by this Court in PNB v. Timbol.[31]
PNB also argues that the Court of Appeals correctly cited the Court's decision
in PNB v. Timbol.[32]
Moreover, PNB argues that the Court of Appeals did not commit reversible error
when it found that the PNB "did not bloat the loan obligations of petitioners" and as
such, had "no reason to refuse petitioners' request that they be furnished copies of
the loan documents."[33] As further proof, PNB notes that petitioners, in the
proceedings at the RTC, "expressly admitted" the "genuineness and due execution
of the [real estate mortgage] and the subject Promissory Notes." [34]
Next, PNB asserts that it did not err in filing a Notice of Appeal without first filing a
motion for reconsideration of the RTC's decision. PNB argues that "[t]here is
absolutely nothing in the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure that requires a party-litigant
to first file a motion for reconsideration of an adverse decision before it can file a
Notice of Appeal." PNB claims that the provisions in the Rules of Civil Procedure on
motions for reconsideration are "merely directory, and not mandatory." [35]
As to the alleged absence of a proper authority from PNB-IFL to give PNB the right
to foreclose on the real estate mortgage, PNB agrees with the Court of Appeals'
ruling and underscores the terms of the mortgage contract as the basis for such
authority.[36] Specifically, PNB points to Paragraph 21, which states:
21. APPOINTMENT OF AGENT; ASSIGNMENT. - The Mortgagee hereby appoints the
Philippine National Bank (Head Office, Pasay City) as its attorney-in-fact with full
power and authority to exercise all its rights and obligations under this Agreement,
such as but not limited to foreclosure of the Mortgaged Properties, taking
possession and selling of the mortgaged/foreclosed properties, and execution of
covering documents. x x x.[37]
Thus, PNB concludes that the petition must be dismissed for failure of petitioners to
"present a valid and legitimate question of law x x x that would warrant the
exercise of [the Court's] discretionary power of review." [38]
The Court's Ruling
The petition is denied for lack of merit.
Non-filing of a Motion for Reconsideration
Petitioners assail the Court of Appeals' ruling for failing to dismiss the appeal
outright because PNB did not file a motion for reconsideration of the RTC's decision.
Section 1, Rule 37 of the Rules on Civil Procedure states:
SECTION 1. Grounds of and period for filing motion for new trial or reconsideration.
Within the period for taking an appeal, the aggrieved party may move the trial
court to set aside the judgment or final order and grant a new trial for one or more
of the following causes materially affecting the substantial rights of said party:
(a) Fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence which ordinary prudence could
not have guarded against and by reason of which such aggrieved party has
probably been impaired in his rights; or
(b) Newly discovered evidence, which he could not, with1 reasonable diligence,
have discovered and produced at the trial, and which if presented would probably
alter the result.
Within the same period, the aggrieved party may also move for
reconsideration upon the grounds that the damages awarded are excessive, that
the evidence is insufficient to justify the decision or final order, or that the decision
or final order is contrary to law. (Emphasis supplied)
The use of the term may in the provision means that the same is permissive and
not mandatory. As such, a party aggrieved by the trial court's decision may either
move for reconsideration or appeal to the Court of Appeals.
On the other hand, Rule 41, Section 3 provides as follows:
SEC. 3. Period of ordinary appeal, appeal in habeas corpus cases.The appeal shall
be taken within fifteen (15) days from notice of the judgment or final order
appealed from. Where a record on appeal is required, the appellant shall file a
notice of appeal and a record on appeal within thirty (30) days from notice of the
judgment or final order. However, an appeal in habeas corpus cases shall be taken
within forty-eight (48) hours from notice of the judgment or final order appealed
from.
The period of appeal shall be interrupted by a timely motion for new trial
or reconsideration. No motion for extension of time to file a motion for new trial
or reconsideration shall be allowed. (Emphasis supplied)
This means that, within 15 days from notice of judgment, a party may file either an
appeal or a motion for reconsideration.
Moreover, appeal is a matter of discretion. The Court has the "prerogative under the
law to determine whether or not it shall consent to exercise its appellate jurisdiction
in any given case."[39] In this case, the Court of Appeals exercised its prerogative
and accepted the appeal.
Petitioners had the chance to question the Court of Appeals' exercise of jurisdiction.
However, they lost such opportunity because they failed to file their Appellees'
Brief[40] without any explanation for such failure, despite acknowledging that they
received a copy of the Appellant's Brief,[41] and despite filing their counsels' formal
entry of appearance,[42] and filing a manifestation informing the court of their
father's death.[43] In other words, petitioners had the opportunity to raise their
opposition to PNB's appeal, but they did not.
Even in their motion for reconsideration[44] of the Court of Appeals' decision, the
only issues that petitioners raised were on the RTC's findings on the "deliberate
failure on the part of the PNB to furnish Timbol with the loan documents" and on
the lack of evidence of PNB-IFL's resolution assigning its rights on the mortgage to
PNB.[45]It is now too late to delve into this issue considering petitioners' participation
in the proceedings.
Application of the Law of the Case Doctrine
The Court of Appeals correctly applied the law of the case doctrine.
In PNB v. Timbol,[46] PNB brought a petition for certiorari to set aside the order of
Judge Zeus L. Abrogar that issued a writ of preliminary injunction in Civil Case No.
00-946. The Court struck down this order, holding that the order "was attended
with grave abuse of discretion."[47]
The Court found that the Spouses Timbol "never denied that they defaulted in the
payment of the obligation."[48] In fact, they even acknowledged that they had an
outstanding obligation with PNB, and simply requested for more time to pay.
The Court also held that the extrajudicial foreclosure of the mortgage was proper,
since it was done in accordance with the terms of the Real Estate Mortgage, which
was also the Court's basis in finding that Supreme Court Administrative Order No. 3
does not apply in that case.[49]
The Court also found that the Spouses Timbol's claim that PNB bloated the amount
of their obligation was "grossly misleading and a gross misinterpretation" by the
Spouses Timbol. The Court noted the Spouses Timbol's letter to PNB [50] that
acknowledged they had an outstanding obligation to PNB, as well as affirmed that
they received the demand letter directing them to pay, contrary to their claim.
Thus, the Court in PNB v. Timbol concluded that the RTC committed grave abuse of
discretion when it issued a writ of preliminary injunction.
No doubt, this Court is bound by its earlier pronouncements in PNB v. Timbol.
The term law of the case has been held to mean that "whatever is once irrevocably
established as the controlling legal rule or decision between the same parties in the
same case continues to be the law of the case, whether correct on general
principles or not, so long as the facts on which such decision was predicated
continue to be the facts of the case before the court. As a general rule, a decision
on a prior appeal of the same case is held to be the law of the case whether that
question is right or wrong, the remedy of the party deeming himself aggrieved
being to seek a rehearing."[51]
The doctrine applies when "(1) a question is passed upon by an appellate court, and
(2) the appellate court remands the case to the lower court for further proceedings;
the lower court and even the appellate courts on subsequent appeal of the case
are, thus, bound by how such question had been previously settled." [52]
This must be so for reasons of practicality and the orderly adjudication of cases.
The doctrine of the law of the case is "necessary to enable an appellate court to
perform its duties satisfactorily and efficiently, which would be impossible if a
question, once considered and decided by it, were to be litigated anew in the same
case upon any and every subsequent appeal." [53] It is "founded on the policy of
ending litigation."[54] The need for "judicial orderliness and economy require such
stability in the final judgments of courts or tribunals of competent jurisdiction." [55]
The Court is bound by its earlier ruling in PNB v. Timbol finding the extrajudicial
foreclosure to be proper. The Court therein thoroughly and thoughtfully examined
the validity of the extrajudicial foreclosure in order to determine whether the writ of
preliminary injunction was proper. To allow a reexamination of this conclusion will
disturb what has already been settled and only create confusion if the Court now
makes a contrary finding.
Thus, "[q]uestions necessarily involved in the decision on a former appeal will be
regarded as the law of the case on a subsequent appeal, although the questions are
not expressly treated in the opinion of the court, as the presumption is that all the
facts in the case bearing on the point decided have received due consideration
whether all or none of them are mentioned in the opinion." [56]
The Court of Appeals was correct to abide by the Court's ruling in PNB v. Timbol, for
"once the appellate court has issued a pronouncement on a point that was
presented to it with full opportunity to be heard having been accorded to the
parties, the pronouncement should be regarded as the law of the case and should
not be reopened on remand of the case to determine other issues of the case." [57]
Other Issues
Further, the Court of Appeals itself found ample reason to reverse and set aside the
RTC's decision. These findings, the Court now finds, are supported by the evidence
on record.
The Court cannot sustain the claim that the Spouses Timbol were kept in the dark
by PNB on the real terms of the contract the Spouses Timbol signed.
It is difficult to imagine that an experienced businessman like Timbol will sign
documents, especially a mortgage contract that potentially involves multi-million
peso liabilities, without knowing its terms and conditions. Moreover, the records are
replete with evidence that the Spouses Timbol had already partially complied with
their obligation under the mortgage contract.
Replying to PNB's demand letter dated 2 September 1999, Felino Timbol himself
acknowledged that he and his wife were "well aware of our total outstanding
obligation" to PNB, which he pegged at P33 million. The same letter bears no
indication that the Spouses Timbol were impugning the terms of their agreement.
On the contrary, they acknowledged their obligation and merely pleaded for more
time to comply.[58] They further amplified their assent in another undated letter
where they informed PNB that they "can deliver a partial payment of at least 10%
of [their] total obligation."[59] Likewise, in a letter dated 2 October 2000, Felino
Timbol acknowledged the amount of his obligation "based on the Statement of
Account prepared by PNB-IFL," and even laid down his proposal on how the
Spouses Timbol would settle the same.[60]
As to the claim that there is no proper authority from PNB-IFL assigning its rights
and interest in the mortgage contract to PNB, the Court finds that the same is
easily controverted by the Real Estate Mortgage itself.
Paragraph 21 of the Real Estate Mortgage states:
21. APPOINTMENT OF AGENT; ASSIGNMENT. The Mortgagee hereby appoints the
Philippine National Bank (Head Office, Pasay City) as its attorney-in-fact
with full power and authority to exercise all its rights and obligations
under this Agreement, such as but not limited to foreclosure of the
Mortgaged Properties, taking possession and selling of the mortgaged/foreclosed
properties, and execution of covering documents. The Mortgagee may also assign
its rights and interest: under this Agreement even without need of prior notice to,
or consent of, the Mortgagors.[61] (Emphasis supplied)
The terms of the contract are clear and should end any further discussion on this
issue.
In addition, petitioners never raised the authority of PNB to foreclose the mortgage
on behalf of PNB-IFL in their Complaint[62] before the trial court or in the
proceedings before the Court of Appeals.
It is now too late for petitioners to raise these issues before the Court. It is
noteworthy that all these could have been ventilated in the proceedings before the
Court of Appeals had petitioners not neglected to file their Appellees' Brief.
Thus, the foregoing discussion puts to rest the issues raised by petitioners.
Consequently, the real estate mortgage, the subsequent foreclosure and auction
sale are held to be valid. No irregularity attended the execution of the mortgage
contract, the foreclosure, and the auction sale, the same being within the terms
agreed upon by petitioners' predecessor-in-interest and PNB.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals dated
26 September 2012 and Resolution dated 31 May 2013 in CA-G.R. CV No. 84649
areAFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
[1]
Rollo, pp. 3-16.
Id. at 18-30. Penned by Associate Justice Ramon A. Cruz, with Associate Justices
Romeo F. Barza and Stephen C. Cruz concurring.
[2]
[3]
Id. at 32-33.
[4]
Id. at 34-46. Penned by Judge Reinato G. Quilala.
[5]
Records (Vol. I), pp. 1-15.
[6]
Rollo, pp. 19-22.
[7]
Id. at 46.
[8]
Id. at 44.
[9]
Id.
[10]
Id. at 45.
[11]
Id.
[12]
Id.
[13]
Id.
[14]
[15]
Id. at 130-131.
[16]
Rollo, p. 28.
[17]
491 Phil. 352 (2005).
[18]
Id. at 367.
[19]
Rollo, p. 26.
[20]
Id.
[21]
Id.
[22]
Id. at 26-27.
[23]
Id. at 27.
[24]
Id. at 28.
[25]
Id. at 6.
[26]
Id. at 7.
[27]
Supra note 17.
[28]
Rollo, p.8.
[29]
Id. at 9-11.
[30]
Id. at 68.
[31]
Id. at 69.
[32]
Id. at 70.
[33]
Id. at 72.
[34]
Id. at 72-73.
[35]
Id. at 73.
[36]
Id. at 74.
[37]
Id. at 75.
[38]
Id.
[39]
Chua Giok Ong v. Court of Appeals, 233 Phil. 110, 116 (1987).
[40]
CA rollo, pp. 106, 110.
[41]
Id. at 104.
[42]
Id. at 111.
[43]
Id. at 117.
[44]
Id. at 157-160.
[45]
Id. at 159.
[46]
Supra note 17.
[47]
[48]
[49]
[50]
Radio Communications of the Philippines, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 522 Phil. 267,
273, (2006), citing Padillo v. Court of Appeals, 422 Phil. 334 (2001). (Emphasis in
the original)
[51]
[52]
Lopez v. Esquivel, Jr., 604 Phil. 437, 456 (2009).
Radio Communications of the Philippines, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, supra note

51, citing Padillo v. Court of Appeals, 422 Phil. 334, 351 (2001).
[53]
Banco de Oro-EPCI, Inc. v. Tansipek, 611 Phil. 90, 99 (2009), citing People v.
Pinuila, 103 Phil. 992, 1000 (1958).
[54]
Escobar v. Luna, 547 Phil. 661, 669 (2007), citing Kabankalan Catholic College
v. Kabankalan Catholic College Union-PACIWU-TUCP, 500 Phil. 254, 266 (2005).
[55]
[56]
Banco de Oro-EPCI, Inc. v. Tansipek, supra note 54.
Development Bank of the Philippines v. Guaria Agricultural and Realty

Development Corporation, G.R. No. 160758, 15 January 2014, 713 SCRA 292,
citingBachrach Motor Co. v. Esteva, 67 Phil. 16 (1938).
[57]
[58]
Records (Vol. II), p. 883.
[59]
Id. at 960.
[60]
Id. at 965-966.
[61]
Id. at 840.
[62]
Records (Vol. I), pp. 1-15.

G.R.
No.
217120
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. THE HEIRS OF SPOUSES FLORENTINO AND PACENCIA MOLINYAWE,
REPRESENTED
BY
MARITES
MOLINYAWE
AND
FRED
SANTOS,
RESPONDENTS.
April 18, 2016
SECOND DIVISION
[ G.R. No. 217120, April 18, 2016 ]
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. THE
HEIRS OF SPOUSES FLORENTINO AND PACENCIA
MOLINYAWE, REPRESENTED BY MARITES MOLINYAWE AND
FRED SANTOS, RESPONDENTS.
DECISION
MENDOZA, J.:
This is a petition for review on certiorari[1] filed by the Republic of the Philippines
(Republic) praying that the February 20, 2015 Decision[2] of the Court of Appeals
(CA) in CA G.R. SP No. 133803 be reversed and set aside and that Civil Case No.
10-658 pending before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 57, Makati City (RTCBranch 57), be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. .
In the CA, the appellate court denied the Republic's petition for certiorari which
sought to annul the orders, dated September 6, 2013 [3] and November 19, 2013,
[4]
of the RTC-Branch 57 admitting the Amended and Supplemental Petition of the
respondents, seeking the cancellation of the lis pendens annotated at the back of
Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) Nos. 75239, 76129 and 77577 and for quieting of
title of said TCTs on the ground of prescription because the Republic failed to
execute the .final and executory decision of a co-equal court.
The Antecedents:
On May 16, 1960, criminal .cases for malversation were filed with the then Court of
First Instance of La Union (CFI-La Union) against several accused including
Florentino Molinyawe (Florentino) and docketed as Criminal Case Nos. 2996 and
2997.[5]
In that same year, the Republic, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG),
filed a forfeiture case pursuant to Republic Act (R.A.) No. 1379 before the then CFIPasig against Florentino, his relatives, and the respondents in this case, namely:
Patricia Molinyawe, Salisi Molinyawe, Oscar Molinyawe, Vicente Miranda, Baldomera
Miranda, Cresence Padilla, Leonarda Recinto Padilla, and Vicente Leus
(respondents). The forfeiture case, docketed as Civil Case No. 6379, involved
several parcels of land covered by TCT Nos. 75239, 76129 and 77577, and
registered in the names of the Spouses Vicente Miranda and Baldomera Miranda
(Spouses Miranda), Spouses Cresence Padilla and Leonarda Recinto Padilla
(Spouses Padilla) and Vivencio Leus (Leus). The Republic claimed that Florentino
had illegally acquired the said properties as their values were said to be grossly
disproportionate to his declared income.
On November 18, 1960, the Republic caused the annotation of the forfeiture case
on the back of the titles of the subject lots. [6]
On September 22, 1972, the CFI-Pasig declared the sale of the subject properties
to the Spouses Miranda, Spouses Padilla and Leus null and void, and ordered that
the said properties be forfeited in favor of the Republic.
The decision was appealed to the CA but the appeal was denied by the CA in its
February 13, 1974 Resolution. No further action was taken to set aside the
judgment. Thus, on August 23, 1974, the CA issued an Entry of Judgment.
The CFI-Pasig then issued a writ of execution on February 14, 1975. Although the
writ was duly served on the respondents in that case, more than thirty (30) years
had passed , but still the Republic failed to cancel TCT Nos. 75239, 76129 and
77577 and transfer them to its name. It appeared that Florentino did not turn over
to the Republic the owner's duplicate copies of the subject TCTs. [7]
Meanwhile, on January 12, 1973, in Criminal Case Nos.r2996 and 2997, the CFI-La
Union acquitted Florentino of malversation.
Many years later, on July 9, 2010, the respondents, as heirs of Florentino, filed with
the RTC-Branch 57, a Complaint/Petition, docketed as Civil Case No. 10-658,
praying for the cancellation of the lis pendens annotated at the back of TCT Nos.
75239, 76129 and 77577 and for quieting of title regarding said TCTs on the ground
of prescription for the non-execution of the September 22, 1972 CA decision. [8]
Thereafter, on October 6, 2010, the Republic caused the annotation of the
September 22, 1972 decision on the back of TCT Nos. 75239, 76129 and 77577.
On December 5, 2010, the Republic filed a separate action with the RTC, Branch
138, Makati City (RTC Branch 138), docketed as LRC Case No. M-5469,
specifically a petition for annulment of owner's duplicate copy of said TCTs and the
issuance of new ones pursuant to Section 107 of Presidential Decree (P.D.) No.
1529 allegedly due to the respondents' refusal to surrender the owner's duplicate
copies.[9]
On September 12, 2011, the RTC-Branch 138 decided in favor of the Republic in
LRC Case No. M-5469 declaring the owner's duplicate copies of TCT Nos. 75239,
76129 and 77577 in possession of the respondents as null and void. Thus, the RTCBranch 138 cancelled the same and directed the Register of Deeds of Makati (RDMakati) to issue new owner's duplicate copies of said TCTs in the name of the
Republic.[10]
On April 12, 2012, the RD-Makati caused the cancellation and transfer of the
subject TCTs as follows:
a. TCT No. 75239 in the names of the spouses Vicente Miranda and Baldomera
Miranda - cancelled and transferred to "the Republic of the Philippines with
TCT No. 006-2012000526.
b. TCT No. 76129 in the names of the spouses Cresence Padilla and Leonarda
Recinto Padilla - cancelled and transferred to the Republic of the Philippines
with TCT No. 006-2012000527.
c. TCT No. 77577 in the name of Vivencio Leus - cancelled and transferred to
the Republic of the Philippines with TCT No. 006- 2012000528. [11]
Considering that no appropriate remedy was pursued within the reglementary

period, the September 12, 2011 decision in the LRC case became final and
executory. In January 2012, the Republic filed a motion for execution which was
granted by the RTC-Branch 138 in its March 16, 2012 Order.[12]
Due to the decision in the LRC case, the respondents filed on June 10, 2013,
a Motion to Admit Amended and Supplemental Petition (attaching to it the
said Amended and Supplemental Petition), in Civil Case No. 10-658. In its
September 6, 2013 Order, the RTC-Branch 57, granted the same. The Republic
moved for a reconsideration but its motion was denied in, its November 19, 2013
Order of the Court.
Consequently, the Republic filed a Rule 65 petition for certiorari before the CA
seeking the annulment of the orders, dated September 6, 2013 and November 19,
2013, issued by the RTC-Branch 57 in Civil Case No. 10-658. It argued that the trial
court had committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction in issuing the September 6, 2013 and November 19, 2013 orders
considering that: a] it had no jurisdiction over the original complaint/petition; b]
the amendment sought a review of a final and executory decision of a co-equal
court; and c] the amendment is a collateral attack on TCT Nos. 006-201000526,
006-201200527 and 006-201200528.
In its February 20, 2015 Decision, the CA dismissed the petition. The appellate
court ruled that the RTC-Branch 57 did not act without or in excess of jurisdiction or
committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing its questioned orders. It explained
that the RTC had jurisdiction over an action for quieting of title. The CA explained
that the order of the RTC to admit the respondents' amended and supplemental
petition inspite of being fully aware of the finality of the decision of a co-equal court
was not tantamount to grave abuse of discretion which would warrant the issuance
of a writ of certiorari. Further, the Court found that the RTC's judgment was not
performed in a capricious or whimsical manner because the alleged abuse of
discretion was not so patent and gross. Hence, the CA concluded that its judgment
was not.exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of passion or
personal hostility. In other words, the CA was saying that although the actions of
the RTC-Branch 57 could constitute imprudence, it could not be regarded as an act
of grave abuse of discretion that could justify the issuance of a writ of certiorari.
Finally, the CA opined that the decision of RTC-Branch 138 in LRA Case No. M-5469
was a "flawed decision" reasoning as follows:
Shifting to another point, We are in awe on how LRA Case No. M-5469 was decided.
There are some observations that tinker with our curiosity. It is quite strange and
mind boggling too that in LRA Case No. M-5469, it seems apparent that the
decision made therein was only based on the decision dated September 22, 1972
pertaining to the forfeiture case without regard for taking into account the January
23, 1975 decision in the malversation case acquitting Florentino Molinyawe. Of
course, it is understandable that no mention of the acquittal was made in
petitioner's Petition for annulment of the owner's duplicate copy of the TCTs
covering the subject properties. Interestingly too, private respondents merely opted
to file a motion to dismiss, instead of filing their answer and presenting the trial
court (Branch 138) the January 23, 1975 decision. Had these been considered, a
complete turn of events could have transpired considering that such acquittal
necessarily rendered the forfeiture of the properties ineffective and invalid. By the
virtue of the acquittal, the forfeiture of his properties became ineffective.
Consequently, it is but proper that his forfeited properties be given back to him or
in his absence, to his heirs. That said, the decision in LRA Case No. M-5469 is, to
Us, a flawed decision. But then, of course, this is not a matter that necessitates a
discussion in the present case mindful of the fact that this is not within the thrust of
a petition for certiorari. In certiorari, We are only limited to the determination of
whether or not public respondent acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with
grave abuse of discretion in rendering the assailed orders and as earlier stated, no
such abuse of discretion was found to be availing under the circumstances. [13]
Not in conformity with the CA decision, the Republic filed the subject petition based
on the following
GROUNDS:
THE DECISION DATED FEBRUARY 20, 2015 OF THE COURT OF APPEALS IS
NOT IN ACCORD WITH LAW AND JURISPRUDENCE SINCE:
1)
RTC-BRANCH 57 COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN

ADMITTING RESPONDENTS' AMENDED AND SUPPLEMENTAL PETITION AS
IT HAS NO JURISDICTION IN THE FIRST PLACE OVER CIVIL CASE NO. 10658; AND
2)
THE COURT OF APPEALS WENT BEYOND ITS JURISDICTION UNDER RULE

65 WHEN IT RULED THAT THE CIVIL FORFEITURE CASE IS CONTINGENT
OR DEPENDENT ON THE CRIMINAL CASE.[14]
The Republic emphasizes that RTC-Branch 57 gravely abused its discretion when it
admitted the respondents' Amended and Supplemental Petition because, in the first
place, it had no jurisdiction over Civil Case No. 10-658. Citing jurisprudence, it
argues that an amendment of a pleading is not permissible when the court has no
jurisdiction over the case. Moreover, by admitting the Amended and Supplemental
Petition, it was allowing the respondents to alter both the factual and legal findings
of the RTC-Branch 138 in its decision in LRC No. M-5469, which had long become
final and executory.
The Republic argues that the respondents' Complaint/Petition should have been
dismissed right away by the RTC-Branch 57 because, pursuant to Section 77 of P.D.
No. 1529, they were not the proper parties to ask for the cancellation of the notice
of lis pendens. It points out that the allegations show that the cancellation of the
notice of lis pendens was but an ancillary or incident to Civil Case No. 6374. The
Republic highlights that the respondents admitted that they did not have a legal or
an equitable interest in TCT Nos. 75239, 76129 and 77577; that the original
complaint/petition failed to allege any of the grounds under Section 77 of P.D. No.
1529 for the cancellation of a notice of lis pendens; and that only the court having
jurisdiction over the main action or proceeding involving the property may order its
cancellation.
More importantly, the Republic contends that the admission, of the respondents'
Amended and Supplemental Petition seeks to alter the final and executory findings
of a co-equal branch. It being the purpose, it concludes that the RTC-Branch 57
should have dismissed the petition and amended petition pursuant to Section 1,
Rule 9 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure which allows motu propio dismissal of
cases.
Finally, the Republic stresses that the CA went beyond its jurisdiction under Rule 65
when it stated that the civil forfeiture case was contingent or dependent on the
outcome of a criminal case.
Position of the Respondents
The respondents counter that the RTC-Branch 57 had jurisdiction over the original
petition that they had filed and that the admission of their amended and
supplemental petition was in order and in accordance with the Rules of Court. They
point out that actions for quieting of title and cancellation of lis pendens are actions
which are incapable of pecuniary estimation. Hence, the respondents posit that the
RTC-Branch 57 had exclusive original jurisdiction thereof pursuant to the provisions
of Section 19 of Batas Pambansa (B.P.) Blg. 129, as amended.
They further argue that the amended and supplemental petition will not alter the
findings of the RTC-Branch 138 considering that they chose to amend and
supplement their original petition because its decision in LRC Case No. M-5469
rendered moot and academic their action for cancellation of lis pendens and
quieting of title. In this regard, they assert that the CA did not go beyond its
jurisdiction under Rule 65 when it briefly discussed its observation and stated that
the LRC case was flawed.
The Court's Ruling

Grant of extraordinary remedy of certiorari justified when grave abuse of discretion
present
For the extraordinary remedy of certiorari to be justified, the petitioner must
satisfactorily establish that the court gravely abused its discretion. Grave abuse of
discretion is the capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment that effectively brings
the acting entity outside the exercise of its proper jurisdiction. The abuse of
discretion must be grave, as when the power is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic
manner by reason of passion or personal hostility, and the abuse must be so patent
and gross so as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or to a virtual refusal to
perform the; duty enjoined, or to act at all in contemplation of law, as to be
equivalent to having acted without jurisdiction.[15]
In the case at bar, a cursory review of the records would reveal that the RTC-Branch
57 violated several rules of procedure and well-settled rulings. Thus, its decision
was arrived at arbitrarily and whimsically clearly constituting grave abuse of
discretion.
Jurisdiction; Final and Executory judgment
Records show that when the respondents filed Civil Case No. 10-658 in July 2010
for the cancellation of the lis pendens annotated on the back of TCT Nos. 75239,
76129 and 77577 and for quieting of said titles before the RTC-Branch 57, there
was already a decision rendered by the CFI-Pasig City in the forfeiture case (Civil
Case No. 6379) declaring null and void1 the sale of the subject properties to the
Spouses Miranda, Spouses Padilla and Leus and at the same time ordering said
properties forfeited in favor of the Republic. The September 22, 1972 decision of
the CFI-Pasig, in Civil Case No. 6379 became final and executory on August 23,
1974 after the CA issued an entry of judgment. Subsequently, in February 1975,
the CFI-Pasig issued a writ of execution in Civil Case No. 6379.
The records further establish that when the respondents filed their Motion To Admit
Amended and Supplemental Petition on June 10, 2013 before the RTC-Branch 57, a
decision had already been rendered by the RTC-Branch 138 in LRC Case No. M5469, declaring the owner's duplicate copies of TCT Nos. 75239, 76129 and 77577
in possession of the respondents null and void, cancelling the same and directing
the RD-Makati to issue new owner's duplicate copies of said TCT's in the name of
the Republic. On April 12, 2012, in compliance with the said decision in the LRC
case, the RD-Makati caused the cancellation and transfer of the subject TCTs.
Hence, TCT Nos. 75239,76129 and 77577 were all cancelled and TCT Nos. 006-
2012000526, 006-2012000527 and 006-2012000528 were issued, respectively, all

in the name of the Republic.
From the above scenario, it cannot be denied that the forfeiture case involving the
subject TCTs was filed before the CFI-Pasig while the complaint/petition for
cancellation of lis pendens and quieting of title was filed before the RTC-Branch 57.
There is likewise no dispute that the CFI-Pasig tried and decided the forfeiture case.
Therefore, it was the CFI-Pasig that had jurisdiction over the main action or
proceeding involving the subject TCTs, not the RTC-Branch 57. As the CFI-Pasig had
jurisdiction over the main action, said court exercised exclusive power and control
over,the TCTs that were the subjects of the respondents' complaint/petition with the
RTC-Branch 57. Hence, the RTC-Branch 57 had no jurisdiction over the respondents'
complaint/petition.
The Court agrees with the Republic's contention that only the court having
jurisdiction over the main action or proceeding involving the property may order the
cancellation thereof. In this case, only the CFI-Pasig (or its successor) can order the
cancellation of lis pendens, not the RTC-Branch 57. The case of J. Casim
Construction Supplies, Inc. v. Registrar of Deeds of Las Pias [16] is illustrative on
this point, to wit:
Lis pendens which literally means pending suit refers to the jurisdiction, power
or control which a court acquires over the property involved in a suit, pending the
continuance of the action, and until final judgment. Founded upon public policy and
necessity, lis pendens is intended to keep the properties in litigation within the
power of the court until the litigation is terminated, and to prevent the defeat of the
judgment or decree by subsequent alienation. Its notice is an announcement to the
whole world that a particular property is in litigation and serves as a warning that
one who acquires an interest over said property does so at his own risk, or that he
gambles on the result of the litigation over said property.
A notice of lis pendens, once duly registered, may be cancelled by the trial
court before which the action involving the property is pending.This power is
said to be inherent in the trial court and is exercised only under express provisions
of law. Accordingly, Section 14, Rule 13 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure
authorizes the trial court to cancel a notice of lis pendens where it is properly
shown that the purpose of its annotation is for molesting the adverse party, or that
it is not necessary to protect the rights of the party who caused it to be annotated.
Be that as it may, the power to cancel a notice oflis pendens is exercised only under
exceptional circumstances, such as: where such circumstances are imputable to the
party who caused the annotation; where the litigation was unduly prolonged to the
prejudice of the other party because of several continuances procured by petitioner;
where the case which is the basis for the lis pendens notation was dismissed
for non prosequitur on the part of the plaintiff; or where judgment was rendered
against the party who caused such a notation. In such instances, said notice is
deemed ipso facto cancelled.
In theorizing that the RTC of Las Pias City, Branch 253 has the inherent power to
cancel the notice of lis pendens that was incidentally registered in relation to Civil
Case No. 2137, a case which had been decided by the RTC of Makati City, Branch
62 and affirmed by the Supreme Court on appeal, petitioner advocates that the
cancellation of such a notice is not always ancillary to a main action.
The argument fails.
From the available records, it appears that the subject notice of lis pendens had
been recorded at the instance of Bruneo F. Casim (Bruneo) in relation to Civil Case
No. 2137 one for annulment of sale and recovery of real property which he
filed before the RTC of Makati City, Branch 62 against the spouses Jesus and
Margarita Casim, predecessors-in-interest and stockholders of petitioner
corporation. That case involved the property subject of the present case, then
covered by TCT No. 30459. At the close of the trial on the merits therein, the RTC
of Makati rendered a decision adverse to Bruneo and dismissed the complaint for
lack of merit. Aggrieved, Bruneo lodged an appeal with the Court of Appeals,
docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 54204, which reversed and set aside the trial court's
decision. Expectedly, the spouses Jesus and Margarita Casim elevated the case to
the Supreme Court, docketed as G.R, No. 151957, but their appeal was dismissed
for being filed out of time.
A necessary incident of registering a notice of lis pendens is that the
property covered thereby is effectively placed, until the litigation attains
finality, under the power and control of the court having jurisdiction over
the case to which the notice relates. In this sense, parties dealing with the
given property are charged with the knowledge of the existence of the action and
are deemed to take the property subject to the outcome of the litigation. It is also
in this sense that the power possessed by a trial court to cancel the notice
of lis pendens is said to be inherent as the same is merely ancillary to the
main action.
Thus, in Vda. de Kilayko v. Judge Tengco, Heirs of Maria Marasigan v. Intermediate
Appellate Court and Tanchoco v. Aquino, it was held that the precautionary
notice of lis pendens may be ordered cancelled at any time by the court
having jurisdiction over the main action inasmuch as the same is merely an
incident to the said action. The pronouncement in Heirs of Eugenio Lopez, Sr. v.
Enriquez, citing Magdalena Homeowners Association, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, is
equally instructive
The notice of lis pendens . . . is ordinarily recorded without the intervention of the
court where the action is pending. The notice is but an incident in an action, an
extrajudicial one, to be sure. It does not affect the merits thereof. It is intended
merely to constructively advise, or warn, all people who deal with the property that
they so deal with it at their own risk, and whatever rights they may acquire in the
property in any voluntary transaction are subject to the results of the action, and
may well be inferior and subordinate to those which may be finally determined and
laid down therein. The cancellation of such a precautionary notice is therefore also
a mere incident in the action, and may be ordered by. the Court having jurisdiction
of it at any given time. . . .
Clearly, the action for cancellation of the notice of lis pendens in this case
must have been filed not before the court a quo via an original action but
rather, before the RTC of Makati City, Branch 62 as an incident of the
annulment case in relation to which its registration was sought. Thus, it is
the latter court that has jurisdiction over the main case referred to in the
notice and it is that same court which exercises power and control over the
real property subject of the notice.
[Emphases Supplied]
In the case at bench, considering that a judgment in Civil Case No. 6379 had been
rendered in favor of the Republic and said judgment already attained finality, the
RTC-Branch 57 could no longer claim and exercise jurisdiction over the respondents'
original complaint/petition for cancellation of lis pendens and quieting of title in.
Civil Case No. 10-658. It is also to be noted that when the respondents filed their
motion to admit their amended and supplemental petition before RTC-Branch 57,
the decision in LRC Case No. M-5469 rendered by the RTC-Branch 138 had likewise
attained finality. The RTC-Branch 57 cannot definitely alter a final and executory
decision of a co-equal court by such a move. To do so would certainly defeat the
clear purpose of amendments provided by the rules and amount to a grave abuse of
discretion as well. Thus:
But even so, the petition could no longer be expected to pursue before the
proper forum inasmuch as the decision rendered in the annulment case has
already attained finality before both the Court of Appeals, and the Supreme
Court on the appellate level, unless of course there exists substantial and genuine
claims against the parties relative to the main case subject of the notice of lis
pendens. There is none in this case. It is thus well to note that the precautionary
notice that has been registered relative to the annulment case then pending before
the RTC of Makati City, Branch 62 has served its purpose. With the finality of the
decision therein on appeal, the notice has already been rendered functus
officio. The rights of the parties, as well as of their successors-in-interest,
petitioner included, in relation to the subject property, are hence to be decided
according the said final decision.[17]
[Emphases Supplied]
In view of the finality of the decisions in Civil Case No. 6379 and LRC Case No. M5469, the RTC-Branch 57 had no legal or valid basis in admitting the respondents'
amended and supplemental petition.; It should have dismissed motu proprio the
respondents' motion to admit amended and supplemental petition for lack of
jurisdiction. Section 1, Rule 9 of the Rules of Court allows this, to wit:
Section 1. Defenses and objections not pleaded.
Defenses and objections not pleaded either in a motion to dismiss or in the answer
are deemed waived. However, when it appears from the pleadings or the evidence
on record that the court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter, that there
is another action pending between the same parties for the same cause, or
that the action is barred by a prior judgment or by statute of limitations, the
court shall dismiss the claim.
[Emphases Supplied]
The respondents argue that even assuming for the sake of argument that the RTCBranch 57 did not have jurisdiction to hear the action for the cancellation of lis
pendens, it was already mooted by the decision rendered in LRC Case No. M-5469.
They claim that the LRC case filed by the Republic was the primordial reason for the
amendment and supplementation of the original petition.
The Court is not persuaded.
When the respondents filed their original complaint/petition in LRC Case No, M5469 before RTC-Branch 57 sometime in July 2010, the decision of the CFI-Pasig in
Civil Case No. 6379 had not yet been executed. Thus, the Republic acted pursuant
to Section 107 of PD No. 1529 which reads as follows:
Section 107. Surrender of withhold duplicate certificates. Where it is necessary to
issue a new certificate of title pursuant to any involuntary instrument which divests
the title of the: registered owner against his consent or where a voluntary
instrument cannot be registered by reason of the refusal or failure of the holder to
surrender the owner's duplicate certificate of title, the party in interest may file a
petition in court to compel surrender of the same to the Register of Deeds. The
court, after hearing, may order the registered owner or any person withholding the
duplicate certificate to surrender the same, and direct the entry of a new certificate
or memorandum upon such surrender. If the person withholding the duplicate
certificate is not amenable to the process of the court, or if not any reason the
outstanding owner's duplicate certificate cannot be delivered, the court may order
the annulment of the same as well as the issuance of a new certificate of title in lieu
thereof. Such new certificate and all duplicates thereof shall contain a memorandum
of the annulment of the outstanding duplicate.
The Republic was compelled to do so because the respondents failed or refused to

surrender their owners' duplicate copies of the subject TCTs. The respondents did
not deny the fact that they were duly notified of the said LRC proceedings but they
failed to participate therein. So, on September 12, 2011, RTC-Branch 138 rendered
a decision in favor of the Republic and against the respondents. To reiterate, the
decision declared, among others, the owner's duplicate copies of TCT Nos. 75239,
76129 and 77577 null and void, cancelled the same and directed the RD-Makati to
issue new owner's duplicate copies of the subject TCTs in the name of the Republic.
Thereafter, TCT Nos. 006-2012000526, 006-2012000527 and 006-2012000528
were issued.
Fully aware of the said adverse decision in the LRC case, the respondents made
matters worse for them by allowing said decision to become final and executory
through their inaction. Jurisprudence has always been one in saying that a
judgment that attains finality; becomes immutable and unalterable. Thus:
The principle of immutability of a final judgment stands as one of the pillars
supporting a strong, credible, and effective court. The principle prohibits any
alteration, modification or correction of final and executory judgments as what
remains to be done is the purely ministerial enforcement or execution of the
judgment.
On this point, the Court has repeatedly declared:
It is a hornbook rule that once a judgment has become final and executory, it may
no longer be modified in any respect, even if the modification is meant to correct an
erroneous conclusion of fact or law, and regardless of whether the modification is
attempted to be made by the court rendering it or by the highest court of the land,
as what remains to be done is the purely ministerial enforcement or execution of
the judgment.
The doctrine of finality of judgment is grounded on fundamental considerations of
public policy and sound practice that at the risk of occasional errors, the judgment
of adjudicating bodies must become final and executory on some definite date fixed
by law. [. . .], the Supreme Court reiterated that the doctrine of immutability of
judgment is adhered to by necessity notwithstanding occasional errors that may
result thereby, since litigations must somehow come to an end for otherwise, it
would be even more intolerable than the wrong and injustice it is designed to
protect.
Once a judgment is issued by the court in a case, and that judgment becomes final
and executory, the principle of immutability of judgments automatically operates to
bar any modification of the judgment. The modification of a judgment requires the
exercise of the court's discretion. At that stage when the judgment has become
final and executory the court is barred from exercising discretion on the case;
the bar exists even if the modification is only meant to correct an erroneous
conclusion of fact or law as these are discretionary acts that rest outside of the
court's purely ministerial jurisdiction.[18]
On the CA's remark that Florentino's acquittal necessarily rendered the forfeiture of
the properties ineffective and invalid, it clearly was an obiter dictum. Moreover, it
had no substantial or procedural basis. The cases were separate and distinct from
one another. Indeed, there is no law, rule or jurisprudence that mandates the
automatic dismissal of a forfeiture case after an acquittal in the criminal case for
malversation. Illustrative of this point is Ferdinand R. Marcos, Jr. v. Republic of the
Philippines,[19] where it was ruled:
As early as Almeda v. Judge Perez, we have already delineated the difference
between criminal and civil forfeiture and classified the proceedings under R.A. 1379
as belonging to the latter, viz.:
"Forfeiture proceedings may be either civil or criminal in nature, and may be in rem
or in personam. If they are under a statute such that if an indictment is presented
the forfeiture can be included in the criminal case, they are criminal in nature,
although they may be civil in form; and where it must be gathered from the statute
that the action is meant to be criminal in its nature it cannot be considered as civil.
If, however, the proceeding does not involve the conviction of the wrongdoer for the
offense charged the proceeding is of a civil nature; and under statutes which
specifically so provide, where the act or omission for which the forfeiture is imposed
is not also a misdemeanor, such forfeiture may be sued for and recovered in a civil
action."
In the first place a proceeding under the Act (Rep. Act No. 1379) does not
terminate in the imposition of a penalty but merely in the forfeiture of the
properties illegally acquired in favor of the state. (Sec. 6) In the second place the
procedure outlined in the law leading to forfeiture is that provided for in a civil
action. Thus there is a petition (Sec. 3), then an answer (Sec. 4), and lastly, a
hearing. The preliminary investigation which is required prior to the filing of the
petition, in accordance with Sec. 2 of the Act, is provided expressly to be one
similar to a preliminary investigation in a criminal case. If the investigation is only
similar to that in a criminal case, but the other steps in the proceedings are those
for civil proceedings, it stands to reason that the proceeding is not criminal . . . .
(citations omitted)
Forfeiture cases impose neither a personal criminal liability, nor the civil liability that
arises from the commission of a crime (ex delicto). The liability is based solely on a
statute that safeguards the right of the State to recover unlawfully acquired
properties. Executive Order No. 14 (E.O. No. 14), Defining the Jurisdiction Over
Cases Involving the Ill-gotten Wealth of Former President Ferdinand Marcos,
authorizes the filing of forfeiture suits that will proceed independently of any
criminal proceedings. Section 3 of E.O. 14 empowered the PCGG to file independent

civil actions separate from the criminal actions.[20]
Besides, the CA itself recognized that it had no bearing. In fact, it wrote that it was
not within the thrust of a petition for certiorari.
The remedy of the respondents is to file the necessary motion or action before, the
court having jurisdiction over the main case, if still permitted by the rules. It is to
be remembered, however, that prescription and estoppel do not lie against the
State.[21]
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. Accordingly, the February 20, 2015
Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 133803 is REVERSED and SET
ASIDE.
Civil Case No. 10-658 pending before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 57, Makati
City is hereby ordered DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.
[1]
Rollo, pp. 23-66.
Id. at 70-78; Penned by Associate Justice Socorro B. Inting with Associate Justice
Jose C. Reyes, Jr. and Associate Justice Victoria Isabel A. Paredes, concurring.
[2]
[3]
Id. at 252 (Issued by Judge Honorio E. Guanlao, Jr.)
[4]
Id. at 264.
[5]
Id. at 71.
[6]
Id.
[7]
Id. at 25.
[8]
Id. at 25-26.
[9]
Id. at 26-27.
[10]
Id. at 72-73.
[11]
Id. at 25.
[12]
Id. at 29.
[13]
Id. at 76-77.
[14]
Id. at 34.
[15]
Bian Rural Bank v. Carlos, G.R. No. 193919, June 15, 2015.
[16]
636 Phil. 725-738 (2010).
[17]
Id.
[18]
Spouses Tabalno v. Dingal, Sr., G.R. No. 191526 , October 5, 2015.
[19]
686 Phil. 980 (2012).
[20]
Id. at 996-997.
[21]
Republic v. Bacas, G.R. No. 182913, November 20, 2013, 710 SCRA 411, 433.

G.R.
No.
206522
DOEHLE-PHILMAN[1] MANNING AGENCY INC., DOHLE (IOM) LIMITED AND CAPT. MANOLO T. GACUTAN, PETITIONERS,
VS.
HENRY
C.
HARO,
April 18, 2016
SECOND DIVISION
RESPONDENT.
[ G.R. No. 206522, April 18, 2016 ]

DOEHLE-PHILMAN[1] MANNING AGENCY INC., DOHLE (IOM)
LIMITED AND CAPT. MANOLO T. GACUTAN, PETITIONERS,
VS. HENRY C. HARO, RESPONDENT.
DECISION
DEL CASTILLO, J.:
"[T]he constitutional policy to provide full protection to labor is not meant to be a
sword to oppress employers. The commitment of this Court to the cause of labor
does not prevent us from sustaining the employer when it is in the right. We should
always be mindful that justice is in every case for the deserving, to be dispensed
with in the light of established facts, the applicable law, and existing
jurisprudence."[2]
This Petition for Review on Certiorari assails the July 20, 2012 Decision[3] of the
Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-GR. SP No. 117988. The CA reversed and set aside the
September 28, 2010[4] and November 30, 2010[5] Resolutions of the National Labor
Relations Commission (NLRC) in NLRC LAC (OFW) No. 04-000295-10 which
affirmed the February 26, 2010 Decision[6] of the Labor Arbiter (LA) dismissing the
Complaint in NLRC OFW Case No. 06-09031-09. Accordingly, the CA ordered
Doehle-Philman Manning Agency, Inc. (Doehle-Philman), Dohle (IOM) Limited
(Dohle Ltd.) and Capt. Manolo T. Gacutan (petitioners) to jointly and severally pay
respondent Henry C. Haro permanent and total disability benefits amounting to
US$60,000.00 and attorney's fees of 10% of the total monetary award. Also
assailed is the March 27, 2013 CA Resolution[7] denying petitioners' Motion for
Reconsideration.
Factual Antecedents
On May 30, 2008, Doehle-Philman, in behalf of its foreign principal, Dohle Ltd.,
hired respondent as oiler aboard the vessel MV CMA CGM Providencia [8] for a period
of nine months with basic monthly salary of US$547.00 and other benefits. [9] Before
deployment, respondent underwent pre-employment medical examination (PEME)
and was declared fit for sea duty.[10]
Respondent stated that on June 1, 2008, he boarded the vessel and assumed his
duties as oiler; however, in November 2008, he experienced heartache and loss of
energy after hammering and lifting a 120-kilogram machine; thereafter, he was
confined at a hospital in Rotterdam where he was informed of having a hole in his
heart that needed medical attention.[11]

After his repatriation on December 6, 2008, respondent reported to Doehle-Philman
which in turn referred him to Clinico-Med. Respondent claimed that he was confined
for two days in UST[12] Hospital and that a heart operation was recommended to
him. He nevertheless admitted that he had not yet undergone any surgery.[13] On
April 24, 2009, respondent's personal doctor, Dr. Luminardo M. Ramos (Dr. Ramos),
declared him not fit to work.[14]
Consequently, on June 19, 2009, respondent filed a Complaint for disability
benefits, reimbursement of medical expenses, moral and exemplary damages, and
attorney's fees against petitioners.[15] Respondent claimed that since he was
declared fit to work before his deployment, this proved that he sustained his illness
while in the performance of his duties aboard the vessel; that he was unable to
work for more than 120 days; and that he lost his earning capacity to engage in a
work he was skilled to do. Thus, he insisted he is entitled to permanent and total
disability benefits.[16]
For their part, petitioners alleged that respondent boarded the vessel on June 2,
2008; that on or about November 21, 2008, respondent was confined at a hospital
in Rotterdam; and that upon repatriation, he was referred to Dr. Leticia Abesamis
(Dr. Abesamis), the company-designated doctor, for treatment. [17]
Petitioners denied that respondent has a hole in his heart. Instead, they pointed out
that on December 27, 2008, Dr. Abesamis diagnosed "him of "aortic regurgitation,
moderate" but declared that his condition is not work-related. [18] They averred that
despite such declaration, they still continued with respondent's treatment.
[19]
However, on January 19, 2009, Dr. Abesamis declared that respondent had not
reported for follow up despite repeated calls.[20] On April 8, 2009, the companydesignated doctor reported that respondent refused surgery.[21] And on April 15,
2009, she reiterated that respondent's condition is not work-related. [22]
Petitioners insisted that the determination of the fitness or unfitness of a medically
repatriated seafarer rests with the company-designated physician; and since Dr.
Abesamis declared that respondent's illness is not work-related, such determination
must prevail.[23] They also stressed that the company-designated doctor
continuously treated respondent from, his repatriation in December 2008, until April
2009, hence, her finding that his illness is not work-related must be respected. [24]
Finally, petitioners argued that since respondent's illness is not an occupational
disease, then he must prove that his work caused his illness; because of his failure
to do so, then he is not entitled to disability benefits.[25]
Ruling of the Labor Arbiter

On February 26, 2010, the LA dismissed[26] the case for lack of merit. The LA noted
that Dr. Abesamis declared that respondent's illness is not work-related; therefore,
it is incumbent upon respondent to prove otherwise. He further held that even
respondent's personal doctor, Dr. Ramos, did not state that his illness is workrelated as he; only declared that respondent is not fit for work.
Ruling of the National Labor Relations Commission
Respondent interposed an appeal. He maintained that he is entitled to permanent
and total disability benefits because he underwent the PEME and was declared fit to
work; and his illness transpired while he was in the performance of his duties and
during the effectivity of his employment contract.
On September 28, 2010, the NLRC dismissed[27] the appeal. It found no sufficient
evidence that respondent's illness is work-connected. It decreed that instead of
establishing that the alleged hole in his heart was work-related, respondent focused
more on his inability to work for more than 120 days. It also explained that
respondent's reliance on his PEME is misplaced as the same is neither rigid nor
exploratory. It likewise reiterated the finding of the LA that even respondent's
personal doctor did not pronounce his condition as Work-connected, and only
declared him unfit to resume sea duty.
On November 30, 2010, the NLRC denied[28] respondent's Motion for
Reconsideration.
Respondent filed a Petition for Certiorari with the CA arguing that the NLRC
committed grave abuse of discretion in finding him not entitled to disability
benefits, moral and exemplary damages, and attorney's fees.
On July 20, 2012, the CA granted[29] the Petition and concomitantly reversed and
set aside the September 28, 2010 and November 30, 2010 NLRC Resolutions. The
decretal portion of the CA Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, the foregoing considered, the present petition is hereby GRANTED
and the assailed Resolutions [dated] 28 September 2010 and 30 November 2010
[are] REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, private respondents are hereby held
jointly and severally liable to pay petitioner permanent and total disability benefits
in the sum of US$60,000.00 and attorney's fees often percent (10%) of the total
monetary award, both at its peso equivalent at the time of actual payment.
SO ORDERED.[30]
According to the CA, the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in affirming the
LA Decision dismissing the Complaint. The CA gave credence to respondent's
arguments that he acquired his illness during his employment contract with
petitioners; and that his illness has rendered him totally and permanently disabled
as he had not been able to perform his customary work for more than 120 days.
On March 27, 2013, the CA denied[31] petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration.
Thus, petitioners filed this Petition stating that:
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED SERIOUS, REVERSIBLE AND
GROSS ERROR IN LAW BASED ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:
A. In failing to uphold the legal and jurisprudential principle that a writ
of certiorari may be issued only for the correction of errors of jurisdiction or
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction which is
absolutely lacking in this case.
B. In utilizing [r]espondent's alleged inability to work for a period exceeding 120
days as sole basis for entitlement to permanent total disability benefits in
absolute disregard of the provisions of the POEA Standard Employment
Contract making work-relation as a condition sine qua non for compensability
of an illness or injury.
C. In awarding ten percent (10%) attorney's fees in favor of [respondent solely
on the ground that he was constrained to engage the services of counsel
contrary to the well-entrenched principle that attorney's fees shall only be
awarded upon a showing that the petitioner acted in gross and evident bad
faith.[32]
Petitioners'Arguments
Petitioners posit that no abuse of discretion may be imputed against the NLRC
because its findings and conclusions were based on the facts and evidence on
record Thus, they claim that the CA erred in setting aside the NLRC Resolutions and
in not upholding that a writ of certiorari may be issued only for the correction of
errors of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction.[33]
Additionally, petitioners insisted that the CA erred in granting permanent and total
disability benefits in favor of respondent on the sole basis that he was unable to
work for a period exceeding 120 days.[34] They argue that since respondent's illness
is not an occupational disease then there must be causal connection between his
work and his illness. They contend that the burden to prove such connection is
upon respondent. They added that there is no proof that the nature of respondent's
job increased the risk of his illness.[35]
Lastly, petitioners reiterate that the company-designated doctor continuously
treated respondent for a period of about four months; that nothing in the records
disproves the finding of company-designated physician that respondent's condition
is not job-related; that since respondent's illness is not work-related then, the
company-designated doctor is not obliged to make a declaration on his fitness or
unfitness to work; and, that respondent's personal doctor merely concluded that
respondent is "not fit" but he did not also make any declaration on whether
respondent's condition is work-related or not.[36]
Respondent contends that the CA properly ruled that he is entitled to permanent
and total disability benefits.[37] He insists that since his illness is not listed as an
occupational disease, he is "relieved of the burden to show the causation [of] his
rights over the disability benefits"[38] as his illness is disputably presumed workrelated.[39] He maintains that he sustained his illness while employed as oiler and
his condition resulted in the loss of his earning capacity.[40]
Issue
Is the CA correct in setting aside the NLRC Resolutions denying respondent's claim
for permanent and total disability benefits?
Our Ruling
The Court finds merit in the Petition.
This Court does not review factual issues as only questions of law can be raised in a
Rule 45 Petition. However, such rule admits of exceptions including a situation
where the factual findings of the tribunals or courts below are conflicting. Here,
there being contrary findings of fact by the LA and NLRC, on one hand, and the CA,
on the other, we deem it necessary to make our own determination and evaluation
of the evidence on record.[41]
Essentially, petitioners claim that respondent is not entitled to permanent and total
disability benefits on the sole basis that he was unable to work for more than 120
days.
The Court agrees.

The Standard Terms and Conditions Governing the Employment of Filipino Seafarers
On-Board Ocean-Going Vessels (POEA-SEC), particularly Section 20(B) thereof,
provides that the employer is liable for disability benefits when the seafarer suffers
from a work-related injury or illness during the term of his contract. To emphasize;,
to be compensable, the injury or illness 1) must be work-related and 2) must have
arisen during the term of the employment contract.[42]
In Jebsen Maritime, Inc. v. Ravena,[43] the Court held that those diseases not listed
as occupational diseases may be compensated if it is shown that they have been
caused or aggravated by the seafarer's working conditions. The Court stressed that
while the POEA-SEC provides for a disputable presumption of work-relatedness as
regards those not listed as occupational diseases, this presumption does not
necessarily result in an automatic grant of disability compensation. The claimant
still has the burden to present substantial evidence or "such relevant evidence as a
reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion" [44] that his work
conditions caused or at least increased the risk of contracting the illness. [45]
In this case, considering that respondent did not suffer from any occupational
disease listed under Section 32-A of the POEA-SEC, then to be entitled to disability
benefits, the respondent has the burden to prove that his illness is work-related.
Unfortunately, he failed to discharge such burden.
Records reveal that respondent was diagnosed of aortic regurgitation, a heart
"condition whereby the aortic valve permits blood ejected from the left ventricle to
leak back into the left ventricle."[46] Although this condition manifested while
respondent was aboard the vessel, such circumstance is not sufficient to entitle him
to disability benefits as it is of equal importance to also show that respondent's
illness is work-related.
In Ayungo v. Beamko Shipmanagement Corporation;[47] the Court held that for a
disability to be compensable, the seafarer must prove a reasonable link between his
work and his illness in order for a rational mind to determine that such work
contributed to, or at least aggravated, his illness. It is not enough that the
seafarer's injury or illness rendered him disabled; it is equally necessary that he
establishes a causal connection between his injury or illness, and the work for
which he is engaged.[48]
Here, respondent argues that he was unable to work as a seaman for more than
120 days, and that he contracted his illness while under the employ of petitioners.
However, he did not at all describe his work as an oiler, and neither did he specify
the connection of his work and his illness.
In Panganiban v. Tara Trading Shipmanagement, Inc.,[49] the Court denied the claim
for disability benefits of a seafarer who was an oiler like herein respondent. The
Court held that petitioner therein failed to elaborate on the nature of his work or to
even specify his tasks as oiler which rendered it difficult to determine a link
between his position and his illness.
The Court is confronted with a similar situation in this case. Respondent simply
relied on the presumption that his illness is work-related. He did not adduce
substantial evidence that his work conditions caused, or at the least increased the
risk of contracting his illness. Like in Panganiban, herein respondent did not
elaborate on the nature of his work and its connection to his illness. Certainly, he is
not entitled to any disability compensation.
In an attempt to establish work-relatedness, respondent stated in his Memorandum
before the Court that his illness is compensable due to stress. [50] Aside from being
belatedly argued, such claim is unmeritorious as it still failed to prove the required
linkage between respondent's work and his illness to entitle him to disability
benefits.
In this regard, we quote with approval the pronouncement of the NLRC as follows:
x x x [Respondent] admitted that he was told by the attending physician that 'his
heart has a hole somewhere in the left ventricle' x x x. Instead of showing how a
hole in the heart may be work[-]related, [respondent] argued on his being 'unable
to perform his customary work for more than 120 days' x x x. He stressed in his
Appeal that 'probability' is the ultimate test of proof in compensation proceedings,
but he did not cite any probable circumstance which could have made [a] hole in
the heart [w]ork[-]related.
xxxx
x x x [T]o be entitled to compensation and benefits, the seafarer must prove by
substantial evidence that he contracted the illness during the term of his contract
and [that] such infirmity was work-related or at the very least aggravated by the
conditions of the work for which he was engaged. Failing on this aspect, the
assertion of [respondent] that his illness was work-connected is nothing but an
empty imputation of fact without any probative weight.[51]
Moreover, the company-designated doctor determined that respondent's condition is
not work-related.
Section 20(B)(3) of the POEA-SEC provides that the company-designated doctor is
tasked to determine the fitness or the degree of disability of a medically repatriated
seafarer.[52] In addition, the company-designated doctor was shown to have closely
examined and treated respondent from his repatriation up to four months

thereafter. Thus, the LA and the NLRC's reliance on the declaration of the companydesignated doctor that respondent's condition is not work-related is justified. [53]
The Court also notes that even respondent's physician of choice made no
pronouncement whether his condition is work-related or not. In his one-page
medical report, Dr. Ramos only stated that respondent is not fit for Work. He
neither stated that respondent's condition is' not work-related nor did he expound
on his conclusion, that respondent is not fit for work.
Lastly, the Court holds that the fact that respondent passed the PEME is of no
moment in determining whether he acquired his illness during his employment. The
PEME is not exploratory in nature. It is not intended to be a thorough examination
of a person's medical condition, and is not a conclusive evidence that one is free
from any ailment before deployment.[54] Hence, it does not follow that because
respondent was declared fit to work prior to his deployment, then he necessarily
sustained his illness while aboard the vessel.
Given all these, the Court finds that the CA erred in setting aside the NLRC
Resolutions, which affirmed the dismissal of the Complaint. The findings and
conclusions arrived at by the NLRC were not tainted with grave abuse of discretion
as respondent's claim for disability benefits is unsupported by substantial evidence.
Indeed, when the evidence adduced negates compensability, the claim must
necessarily fail.[55]
WHEREFORE, the Petition is GRANTED. The July 20, 2012 Decision and March
27,2013 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 117988
are REVERSEDand SET ASIDE. Accordingly, the Complaint is DISMISSED for lack
of merit.
SO ORDERED.
[1]
Spelled in some parts of the records as Dohle-Philman.
Magsaysay Maritime Corporation v. National Labor Relations Commission, 630

Phil. 352, 369 (2010).
[2]
CA rollo, pp. 329-341; penned by Associate Justice Danton Q. Bueser and

concurred in by Associate Justices Amelita G. Tolentino and Ramon R. Garcia.
[3]
Id. at 24-35; penned by Commissioner Teresita D. Castilion-bora and concurred

in by Presiding Commissioner Raul T. Aquino and Commissioner Napoleon M.
Menese.
[4]
[5]
Id. at 42-43.
[6]
Id. at 36-41; penned by Labor Arbiter Geobel A. Bartolabac.
[7]
Id. at 381-382.
The Employment Contract and respondent's Seaman's Book indicate that the
name of the vessel boarded by respondent is MV CMA CGM Providencia. This matter
is also clarified in petitioners' Reply. It is however noted that in respondent's
Position Paper and Petition for Certiorari he stated that the name of the vessel he
boarded was M/S Violetta; id. at 6, 46, 90-91, 139.
[8]
[9]
Id. at 58.
[10]
Id. at 59.
[11]
Id. at 46-47.
[12]
University of Sto. Tomas.
[13]
[14]
Id. at 64.
[15]
Id. 48.
[16]
Id. at 48-50.
[17]
Id. at 67-68, 113.
[18]
Id. at 114.
[19]
Id. at 69.
[20]
Id. at 115.
[21]
Id. at 118.
[22]
Id. at 119.
[23]
Id. at 76.
[24]
Id. at 144-145.
[25]
Id. at 78.
[26]
Id. at 36-41.
[27]
Id. at 24-35.
[28]
Id. at 42-43.
[29]
Id. at 329-341.
[30]
Id. at 340.
[31]
Id. at 381-382.
[32]
Rollo, p. 11; bold-facing omitted, italics supplied.
[33]
Id. at 13-14.
[34]
Id. at 16.
[35]
Id. at 21.
[36]
Id. at 19-22.
[37]
Id. at 200.
[38]
Id. at 203.
[39]
Id.
[40]
Id. at 208.
Heirs of Deb Cruz v. Philippine Transmarine Carriers, Inc., G.R. No. 196357,
April 20, 2015.
[41]
Philippine Transmarine Carriers, Inc. v. Aligway, G.R. No. 201793, September

16, 2015.
[42]
[43]
G.R. No. 200566, September 17, 2014, 735 SCRA 494, 510-511.
[44]
Heirs of dela Cruz v. Phil. Transmarine Carriers, Inc., supra note 41.
[45]
Jebsen Maritime, Inc. v. Ravena, supra note 43.
<http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/heart_vascular_institute/conditions_treatmen
ts/treatments/minimaIly_invasive_aortic_valve_replacement.html> (Last visited on
March 17, 2016)
[46]
[47]
G.R. No. 203161, February 26, 2014, 717 SCRA 538.
[48]
Id. at 548-549.
[49]
647 Phil. 675, 689 (2010).
[50]
Rollo, pp. 304-307.
[51]
[52]
3. Upon sign-off from the vessel for medical treatment, the seafarer is entitled to
sickness allowance equivalent to his basic wage until he is declared fit to work or
the degree of permanent disability has been assessed by the company-designated
physician but in no case shall this period exceed one hundred twenty (120) days.
[53]
See Wilhelmsen-Smith Bell Manning v. Suarez, G.R. No. 207328, April 20, 2015.
Heirs of dela Cruz v. Phil. Transmarine Carriers, Inc., supra note 41,
citing Quizora v. Denholm Crew Management (Philippines), Inc., 676 Phil. 313, 329
(2011).
[54]
[55]
Ayungo v. Beamko Shipmanagement Corp., supra note 47 at 553.

G.R.
LUIS
No.
DERILO
GEPOLEO,
PETITIONER,
VS.
PEOPLE
190466
OF
THE
PHILIPPINES,
RESPONDENT.
April 18, 2016
SECOND DIVISION
[ G.R. No. 190466, April 18, 2016 ]
LUIS DERILO Y GEPOLEO, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.
DECISION
BRION, J.:
We resolve the appeal, filed by accused-appellant Luis Derilo y Gepoleo (petitioner),
from the September 25, 2009 decision[1] and the December 8, 2009 resolution[2]of
the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 31602.
The appealed decision affirmed the January 18, 2008 decision [3] of the Regional Trial
Court (RTC), Branch 65, Sorsogon City, finding the petitioner guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of violation of Sections 11 and 12, Article II of Republic Act (RA)
No. 9165,[4] and sentencing him as follows: for Criminal Case No. 04-711 imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day, as minimum, to twenty (20)
years, as maximum, and to pay a fine of P300,000.00; and for Criminal Case No.
04-712 - imprisonment of six (6) months and one (1) day, as minimum, to four (4)
years, as maximum, and to pay a fine of P10,000.00.
The Factual Antecedents
On November 19, 2004, at around 6:00 A.M., a team of police officers, led by SPO1
Sonny Evasco, conducted a police operation to serve a search warrant[5] at the
residence of the petitioner located in Lay-a, Gate, Bulan, Sorsogon. [6] The police
officers coordinated with the barangay captain of Gate who, in turn, sent
twobarangay tanods - Basilio Gueta and Santiago Espao - to accompany and assist
the police officers in the service of the search warrant.[7]
After an initial search of the petitioner's pockets and wallet, SPO1 Evasco instructed
Gueta and Espao to conduct a search inside the petitioner's bedroom (of the place
described in the search warrant) as a precautionary measure for the police officers
to avoid being accused of planting evidence.[8] During the search, thebarangay
tanods, under the supervision of SPO1 Evasco,[9] recovered twelve (12) plastic
sachets[10] inside a matchbox, each containing white crystalline substance.[11]
The police officers also recovered suspected drug paraphernalia, i.e., new and used
aluminum foil, lighters, and a tube, which were scattered in plain view in different
parts of the house. Some of the used aluminum foils were found under the house.
[12]
While at the scene, SPO1 Evasco proceeded to mark the confiscated items with his
initials, "S.B.E.," while SPO1 Calupit took their photographs. In addition, SPO1
Evasco prepared an inventory of the items seized, but the petitioner refused to sign
the inventory.[13]
The petitioner and the seized items were then taken to the police station.
Thereafter, the seized items were brought to the court and then to the PNP Crime
Laboratory for examination by SPO1 Calupit and PO2 Lobrin.[14]
At the PNP Crime Laboratory, SPO1 Alejandro Usi, a drug screener/laboratory
technician, conducted an initial field test of the drug specimens. [15] Based on
theCertification of Laboratory Examination dated November 19, 2004, the test
yielded positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride, also known as "shabu" a
dangerous drug.[16]
The following day, P/Inspt. Josephine Clemens, the PNP Crime Laboratory's forensic
chemist, conducted a confirmatory physical and chemistry examination of the drug
specimens.[17] Based on the Chemistry Report dated November 20, 2004, the
twelve (12) plastic sachets indeed contained shabu,[18] thus confirming the result of
the earlier initial field test.
The prosecution charged the petitioner with violation of Sections 11 and 12, Article
II of RA No. 9165, for possession of twelve (12) plastic sachets containing 0.3485
gram of shabu and for possession of drug paraphernalia, i.e., forty-one (41) pieces
of rolled aluminum foil, one (1) used aluminum foil, one (1) tube, two (2) lighters,
and one (1) matchbox, respectively.[19] The cases were docketed as Criminal Case
Nos. 04-711 and 04-712.
In its decision dated January 18, 2008, the RTC found the petitioner guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of both crimes charged and sentenced him as follows:
a)
In Criminal Case No. 04-711, [the petitioner] is sentenced to suffer the penalty of
imprisonment, ranging from twelve (12) years and one (1) day, as minimum, to twenty (20)
years, as maximum, and to pay a fine of Three Hundred Thousand Pesos (P300,000.00);
and,
b)
In Criminal Case No. 04-712, [the petitioner] is further sentenced to suffer the penalty of
imprisonment, ranging from six (6) months and one (1) day, as minimum, to four (4) years,
as maximum, and to pay a fine of Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00) and the costs of suit.[20]
On appeal, the CA affirmed the RTC decision in toto. In its decision dated
September 25, 2009, the appellate court ruled that: first, the delegation to
the barangay tanods of the task of physically searching for illegal drugs in the
petitioner's bedroom did not make the search irregular. Thus, the items seized,
including the twelve (12) plastic sachets found by the barangay tanods, cannot be
considered as "fruits of the poisonous tree." Second, the prosecution satisfactorily
established the required link in the chain of custody of the seized items. Third, the
alleged inconsistencies between the prosecution witnesses' testimonies appear to
be minor and inconsequential and do not impair their credibility. Fourth, the failure
of the police officers to coordinate with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency
(PDEA) does not render the search illegal nor does it make the evidence seized
from the petitioner's house inadmissible. And fifth, the petitioner's defenses of alibi
and frame-up cannot overcome the narration of the incident by the prosecution's
witnesses.[21]
The petitioner moved for reconsideration, but the CA denied his motion in a
resolution dated December 8, 2009.[22] As a consequence, the petitioner filed the
present petition for review on certiorari on January 26, 2010.
The Present Petition
The petitioner raises the following issues in the present petition:
First, the petitioner argues that the search became unlawful when SPO1 Evasco
delegated the task of searching the bedroom to the barangay tanods for fear of
being "branded" as planting evidence. Consequently, any evidence which may have
been obtained during the search is absolutely inadmissible for being the "fruit of the
poisonous tree."[23]
Second, the petitioner insists that there are inconsistencies with the prosecution
witnesses' testimonies as to who actually found the matchbox containing the twelve
(12) plastic sachets and the suspected drug paraphernalia. [24]
And third, the petitioner claims that the chain of custody over the seized items
"appears broken and questionable," considering that the seized items were not
marked in his presence.[25] This puts into question the identity of the drug
specimens submitted to the PNP Crime Laboratory for examination. [26]
The Court's Ruling
After due consideration, we resolve to GRANT the petitioner's appeal for the
prosecution's failure to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt in Criminal Case
Nos. 04-711 and 04-712.
Criminal Case No. 04-711
In criminal prosecutions, it is fundamental that the accused is presumed innocent of
a charge until his guilt is proven beyond reasonable doubt. [27] In other words, the
elemental acts constituting the offense must be established with moral certainty, as
this finding and level of proof are the critical requisites to a finding of guilt. [28]
For prosecutions involving dangerous drugs, the dangerous drug itself constitutes
the corpus delicti of the offense and the fact of its existence is vital to sustain a
judgment of conviction beyond reasonable doubt.[29] It is of paramount importance
that the identity of the dangerous drug be so established, [30] along with the
elements of the offense charged. Proof beyond reasonable doubt in these cases
demands an unwavering exactitude that the dangerous drug presented in court as
evidence against the accused is the same as that seized from him. [31]
In order to meet the quantum of proof required in drug-related prosecutions, the
chain of custody requirement under Section 21 of RA No. 9165 ensures that doubts
concerning the identity of the seized drugs are removed. [32] As a method of
authenticating evidence, the chain of custody rule requires that the admission of
the exhibit be preceded by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter
in question is what the proponent claims it to be.[33]
To show an unbroken link in the chain of custody,[34] the prosecution's evidence
must include testimony about every link in the chain, from the moment the
item was seized to the time it is offered in court as evidence, such that every
person who handled the evidence would acknowledge 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. The same witness 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 its possession. It is from the
testimony of every witness who handled the evidence from which a reliable
assurance can be derived that the evidence presented in court is one and
the same as that seized from the accused.[35]

Thus, the following links must be established to ensure the preservation of the
identity and integrity of the confiscated drug: 1) the seizure and marking, if
practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending
officer; 2) the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to the
investigating officer; 3) the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug
to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and 4) the turnover and
submission of the marked illegal drug seized from the forensic chemist to the court.
[36]
We stress that the marking of the seized drugs or other related items is crucial in
proving the unbroken chain of custody in drug-related prosecutions. [37] As the first
link in the chain of custody, the marking is of vital importance because succeeding
handlers of the dangerous drugs or related items will use the marking as reference.
[38]
Also, the marking of the evidence serves to separate the marked evidence from
the corpus of all other similar or related evidence from the time they are seized
from the accused until they are disposed of at the end of the criminal proceedings,
thus preventing switching, "planting," or contamination of evidence. [39] In other
words, the marking immediately upon confiscation or recovery of the
dangerous drugs or related items is indispensable in the preservation of
their integrity and evidentiary value.[40]
After a critical review of the records, we hold that the prosecution failed to establish
that the drug specimens presented in court are those allegedly se ized from the
petitioner.
First, the records are bereft of any evidence that would clearly show that the twelve
(12) plastic sachets supposedly containing the shabu were ever marked by SPO1
Evasco, whether at the scene or at the police station, and that they were marked in
the presence of the petitioner. In fact, based on the evidence on record, there is
only one set of markings on the twelve (12) plastic sachets - the markings of "A-1"
to "A-12" made by P/Inspt. Clemens a day after the items were seized.[41]
This finding is further supported by the testimony of P/Inspt. Clemens regarding the
markings on the specimens she examined:
PROSECUTOR EMMA S. SALVADOR JANER:

Q: Did you place any markings on the sachets of shabu for purposes of easy reference?
P/INSPT. CLEMENS:
A: Yes, ma'am.
Q: And what are those markings, madam witness?

A: D-193-04, my initials and A-1 to A-12.
Q: Now, when you received the specimens of shabu, madam witness, [were] there any
markings already placed thereon aside from the markings that you [placed]?
A: Yes, ma'am. A black marking.
Q: And what are these markings in particular?
A: In the matchbox, "SBE" in all capital letters.
Q: Whose markings is this, madam witness, on the front portion of the matchbox?
A: [These are] my markings and also from the drug screener who placed his own marking.
xxxx
Q: Now, there is a marking on the bottom portion of the matchbox SBE. Was that already
placed when this matchbox reached your office?
A: Yes, ma'am.[42] [Emphasis supplied.]
Based on the testimony of P/Inspt. Clemens, the only markings on the specimens
submitted to her only consisted of the ones on the matchbox. She made no
mention of any markings (aside from her own) on the plastic sachets.
Second, there appears to be unexplained inconsistencies in the drug specimens
submitted by the police officers to the PNP Crime Laboratory for examination. On
one hand, the Certification of Laboratory Examination dated November 19, 2004
states:
SPECIMEN SUBMITTED:
One (1) match box labeled "RIZAL" containing twelve (12) small transparent plastic
sachets marked "A" through "L," each containing suspected methamphetamine
hydrochloride (shabu), and having a total weight of 0.3485 gram.[43] [Emphasis
supplied.]
On the other hand, the Chemistry Report dated November 20, 2004 states:
SPECIMEN SUBMITTED:
One (1) match box with trade mark "RIZAL" containing twelve (12) small tapesealed transparent plastic sachets with black and red markings marked as A-1
through A-12, each with white crystalline substance having a total net weight
of 0.3133 gram.[44] [Emphasis supplied.]
These two laboratory reports show inconsistencies with regard to the referenced
markings on the twelve (12) plastic sachets and, more importantly, to the weight of
the drug specimens - from 0.3485 gram in the first test and only 0.3133 gram in
the second test.
Clearly, the drug specimens that were allegedly seized by the police officers from
the petitioner during the search operation differed or, at the very least, were no
longer in their original condition when examined by P/Inspt. Clemens on November
20, 2004, a day after they were first subjected to an initial field test by SPO1 Usi.
Third, the prosecution's evidence is seriously lacking in details as to the links in the
chain of custody of the seized items from the time they were confiscated up to the
time they were presented in court.
A thorough examination of the records reveals that the following are
the only testimonies relating to the chain of custody of the seized items:

Q: xxx Now, what did you do with the confiscated items?
SPO1 EVASCO:
A: We brought the suspect as well as the confiscated items in the police station and after that,
we brought the confiscated items to the court.[45]
xxxx
Q: xxx Now, after turning over the items together with the specimens of shabu to the court,
what did you do next?
A: We filed a motion to withdraw the items to have it examined at the crime laboratory.[46]
xxxx
Q: xxx Now, after filing the manifestation to the court to withdraw the specimens of shabu,
what did you do next?
A: I secured a request for laboratory examination.[47]
xxxx
Q: xxx Who transmitted the specimens of shabu to the crime laboratory for examination?
A: PO2 Wilfredo Lobrin and SPO1 Edgar Calupit.[48] [Emphasis supplied.]

Q: Madam Witness, [do] you recall as to when you [received] the specimen of shabu and the
paraphernalia for examination?
P/INSPT. CLEMENS:
A: Yes, ma'am.
Q: Will you please tell us?
A: The specimen was received in our office on November 19, 2004 and it was personally
turned over to me on November 20, 2004 by PO3 Edgar Calupit.[49]
Q: [Do] you know as to who is the particular person who received the specimens of shabu?
A: According to our information, it was our receiving officer.[50] [Emphasis supplied.]
The above-quoted testimonies clearly point to SPO1 Calupit, PO2 Lobrin and
an unnamed receiving officer as key persons who handled the seized items. The
prosecution, therefore, should have asked these persons to testify regarding the
circumstances under which they handled the subject items. Strangely, SPO1 Calupit
and PO2 Lobrin, who both actually testified in court, were not at all asked by the
prosecution to testify on the handling of the seized items in their custody. Rather,
SPO1 Calupit's and PO2 Lobrin's testimonies only revolved around the
implementation of the search warrant.
What cannot be ignored is the lack of specific details that would convince the Court
that the specimens examined by SPO1 Usi and P/Inspt. Clemens were the same
ones confiscated from the petitioner. For one thing, it is unclear who actually
brought the plastic sachets to the crime laboratory for examination. It is likewise
unclear who received the confiscated plastic sachets at the PNP Crime Laboratory or
what happened to the specimens after the initial field test conducted by SPO1 Usi.
This is particularly relevant, considering that the confirmatory laboratory
examination - the more reliable test compared to the initial field test[51] - was only
conducted a day after the alleged seizure of the items.
Similarly, there is no record of who exercised custody and possession of the drug
specimens after they were examined by P/Inspt. Clemens and before they were
presented before the court.
All told, the totality of these circumstances - the failure to mark the plastic sachets,
the discrepancy in the weight, and the uncertainty of the individuals who handled
the seized items - broke the chain of custody and tainted the integrity of
the shabu ultimately presented as evidence before the trial court.[52] Given that
the prosecution failed to prove the indispensable element of corpus delicti,

the petitioner must be acquitted on the ground of reasonable doubt.
The elements of illegal possession of equipment, instrument, apparatus and other
paraphernalia for dangerous drugs under Section 12 of RA No. 9165 are: (1)
possession or control by the accused of any equipment, apparatus or other
paraphernalia fit or intended for smoking, consuming, administering, injecting,
ingesting, or introducing any dangerous drug into the body; and (2) such
possession is not authorized by law.
In the present case, there is no evidence showing that the aluminum foil, tube, and
lighters found in the petitioner's house were fit or intended for introducing any
dangerous drug into the body. The prosecution did not bother to show that there
were traces of shabu on any of these alleged drug paraphernalia. In fact, it appears
that the only evidence that the prosecution offered to prove this charge is the
existence of the seized items by themselves.
For the prosecution's failure to prove that the items seized were intended
to be used as drug paraphernalia, the petitioner must also be acquitted of
the charge under Section 12 of RA No. 9165. Indeed, we cannot convict the
petitioner for possession of drug paraphernalia when it was not proven beyond
reasonable doubt that these items were used or intended to be used as drug
paraphernalia.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, we hereby REVERSE and SET ASIDE the
September 25, 2009 Decision and the December 8, 2009 Resolution of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 31602. Petitioner Luis Derilo y Gepoleo is
hereby ACQUITTED of the charge of violation of Sections 11 and 12, Article II of
RA No. 9165, for failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable
doubt. His immediate RELEASE from detention is hereby ordered unless he is being
held for another lawful cause.
Let a copy of this Decision be furnished the Director of the Bureau of Corrections,
Muntinlupa City for immediate implementation, who is then also directed to report
to this Court the action he has taken within five (5) days from his receipt of this
Decision.
SO ORDERED.
Rollo, pp. 101-123; penned by Associate Justice Vicente S.E. Veloso, and
concurred in by Associate Justices Andres B. Reyes, Jr. and Marlene GonzalesSison.
[1]
[2]
Id. at 135.
[3]
Id. at 51-69; penned by Judge Adolfo G. Fajardo.
[4]
Also known as the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002."
[5]
Records, Volume I, pp. 121-122.
[6]
TSN, July 5, 2005, p. 3.
[7]
TSN, November 13,2006, pp. 10-11.
[8]
TSN, July 5, 2005, p. 20.
[9]
Id. at 28.
[10]
Id. at 5.
[11]
TSN, November 13, 2006, p. 12.
[12]
TSN, July 5, 2005, pp. 21-23.
[13]
Id. at 8-9.
[14]
Id. at 15.
[15]
TSN, February 7, 2006, p. 3.
[16]
Records, Volume I, p. 6.
[17]
TSN, October 11, 2005, p. 8.
[18]
[19]
Id. at 1; Records, Volume II, p. 1.
[20]
Rollo, p. 69.
[21]
Id. at 117-122.
[22]
Id. at 135.
[23]
Id. at 18-19.
[24]
Rollo, pp. 20-21.
[25]
Id. at 23.
[26]
Id. at 24.
[27]
CONSTITUTION, Article III, Section 14(2).
See People v. Obmiranis, G.R. No. 181492, December 16, 2008, 574 SCRA 140,
148.
[28]
[29]
See People v. Pedronan, G.R. No. 148668, June 17, 2003, 404 SCRA 183, 190.
[30]
See People v. Mallillin, 576 Phil. 576, 586 (2008).
[31]
[32]
See J. Brion's Dissenting Opinion in People v. Dimaano, G.R. No. 174481.
[33]
[34]
People v. Alivio, G.R. No. 177771, May 30, 2011, 649 SCRA 318, 330.
[35]
[36]
People v. Kamad, G.R. No. 174198, January 19, 2010, 610 SCRA 295, 307-308.
[37]
Valencia v. People, G.R. No. 198804, January 22, 2014, 714 SCRA 492, 504.
[38]
Id.
People v. Sabdula, G.R. No. 184758, April 21, 2014, 722 SCRA 90, 100,
citing People v. Alejandro, G.R. No. 176350, August 10, 2011, 655 SCRA 279, 289290.
[39]
[40]
People v. Gonzales, G.R. No. 182417, April 3,2013, 695 SCRA 123, 134.
[41]
Records, Volume I, p. 118; TSN, October 11, 2005, pp. 4 and 6.
[42]
TSN, October 11, 2005, pp. 6-7.
[43]
[44]
Id. at 62.
[45]
TSN, July 5, 2005, p. 12.
[46]
Id. at 13.
[47]
Id. at 14.
[48]
Id. at 15.
[49]
TSN, October 11, 2005, p. 4.
[50]
Id.
The initial field test was conducted by SPO1 Usi, a drug screener/laboratory
technician. Such initial field test was subject to the confirmatory test conducted by
forensic chemist P/Inspt. Clemens. Id. at 11.
[51]
[52]

G.R.
No.
200693
NENA C. ANG, SPOUSES RENATO C. ANG AND PAULINE ANG, SPOUSES GUILLERMO SY AND ALISON ANG-SY, NELSON
C. ANG, RICKY C. ANG , AS SUBSTITUTED BY HIS HEIRS, AND MELINDA C. ANG, PETITIONERS, VS. CHINATRUST
(PHILIPPINES)
April 18, 2016
COMMERCIAL
BANK
CORPORATION
AND
THE
ASIAN
DEBT
FUND,
RESPONDENTS.
SECOND DIVISION
[ G.R. No. 200693, April 18, 2016 ]
NENA C. ANG, SPOUSES RENATO C. ANG AND PAULINE ANG,
SPOUSES GUILLERMO SY AND ALISON ANG-SY, NELSON C.
ANG, RICKY C. ANG , AS SUBSTITUTED BY HIS HEIRS, AND
MELINDA C. ANG, PETITIONERS, VS. CHINATRUST
(PHILIPPINES) COMMERCIAL BANK CORPORATION AND THE
ASIAN DEBT FUND, RESPONDENTS.
DECISION
BRION, J.:
This petition for review on certiorari seeks to reverse the April 29, 2011 decision
and January 30, 2012 resolution of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No.
99391.[1] The CA only partly granted the petitioners' petition for certiorari against
the May 17, 2007 order of the Regional Trial Court of Makati City (RTC), Branch 56
inCivil Case No. 06-872.[2] The RTC denied the petitioners' motion to dismiss the
complaint for lack of jurisdiction over their person.
ANTECEDENTS
On October 11, 2006, respondent Chinatrust (Philippines) Banking Corporation
(Chinatrust) filed a money claim (with an application for the issuance of a writ of
preliminary attachment) amounting to US $458,614.84 against Nation Petroleum
Corporation (Nation) and petitioners Mario Ang, Nena Ang, Renato Ang, Pauline
Ang, Guillermo Sy, Alison Ang-Sy, Nelson Ang, Ricky Ang, and Melinda Ang
(collectively the defendants). The complaint was filed before the RTC and docketed
as Civil Case No. 06-872.
On October 12, 2006, the RTC, through its Branch Clerk of Court Atty. Richard C.
Jamora issued summonses to the defendants. The summonses indicated Nation's
address as "Ground Floor, BPI Building, Rizal Street, Candelaria Quezon and/or
39th Floor, Yuchengco Tower, RCBC Plaza, 6819 Ayala Avenue corner Sen. Gil J.
Puyat Avenue, Makati City." It also indicated the address of the individual
defendants as "39th Floor, Yuchengco Tower, RCBC Plaza, 6819 Ayala Avenue
corner Sen. Gil J. Puyat Avenue, Makati City."

The RTC heard ex parte the application for a preliminary attachment on October 18,
2006. On October 27, 2006, the RTC granted Chinatrust's application for a writ of
attachment conditioned on its posting of a P25,000,000.00 bond.
On November 6, 2006, Process Server Joseph R. Dela Cruz and Assisting Sheriff
Robert V. Alejo executed an Officer's Return reporting their service of the summons.
It reads:
That on 30 October 2006, the undersigned Process Server of this Court together
with one of the assisting Sheriff Robert V. Alejo, and plaintiffs counsel and its
representative served the copy of summons together with complaint, its annexes,
writ, order and bond, upon defendants at 39th Floor, Yuchengco Tower, RCBC Plaza,
6819 Ayala Ave. cor. Sen. Gil J. Puyat Ave., Makati City, thru Mr. RICKY ANG,
personally, who acknowledged receipt thereof but refused to sign in the original
copy of summons, and the receptionist of the said firm informed that the other
defendants have not yet arrived and it would be better if we will return in the
afternoon.
That in the afternoon on even date, said processes were served thru Ms. MELINDA
ANG, Corporate Secretary of defendant NATION PETROLEUM CORPORATION and
instructed Ms. Charlotte Magpayo, Administrative Assistant of the said corporation
to received [sic] the same.
That despite diligent efforts to locate the whereabouts of the other defendants
MARIO ANG, NENA ANG, RENATO ANG, PAULINE ANG, GUILLERMO SY, ALISON
ANG-SY and NELSON ANG outside the premises of their office, considering that said
process server and his group were not allowed to enter, substituted service was
made by leaving their respective court processes at their office or regular place of
business through the same Ms. Charlotte Magpayo by affixing the "receiving stamp"
of Nation Petroleum and her notation, as shown in the original copy of summons. [3]
On November 21, 2006, the defendants entered a Special Appearance with a Motion
to Dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction.[4] The defendants argued: (1) that the
RTC failed to acquire jurisdiction over Nation because service of summons was
made on Charlotte Magpayo, a mere property supply custodian, [5] instead of the
president, managing partner, general manager, corporate secretary, or in-house
counsel;[6] and (2) that the individual defendants were not validly served
summons[7]because (3) the process server improperly resorted to substituted
service and failed to comply with its strict requirements.[8]
Chinatrust opposed the Motion to Dismiss,[9] insisting: (1) that Nation was validly
served summons because as a property supply custodian, Magpayo occupies a very
responsible position that enjoys the highest degree of trust and confidence; [10] (2)
that the individual defendants likewise authorized Magpayo to receive the summons
on their behalf;[11] (3) that the process server properly resorted to substituted
service;[12] and (4) that Ricky Ang is estopped from contesting the validity of
substituted service because he was served in person.[13]
On May 17, 2007, the RTC denied the defendants' Motion to Dismiss. The RTC held
that Nation's corporate secretary Melinda Ang authorized Charlotte Magpayo as her
agent for the limited purpose of receiving the summons. [14] It further held that
Melinda's denial of this fact is self-serving as she was never presented in court for
cross-examination.
The RTC also held that Ricky Ang was validly served summons because he
acknowledged receipt of the process even though he refused to sign the original
copy.[15]
With respect to the remaining defendants, the RTC held that the process server's
resort to substituted service on Charlotte Magpayo was warranted. The Court
found: (1) that the process server and his group attempted to serve summons on
the defendants on the morning of October 30, 2006 at their place of work; (2) that
aside from Mr. Ricky Ang, the defendants had not yet arrived; (3) that the process
server left and exerted diligent efforts to locate the defendants' whereabouts; (4)
that he returned to the defendants' office on the afternoon of the same day but was
denied entry to the defendants' offices; and (5) therefore, he was forced to resort
to substituted service through Charlotte Magpayo.[16]
On June 22, 2007, the defendants filed a petition for certiorari before the CA
challenging the RTC's jurisdiction over them. The petition was docketed as CA-G.R.
SP No. 99391.
In the meantime, Chinatrust assigned its rights to the trust receipt subject of Civil
Case No. 06-872 to respondent The Asian Debt Fund, Ltd. (ADF). Thus, the CA
allowed ADF to be substituted for Chinatrust on March 9, 2010.
On April 29, 2011, the CA affirmed the RTC's May 17, 2007 order but dismissed the
suit as against Nation.[17] The CA held that RTC did not acquire jurisdiction over
Nation because the list of corporate officers authorized to receive summons for a
corporation is exclusive.[18] The CA found insufficient evidence to support the RTC's
conclusion that Nation's corporate secretary granted Charlotte Magpayo, a property
supply custodian, a special power of attorney to receive summons for the
corporation on her behalf.[19]
However, the CA upheld the process server's resort to substituted service with
respect to the individual defendants.[20] The CA held that the process server exerted
efforts to personally serve the summons on the individual defendants but was
prohibited from entering their individual offices. This made personal service
impossible, leaving the process server no choice but to resort to substituted service
by leaving a copy of the summons with Charlotte Magpayo, a competent person of
sufficient age and discretion in the defendants' office.[21]
On April 4, 2012, the individual defendants, now petitioners, filed the present
petition for review on certiorari.
THE PETITION
The petitioners argue: (1) that the Officer's return failed to establish the
impossibility of personal service;[22] (2) that Charlotte Magpayo is not a competent
person in charge of their business;[23] and (3) that the failure to comply with the
strict requirements of substituted service renders the service of summons void. [24]
On the other hand, ADF maintains that the questions of the impossibility of personal
service and whether diligent efforts were exerted to locate the petitioners are
factual matters that should not be passed upon in a petition for review on certiorari.
[25]
ADF continues that nevertheless, circumstances showed an impossibility of
service because upon the server's return to the office, the petitioners' staff
prevented them from entering the offices;[26] thus, the officers resorted to service of
summons to a Charlotte Magpayo, a competent person authorized to receive
summons in the Nation Petroleum office.[27]
ADF also insists that Ricky Ang was personally tendered summons despite his
refusal to sign the original.[28]
OUR RULING
We find the petition partly meritorious.
In civil cases, jurisdiction over a party is acquired either through his voluntary
appearance in court or upon a valid service of summons. When a party was not
validly served summons and did not voluntarily submit to the court's jurisdiction,
the court cannot validly grant any relief against him.
In an action strictly in personam, summons shall be served personally on the
defendant whenever practicable.[29] Personal service is made by personally handing
a copy of the summons to the defendant or by tendering it to him if he refuses to
receive and sign for it.
While personal service is the preferred method of serving summons, the Rules of
Court are also mindful that this is sometimes impracticable or even impossible.
Thus, Rule 14 also allows the sheriff (or other proper court officer) to resort to
substituted service instead:
SEC. 7. Substituted service.If, for justifiable causes, the defendant cannot be
served within a reasonable time as provided in the preceding section, service may
be effected (a) by leaving copies of the summons at the defendant's residence with
some person of suitable age and discretion then residing therein, or (b) by leaving
the copies at defendant's office or regular place of business with some competent
person in charge thereof.[30]
But while the Rules permit substituted service, they also require strict compliance
with its statutory requirements because of its extraordinary character.[31] After all,
substituted service is in derogation of the usual method of service. [32]
In Manotoc v. Court of Appeals,[33] we dissected Rule 14, Section 8 and distilled the
following elements of a valid substituted service:
First, the party relying on substituted service or the sheriff must establish the
impossibility of prompt personal service.[34] Before substituted service of summons
can be resorted to, the sheriff must have made several attempts to personally serve
the summons within a reasonable period of one month. And by "several attempts,"
the sheriff is expected to have tried at least thrice on at least two different dates.[35]
Second, there must be specific details in the return describing the circumstances
surrounding the attempted personal service.[36] The sheriff must describe the efforts
he took and the circumstances behind the failure of his attempts. The details in the
return serve as evidence to prove the impossibility of prompt personal service.
Nevertheless, the sheriffs failure to make such a disclosure in the return does not
conclusively prove that the service is invalid. The plaintiff may still establish the
impossibility of service during the hearing of any incident assailing the validity of
the substituted service.[37]
Further, if there is a defect in the service of summons that is apparent on the face
of the return, the trial court must immediately determine whether the defect is real
or not.[38] If the defect is real, the court is obliged to issue new summonses and
cause their service on the defendants.
Third, if substituted service is made at the defendant's house or residence, the
sheriff must leave a copy of the summons with a person of "suitable age and
discretion residing therein"[39] This refers to a person who has reached the age of
full legal capacity and has sufficient discernment to comprehend the importance of
a summons and his duty to deliver it immediately to the defendant.
Finally, if substituted service is made at the defendant's office or regular place of

business, the sheriff must instead leave a copy of the summons with a "competent
person in charge thereof." This refers to the person managing the office or the
business of the defendant, such as the president or the manager.[40]
A serving officer's failure to comply with any of these elements results in the court's
failure to acquire jurisdiction over the person of the defendant. However, proof that
the defendant actually received the summons in a timely manner or his failure to
deny the same (which amounts to voluntary appearance)[41] would satisfy the
requirements of due process. The constitutional requirement of due process
requires that the service be such as may be reasonably expected to give the notice
desired.[42] Once the service reasonably accomplishes that end, the requirement of
justice is answered, traditional notions of fair play are satisfied, and due process is
served.[43]
The impossibility of prompt personal service was not established.
In the present case, the return failed to establish the impossibility of prompt
personal service. The return stated that the process server and the assisting
sheriffs made two attempts at personal service on the morning and the afternoon of
October 30, 2006. The server claims that in between the two attempts, he made
diligent efforts to locate the whereabouts of the other defendants outside their
office.
The process server only made two attempts at Nation's office and both attempts
were made on the same date. He did not even attempt to serve the defendants at
their homes. This does not even meet the bare minimum requirements in Manotoc.
This does not establish the impossibility of personal service within a reasonable
period of time; this only shows a halfhearted attempt that hardly satisfies the
diligence and best efforts required from a serving officer. We reiterate that the
server must have made at least three attempts on two different dates within a
reasonable period of one month before substituted service becomes available.
We cannot give credence to the server's general and sweeping claim that he
exerted "diligent efforts" to locate the defendants' whereabouts outside the
premises of the Nation Petroleum Office in between his attempts. That he exerted
"diligent efforts" is a conclusion of fact which can only be made after examining the
details of his efforts which were omitted from the return. Without the narration of
these particular efforts, the courts cannot sufficiently conclude whether or not the
efforts taken were, in fact, diligent.
While defendants are expected to avoid and evade service of summons, a serving
officer is likewise expected to be resourceful, persevering, canny, and diligent in
serving the process on a defendant. [44] Given the circumstances, we find that
immediate resort to substituted service was unwarranted for failure to establish the
impossibility of personal service.
A property custodian is not a competent person in charge of the
defendant's workplace.
Moreover, even assuming that Chinatrust were able to establish the impossibility of
personal service, the substituted service through Charlotte Magpayo was invalid. A
"competent person in charge" refers to one managing the office or the business,
such as the president, manager, or the officer-in-charge. The rule presupposes the
existence of a relation of confidence between such person and the defendant.
Charlotte Magpayo is a Property Custodian at Nation Petroleum. Her position
denotes limited responsibility to office equipment, inventory, and supplies.
Chinatrust did not submit any evidence that Magpayo's job description includes the
management of Nation Petroleum's Makati office. We do not see how she can be
considered as the competent person in charge of the defendants' business or
office and the respondents failed to prove otherwise.
The statutory requirements of substituted service must be followed strictly,
faithfully and fully, and any substituted service other than that authorized by
statute is considered ineffective.[45] We find that the RTC failed to acquire
jurisdiction over petitioners Mario Ang, Nena Ang, Renato Ang, Pauline Ang,
Guillermo Sy, Alison Ang-Sy, Nelson Ang, and Melinda Ang for failure to comply with
the rules on substituted service under Rule 14, Section 8.
However, with respect to petitioner Ricky Ang, we sustain the lower courts'
conclusion that he was personally served summons. Personal service may be
effected by handing a copy of the summons to the defendant in person or, if he
refuses to receive and sign for it, by tendering it to him.[46]
The return indicates that Ricky Ang personally received a copy of the summons and
the complaint despite his refusal to sign the original copy. This constitutes valid
tender of the summons and the complaint.
This Court cannot tolerate - or worse, validate - laxity and laziness of judicial
serving officers. And while this rule may seem unduly harsh on litigants, they too
have a duty to be vigilant in the enforcement of their rights. A plaintiffs counsel has
the duty to inspect the return to ensure that the rules on substituted service have
been complied with. He cannot take legal shortcuts and gain advantage from an
improperly served summons. He must satisfy himself that the court regularly
acquired jurisdiction over the other party. Otherwise, he must move for the
issuance of alias summons as there is a failure of service.[47]

We empathize with the situation of the ADF, but as an assignee of rights, it is bound
by the actions (and inaction) of Chinatrust. We further note that the lawyer for
Chinatrust was part of the serving entourage and should have known that the resort
to substituted service was premature. Thus, we have no choice but to grant the
petition and dismiss the complaint in Civil Case No. 06-872 against all the
petitioners, except for Ricky Ang, for failure of the RTC to acquire jurisdiction over
their persons. As a consolation to ADF, this dismissal is without prejudice to the
re-filing of the complaint against the petitioners or their subsequent inclusion in the
same case upon a valid service of summons.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, we partly GRANT the petition.
The April 29, 2011 decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No.
99391 is MODIFIED and the complaint against Mario Ang, Nena C. Ang, Renato C.
Ang, Pauline Ang, Guillermo Sy, Alison Ang-Sy, Nelson C. Ang, and Melinda C. Ang
in Civil Case No. 06-872 is hereby DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction over their
personsWITHOUT PREJUDICE to its refiling in court.
The Regional Trial Court of Makati City, Branch 56
is DIRECTED to PROCEED with Civil Case No. 06-872 against Ricky C. Ang.
SO ORDERED.
Carpio, (Chairperson), Mendoza, and Leonen, JJ., concur.
Peralta,* J., on leave.
Designated as Additional Member in lieu of Associate Justice Mariano C. del

Castillo, per raffle dated March 14, 2016. On Leave.
*
Penned by Associate Justice Francisco P. Acosta and concurred in by Associate

Justices Vicente S.E. Veloso and Edwin D Sorongon.
[1]
[2]
Penned by Judge Reynaldo M. Laigo.
[3]
Rollo, p. 112.
[4]
Id. at 114.
[5]
Id. at 116.
[6]
Id. at 115.
[7]
Id. at 117.
[8]
Id. at 119.
[9]
Id. at 125.
[10]
Id. at 127.
[11]
Id. at 128.
[12]
Id. at 131.
[13]
Id. at 134.
[14]
Id. at 196.
[15]
Id. at 197.
[16]
Id.
[17]
Id. at 46.
[18]
Id. at 52.
[19]
Id. at 53.
[20]
Id. at 57.
[21]
Id. at 58-59.
[22]
Id. at 33.
[23]
Id. at 38.
[24]
Id. at 40.
[25]
Id. at 390.
[26]
Id. at 393.
[27]
Id. at 396.
[28]
Id. at 397.
[29]
RULES OF COURT, Rule 14, Section 6.
[30]
Id., Section 67.
Domagas v. Jensen, 489 Phil. 631, 645-646 (2005), citing Hamilton v. Levy, 344
SCRA 821 (2000).
[31]
Id.; Manotoc v. Court of Appeals, 530 Phil. 454, 468 (2006); Keister v. Navarro,
167 Phil. 567, 573 (1977).
[32]
[33]
Manotoc v. Court of Appeals, supra note 32.
[34]
Id. at 468, citing Arevalo v. Quintalan, 202 Phil. 256, 262 (1982).
[35]
Id. at 469.
[36]
Id. at 470.
Mapa v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 79374, October 2, 1992, 214 SCRA 417,
428.
[37]
[38]
Bank of the Philippine Islands v. Sps. Evangelista, 441 Phil. 445, 449 (2002).
[39]
Manotoc v. Court of Appeals, supra note 32, at 471.
[40]
Id.
[41]
Boticano v. Chu, 232 Phil. 503, 511-512 (1987).
[42]
Keister v. Navarro, supra note 32, at 573.
[43]
Montalban v. Maximo, 131 Phil. 154, 161 (1968).
[44]
Manotoc v. Court of Appeals, supra note 32, at 469.
[45]
Macasaet v. Co, G.R. No. 156759, 5 June 2013, 697 SCRA 187, 203.
[46]
[47]

G.R.
RENATO
No.
A.
CASTILLO,
PETITIONER,
VS.
LEA
189607
P.
DE
LEON
CASTILLO,
RESPONDENT.
April 18, 2016
FIRST DIVISION
[ G.R. No. 189607, April 18, 2016 ]
RENATO A. CASTILLO, PETITIONER, VS. LEA P. DE LEON
CASTILLO, RESPONDENT.
DECISION
SERENO, C.J.:
Before this Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of
Court, assailing the Court of Appeals (CA) Decision[1] in CA-G.R. CV No. 90153 and
the Resolution[2] that affirmed the same. The CA reversed the Decision [3] dated 23
March 2007 issued by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, Branch 84.
The RTC had granted the Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage between the
parties on the ground that respondent had a previous valid marriage before she
married petitioner. The CA believes on the other hand, that respondent was not
prevented from contracting a second marriage if the first one was an absolutely
nullity, and for this purpose she did not have to await a final decree of nullity of the
first marriage.
The only issue that must be resolved by the Court is whether the CA was correct in
holding thus and consequentially reversing the RTC's declaration of nullity of the
second marriage.
FACTUAL ANTECEDENTS
On 25 May 1972, respondent Lea P. De Leon Castillo (Lea) married Benjamin
Bautista (Bautista). On 6 January 1979, respondent married herein petitioner
Renato A. Castillo (Renato).
On 28 May 2001, Renato filed before the RTC a Petition for Declaration of Nullity of
Marriage,[4] praying that his marriage to Lea be declared void due to her subsisting
marriage to Bautista and her psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family
Code. The CA states in its Decision that petitioner did not pursue the ground of
psychological incapacity in the RTC. The reason for this finding by the CA while
unclear, is irrelevant in this Petition.
Respondent opposed the Petition, and contended among others that her marriage
to Bautista was null and void as they had not secured any license therefor, and
neither of them was a member of the denomination to which the solemnizing officer
belonged.[5]
On 3 January 2002, respondent filed an action to declare her first marriage to
Baustista void. On 22 January 2003, the Regional Trial Court of Paraaque City,
Branch 260 rendered its Decision[6] declaring that Lea's first marriage to Bautista
was indeed null and void ab initio. Thereafter, the same court issued a Certificate of
Finality saying that the Decision dated 22 January 2003 had become final and
executory.[7]
On 12 August 2004, respondent filed a Demurrer to Evidence [8] claiming that the
proof adduced by petitioner was insufficient to warrant a declaration of nullity of
their marriage on the ground that it was bigamous. In his Opposition, [9] petitioner
countered that whether or not the first marriage of respondent was valid, and
regardless of the fact that she had belatedly managed to obtain a judicial
declaration of nullity, she still could not deny that at the time she entered into
marriage with him, her previous marriage was valid and subsisting. The RTC
thereafter denied respondent's demurrer in its Order [10] dated 8 March 2005.
In a Decision[11] dated 23 March 2007, the RTC declared the marriage between
petitioner and respondent null and void ab initio on the ground that it was a
bigamous marriage under Article 41 of the Family Code.[12] The dispositive portion
reads:
WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing considerations, the Court hereby declares
the marriage between RENATO A. CASTILLO and LEA P. DE LEON-CASTILLO
contracted on January 6, 1979, at the Mary the Queen Parish Church, San Juan,
Metro Manila, is hereby declared NULL AND VOID AB INITIO based on bigamous
marriage, under Article 41 of the Family Code.[13]
The RTC said that the fact that Lea's marriage to Bautista was subsisting when she
married Renato on 6 January 1979, makes her marriage to Renato bigamous, thus
rendering it void ab initio. The lower court dismissed Lea's argument that she need
not obtain a judicial decree of nullity and could presume the nullity of a prior
subsisting marriage. The RTC stressed that so long as no judicial declaration exists,
the prior marriage is valid and existing. Lastly, it also said that even if respondent
eventually had her first marriage judicially declared void, the fact remains that the
first and second marriage were subsisting before the first marriage was annulled,
since Lea failed to obtain a judicial decree of nullity for her first marriage to
Bautista before contracting her second marriage with Renato. [14]
Petitioner moved for reconsideration insofar as the distribution of their properties
were concerned.[15] His motion, however, was denied by the RTC in its Order[16]dated
6 September 2007. Thereafter, both petitioner[17] and respondent[18] filed their
respective Notices of Appeal.
In a Decision[19] dated 20 April 2009, the CA reversed and set aside the RTC's
Decision and Order and upheld the validity of the parties' marriage. In reversing the
RTC, the CA said that since Lea's marriages were solemnized in 1972 and in 1979,
or prior to the effectivity of the Family Code on 3 August 1988, the Civil Code is the
applicable law since it is the law in effect at the time the marriages were
celebrated, and not the Family Code.[20] Furthermore, the CA ruled that the Civil
Code does not state that a judicial decree is necessary in order to establish the
nullity of a marriage.[21]
Petitioner's motion for reconsideration of the CA's Decision was likewise denied in
the questioned CA Resolution[22] dated 16 September 2009.
Hence, this Petition for Review on Certiorari.
Respondent filed her Comment[23] praying that the CA Decision finding her marriage
to petitioner valid be affirmed in toto, and that all properties acquired by the
spouses during their marriage be declared conjugal. In his Reply to the Comment,
[24]
petitioner reiterated the allegations in his Petition.
OUR RULING
The validity of a marriage and all its incidents must be determined in accordance
with the law in effect at the time of its celebration.[25] In this case, the law in force
at the time Lea contracted both marriages was the Civil Code. The children of the
parties were also born while the Civil Code was in effect i.e. in 1979, 1981, and
1985. Hence, the Court must resolve this case using the provisions under the Civil
Code on void marriages, in particular, Articles 80,[26] 81,[27] 82,[28] and 83 (first
paragraph);[29] and those on voidable marriages are Articles 83 (second paragraph),
[30]
85[31] and 86.[32]
Under the Civil Code, a void marriage differs from a voidable marriage in the
following ways: (1) a void marriage is nonexistent - i.e., there was no marriage
from the beginning - while in a voidable marriage, the marriage is valid until
annulled by a competent court; (2) a void marriage cannot be ratified, while a
voidable marriage can be ratified by cohabitation; (3) being nonexistent, a void
marriage can be collaterally attacked, while a voidable marriage cannot be
collaterally attacked; (4) in a void marriage, there is no conjugal partnership and
the offspring are natural children by legal fiction, while in voidable marriage there is
conjugal partnership and the children conceived before the decree of annulment are
considered legitimate; and (5) "in a void marriage no judicial decree to establish
the invalidity is necessary," while in a voidable marriage there must be a judicial
decree.[33]
Emphasizing the fifth difference, this Court has held in the cases of People v.
Mendoza,[34] People v. Aragon,[35] and Odayat v. Amante,[36] that the Civil Code
contains no express provision on the necessity of a judicial declaration of nullity of a
void marriage.[37]
In Mendoza (1954), appellant contracted three marriages in 1936, 1941, and 1949.
The second marriage was contracted in the belief that the first wife was already
dead, while the third marriage was contracted after the death of the second wife.
The Court ruled that the first marriage was deemed valid until annulled, which
made the second marriage null and void for being bigamous. Thus, the third
marriage was valid, as the second marriage was void from its performance, hence,
nonexistent without the need of a judicial decree declaring it to be so.
This doctrine was reiterated in Aragon (1957), which involved substantially the
same factual antecedents. In Odayat (1977), citing Mendoza and Aragon, the Court
likewise ruled that no judicial decree was necessary to establish the invalidity of
void marriages under Article 80 of the Civil Code.
It must be emphasized that the enactment of the Family Code rendered the rulings
in Odayat, Mendoza, and Aragon inapplicable to marriages celebrated after 3
August 1988. A judicial declaration of absolute nullity of marriage is now expressly
required where the nullity of a previous marriage is invoked for purposes of
contracting a second marriage.[38] A second marriage contracted prior to the

issuance of this declaration of nullity is thus considered bigamous and void.
[39]
InDomingo v. Court of Appeals, we explained the policy behind the institution of
this requirement:
Marriage, a sacrosanct institution, declared by the Constitution as an "inviolable
social institution, is the foundation of the family;" as such, it "shall be protected by
the State." In more explicit terms, the Family Code characterizes it as "a special
contract of permanent union between a man and a woman entered into in
accordance with law for the establishment of conjugal and family life." So crucial
are marriage and the family to the stability and peace of the nation that their
"nature, consequences, and incidents are governed by law and not subject to
stipulation." As a matter of policy, therefore, the nullification of a marriage
for the purpose of contracting another cannot be accomplished merely on
the basis of the perception of both parties or of one that their union is so
defective with respect to the essential requisites of a contract of marriage
as to render it void ipso jure and with no legal effect and nothing more.
Were this so, this inviolable social institution would be reduced to a
mockery and would rest on very shaky foundations indeed. And the grounds
for nullifying marriage would be as diverse and far-ranging as human ingenuity and
fancy could conceive. For such a socially significant institution, an official
state pronouncement through the courts, and nothing less, will satisfy the
exacting norms of society. Not only would such an open and public
declaration by the courts definitively confirm the nullity of the contract of
marriage, but the same would be easily verifiable through records
accessible to everyone.[40] (Emphases supplied)
However, as this Court clarified in Apiag v. Cantero[41] and Ty v. Court of Appeals,
[42]
the requirement of a judicial decree of nullity does not apply to marriages that
were celebrated before the effectivity of the Family Code, particularly if the children
of the parties were born while the Civil Code was in force. In Ty, this Court clarified
that those cases continue to be governed by Odayat, Mendoza, and Aragon, which
embodied the then-prevailing rule:
x x x. In Apiag v. Cantero, (1997) the first wife charged a municipal trial judge of
immorality for entering into a second marriage. The judge claimed that his first
marriage was void since he was merely forced into marrying his first wife whom he
got pregnant. On the issue of nullity of the first marriage, we applied Odayat,
Mendoza and Aragon. We held that since the second marriage took place and all the
children thereunder were born before the promulgation of Wiegel and the effectivity
of the Family Code, there is no need for a judicial declaration of nullity of the first
marriage pursuant to prevailing jurisprudence at that time.
Similarly, in the present case, the second marriage of private respondent was
entered into in 1979, before Wiegel. At that time, the prevailing rule was found in
Odayat, Mendoza and Aragon. The first marriage of private respondent being void
for lack of license and consent, there was no need for judicial declaration of its
nullity before he could contract a second marriage. In this case, therefore, we
conclude that private respondent's second marriage to petitioner is valid.
Moreover, we find that the provisions of the Family Code cannot be retroactively
applied to the present case, for to do so would prejudice the vested rights of
petitioner and of her children. As held in Jison v. Court of Appeals, the Family Code
has retroactive effect unless there be impairment of vested rights. In the present
case, that impairment of vested rights of petitioner and the children is patent x x x.
(Citations omitted)
As earlier explained, the rule in Odayat, Mendoza, and Aragon is applicable to this
case. The Court thus concludes that the subsequent marriage of Lea to Renato is
valid in view of the invalidity of her first marriage to Bautista because of the
absence of a marriage license. That there was no judicial declaration that the first
marriage was void ab initio before the second marriage was contracted is
immaterial as this is not a requirement under the Civil Code. Nonetheless, the
subsequent Decision of the RTC of Paraaque City declaring the nullity of Lea's first
marriage only serves to strengthen the conclusion that her subsequent marriage to
Renato is valid.
In view of the foregoing, it is evident that the CA did not err in upholding the
validity of the marriage between petitioner and respondent. Hence, we find no
reason to disturb its ruling.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition is DENIED. The Court of Appeals
Decision dated 20 April 2009 and Resolution dated 16 September 2009 in CA-G.R.
CV No. 90153 are AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
Dated 20 April 2009; Rollo, pp. 55-68. Penned by Associate Justice Normandie B.
Pizarro. with Associate Justices Martin S. Villarama, Jr. (now a retired member of
this Court) and Jose C. Reyes, Jr. concurring.
[1]
[2]
Dated 16 September 2009; Id. at 69-70.
[3]
Id. at 127-136. Penned by Presiding Judge Luisito G. Cortez.
[4]
Id. at 76-81.
[5]
Id. at 58.
[6]
Id. at 184-186. Penned by Judge Helen Bautista-Ricafort.
[7]
Id. at 183.
[8]
Id. at 247-250.
[9]
Id. at 256-269.
[10]
Id. at 277-278. Penned by acting Presiding Judge Natividad Giron Dizon.
[11]
Id. at 127-136. Penned by Presiding Judge Luisito G. Cortez.
[12]
Id. at 135.
[13]
Id.
[14]
Id. at 133-136.
[15]
Id. at 137-152.
[16]
Id. at 160-162.
[17]
Records, pp. 512-513
[18]
Id. at 492.
[19]
Supra note 1.
[20]
Rollo, p. 63.
[21]
Id. at 63-64.
[22]
Id. at 69-70.
[23]
Id. at 245-248.
[24]
Id. at 253-260.
[25]
Nial v. Buyadog, 384 Phil. 661 (2004).
[26]
Art. 80. The following marriages shall be void from the beginning:
(1) Those contracted under the ages of sixteen and fourteen years by the male and
female respectively, even with the consent of the parents;
(2) Those solemnized by any person not legally authorized to perform marriages;
(3) Those solemnized without a marriage license, save marriages of exceptional
character;
(4) Bigamous or polygamous marriages not falling under article 83, number 2;
(5) Incestuous marriages mentioned in article 81;
(6) Those where one or both contracting parties have been found guilty of the
killing of the spouse of either of them;
(7) Those between stepbrothers and stepsisters and other marriages specified in
article 82. (n)
Art. 81. Marriages between the following are incestuous and void from their
performance, whether the relationship between the parties be legitimate or
illegitimate:
[27]
(1) Between ascendants and descendants of any degree;

(2) Between brothers and sisters, whether of the full or half blood;
(3) Between collateral relatives by blood within the fourth civil degree. (28a)
[28]
Art. 82. The following marriages shall also be void from the beginning:
(1) Between stepfathers and stepdaughters, and stepmothers and stepsons;

(2) Between the adopting father or mother and the adopted, between the latter and
the surviving spouse of the former, and between the former and the surviving
spouse of the latter;
(3) Between the legitimate children of the adopter and the adopted. (28a)
Art. 83. Any marriage subsequently contracted by any person during the lifetime
of the first spouse of such person with any person other than such first spouse shall
be illegal and void from its performance, unless:
[29]
(1) The first marriage was annulled or dissolved;

(2) x x x x (29a)
Art. 83. Any marriage subsequently contracted by any person during the lifetime
of the first spouse of such person with any person other than such first spouse shall
be illegal and void from its performance, unless:
[30]
(1) x x x x; or
(2) The first spouse had been absent for seven consecutive years at the time of the
second marriage without the spouse present having news of the absentee being
alive, or if the absentee, though he has been absent for less than seven years, is
generally considered as dead and believed to be so by the spouse present at the
time of contracting such subsequent marriage, or if the absentee is presumed dead
according to articles 390 and 391. The marriage so contracted shall be valid in any
of the three cases until declared null and void by a competent court. (29a)
Art. 85. A marriage may be annulled for any of the following causes, existing at
the time of the marriage;
[31]
(1) That the party in whose behalf it is sought to have the marriage annulled was
between the ages of sixteen and twenty years, if male, or between the ages of
fourteen and eighteen years, if female, and the marriage was solemnized without
the consent of the parent, guardian or person having authority over the party,
unless after attaining the ages of twenty or eighteen years, as the case may be,
such party freely cohabited with the other and both lived together as husband and
wife;
(2) In a subsequent marriage under article 83, number 2, that the former husband
or wife believed to be dead was in fact living and the marriage with such former
husband or wife was then in force;
(3) That either party was of unsound mind, unless such party, after coming to
reason, freely cohabited with the other as husband or wife;
(4) That the consent of either party was obtained by fraud, unless such party
afterwards, with full knowledge of the facts constituting the fraud, freely cohabited
with the other as her husband or his wife, as the case may be;
(5) That the consent of either party was obtained by force or intimidation, unless
the violence or threat having disappeared, such party afterwards freely cohabited
with the other as her husband or his wife, as the case may be;
(6) That either party was, at the time of marriage, physically incapable of entering
into the married state, and such incapacity continues, and appears to be incurable.
(30a)
Art. 86. Any of the following circumstances shall constitute fraud referred to in
number 4 of the preceding article:
[32]
(1) Misrepresentation as to the identity of one of the contracting parties;

(2) Non-disclosure of the previous conviction of the other party of a crime involving
moral turpitude, and the penalty imposed was imprisonment for two years or more;
(3) Concealment by the wife of the fact that at the time of the marriage, she was
pregnant by a man other than her husband.
No other misrepresentation or deceit as to character, rank, fortune or chastity shall
constitute such fraud as will give grounds for action for the annulment of marriage.
(n)
Eduardo P. Caguioa, Comments and Cases on Civil Law (Civil Code of the
Philippines), Vol. 1, 1967 Third Edition, p. 154.
[33]
[34]
95 Phil. 845 (1954).
[35]
100 Phil. 1033 (1957).
[36]
168 Phil. 1-5 (1977).
[37]
Nial v. Bayadog, 384 Phil. 661-675 (2000).
Article 40. The absolute nullity of a previous marriage may be invoked for
purposes of remarriage on the basis solely of a final judgment declaring such
previous marriage void.
[38]
[39]
Mercado v. Tan, 391 Phil. 809-827 (2000).
[40]
G.R. No. 104818, 17 September 1993.
[41]
335 Phil. 511 (1997).
[42]
399 Phil. 647 (2000).

G.R.
No.
196028
SAMAHAN NG MAGSASAKA AT MANGINGISDA NG SITIO NASWE, INC. [SAMMANA], REPRESENTED BY ROGELIO A.

COMMENDADOR,
PRESIDENT,
PETITIONER,
VS.
TOMAS
TAN,
RESPONDENT.
April 18, 2016
SECOND DIVISION
[ G.R. No. 196028, April 18, 2016 ]
SAMAHAN NG MAGSASAKA AT MANGINGISDA NG SITIO
NASWE, INC. [SAMMANA], REPRESENTED BY ROGELIO A.
COMMENDADOR, PRESIDENT, PETITIONER, VS. TOMAS TAN,
RESPONDENT.
DECISION
BRION, J.:
We resolve the present petition for review on certiorari[1] assailing the July 27, 20l0
decision[2] and February 10, 2011 resolution[3] of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CAG.R. SP No. 100926. The CA dismissed the petitioner's appeal from the decision of
the Office of the President (OP), which affirmed the lifting of the Notice of Coverage
from the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) issued over land
sequestered by the Presidential Commission on Good Governance (PCGG).
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
The petitioner Samahan ng Magsasaka at Mangingisda ng Sitio Naswe,
Inc. (petitioner) is an association of farmers and fishermen residing at Sitio Talaga,

Barangay Ipag, Mariveles, Bataan.[4] The petitioner claimed that its members "have
resided in the area for several years doing farming activities" from which they
"derive their income for their daily sustenance."[5]
On April 4, 1995, the PCGG published in the newspaper an Invitation to Bid for the
sale of its assets, which included 34 hectares of a 129.4227-hectare land in
Barangay Ipag, Mariveles, Bataan, previously owned by Anchor Estate Corporation.
[6]
The PCGG sequestered the properties of Anchor Estate Corporation after it was
identified to be a dummy corporation of the late President Ferdinand E. Marcos.
Respondent Tomas Tan emerged as the highest bidder in the bidding of the 34hectare property.[7] The PCGG Committee on Privatization approved the sale and a
Notice of Award was issued to the respondent on May 2, 2000. The OP, through
former Executive Secretary Ronaldo B. Zamora, also approved the sale of the
property to the respondent on July 16, 2000.[8] On August 1, 2000, the" PCGG,
representing the Republic of the Philippines, executed a Deed of Sale in the
respondent's favor.[9]
On July 25, 2000, then Chairman of the PCGG Committee on Privatization Jorge V.
Sarmiento wrote the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) requesting to stop the
acquisition of the property under the CARP.[10] It appeared that, on June 16, 1994,
a Notice of Coverage had been issued over the 129.4227-hectare land in
Barangay Ipag, Mariveles, Bataan,[11] and that the 34 hectares sold by the
PCGG to the respondent had been already identified for CARP coverage and
targeted for acquisition in the year 2000.[12]
In an Order[13] dated July 26, 2000, DAR Secretary Horacio R. Morales, Jr. granted
Chairman Sarmiento's request and lifted the Notice of Coverage on the 129.4227hectare property. Secretary Morales also ordered to stop the acquisition
proceedings on the property.[14]
On October 29, 2004,[15] the petitioner filed with the DAR a Petition to Revoke
Secretary Morales's July 26, 2000 Order.[16] The DAR denied both the petitioner's
petition in an Order dated February 3, 2006, and its subsequent motion for
reconsideration in an order dated September 26, 2006. [17] The DAR based its genial
oh the ground that the subject property, being government-owned, does not fall as
'private agricultural land' subject to the CARP. The petitioner then appealed to the
OP.
In a decision dated April 10, 2007, the OP dismissed the petitioner's appeal for lack
of merit and affirmed the DAR Secretary's Order lifting the subject Notice of
Coverage.[18] The petitioner moved to reconsider but the OP denied its motion in a
resolution dated August 6, 2007.[19] The petitioner then filed a Petition for Review
under Rule 43[20] with the CA.
In a decision[21] dated July 27, 2010, the CA held that, while the lifting of the
subject Notice of Coverage was irregular and erroneous, the petitioner's petition for
review must be dismissed on the ground that the petitioner was not a real party in
interest to the case. It held:
We, nonetheless,, find that the Petitioner is not a real party in interest in the case
at bench. A real party in interest is the party who stands to be benefited or injured
by the judgment in the suit, or the party entitled to the avails of the suit. All that
has been alleged in the records was that the members of the Petitioner are in actual
possession of the Subject Property and that farming activities were conducted
thereon. Nothing, however, is stated as to them being beneficiaries, or at least
potential beneficiaries, under CARP. This Court cannot be made to guess how a
judgment setting aside the Assailed Decision and Assailed Resolution would
positively affect the Petitioner simply because it is composed of farmers and
fishermen x x x.[22] (Citations omitted)
The petitioner moved to reconsider the ruling but the CA denied its motion for
reconsideration; hence, the petitioner filed the present petition for review
on certioraribefore this Court.
OUR RULING
We DENY the present petition for review on certiorari as we find no reversible error
committed by the CA in issuing its assailed decision and resolution.
A. The petitioner is not a realparty-in-interest to
question the July 26, 2000 DAR Order; the
Constitutional right to form associations does
not make the petitioner a realparty-in-interest
in this case.
Unless otherwise authorized by law or the Rules of Court, every action must be
prosecuted and defended in the name of the real party-in-interest. [23] The Rules of
Court defines a real party in interest as "the party who stands to be benefited or
injured by the judgment in the suit, or the party entitled to the avails of the
suit."[24] To be properly considered as such, the party must have a real, actual,
material, or substantial interest in the subject matter of the action,[25] NOT a
mere expectancy or a future, contingent, subordinate, or consequential interest. [26]
Republic Act (RA) No. 6657[27] in relation with Section 3 of the Rules of Court
expressly allows farmers, farmworkers, tillers, cultivators, etc., organizations and
associations, 'through their leaders, to represent their members in any proceedings
before the DAR. It must be pointed out, however, that the law should be
harmonized with the interest requirement in bringing actions and suits. " In other
words, while organizations and associations may represent their members before
the DAR, these members must have such real, actual; material, or substantial
interest in the subject matter of the action, NOT merely' an expectancy, or a future
contingent interest.
Here, the petitioner alleged that it is duly registered with the SEC acting on behalf
of its farmers, and fishermen members which allegation gave it the right to
represent its members. However, it failed to allege and prove that these members
are identified and registered qualified beneficiaries of the subject land, or
have already been actually awarded portions of it, or have been
issued Certificates of Land Ownership Award (CLOAs) for which they could
validly claim the status of the land's grantees having a real, actual, material
interest to question the July 26, 2000 Order of the DAR Secretary lifting the Notice
of Coverage. Not being identified and duly registered qualified beneficiaries, these
members' interest over the subject land were at most an expectancy that,
unfortunately for them, did not ripen to actual award and ownership.
In Fortich v. Corona,[28] the Court did not consider as real parties in interest the
movants in the case who were merely recommendee farmer-beneficiaries. The
movants in Fortich, who claimed to be farmer-beneficiaries of the disputed
agricultural land in San Vicente, Sumilao, Bukidnon, attached to their motion' for
intervention a "Master List of Farmer-Beneficiaries" to show that they are real
parties in interest in the case. The document merely showed that the movants were
those "Found Qualified and Recommended for Approval" as farmer-beneficiaries;
thus, the Court held that they were not real parties in interest as their interest over
the land in question was a mere expectancy.
The Court was later confronted with the same issue in Sumalo Homeowners
Association of Hermosa, Bataan v. Litton[29] and Samahang Magsasaka ng 53
Hektarya v. Mosquera.[30]
In Sumalo Homeowners Association of Hermosa, Bataan, the Court rejected the
petitioners' claim as real parties in interest in the case because, aside from their
self-serving 'assertions, the records were devoid of proof that they have been
identified and registered as qualified CARP beneficiaries.
Subsequently, in Samahang Magsasaka ng 53 Hektarya, the Court ruled that being
'mere qualified beneficiaries of the CARP' was not enough to be considered a party
in interest The Court, applying Fortich, held that "farmer-beneficiaries, who are not
approved awardees of CARP, are not real parties in interest;"[31] that the fact that
there was "x x x certification that CLOAs were already generated in their names,
but were not issued because of the present dispute, does not vest any right to the
farmers since the fact remains that they have not yet been approved as awardees,
actually awarded lands, or granted CLOAs x x x."[32]
As earlier pointed out, the petitioner in this case merely alleged that its members,
composed of farmers and fishermen, were long-time residents of Sitio Talaga,
Barangay Ipag, Mariveles, Bataan, and were conducting farming activities in the
area. No evidence was presented to show that the petitioner's members were
approved as awardees, or were granted CLOAs over their respective portions of the
disputed property. The petitioner even admits that the case folders of its members
were not processed because of the DAR Secretary's July 26, 2000 Order.[33]
Thus, notwithstanding its representative capacity, the petitioner and its members
are not real parties-in-interest to question the DAR's July 26, 2000 Order.
In Department of Agrarian Reform v. Department of Education Culture and
Sports, the BARC certified the farmers-individuals who claimed to be permanent
and regular farmworkers of the disputed land as potential CARP beneficiaries. Also,
the Notice of Coverage issued by the MARO over the disputed land was approved by
the DAR Regional Director, and finally by the DAR Secretary. On the DECS's appeal,
the CA set aside the DAR Secretary's decision approving the Notice of Coverage.
The Court reversed the CA decision, declaring (on the issue of whether the farmers
are qualified beneficiaries of CARP) that the identification of actual and potential
beneficiaries under CARP is vested in the DAR Secretary pursuant to Section 15 of
RA No. 6657. "Since the identification and selection of CARP beneficiaries are
matters involving strictly the administrative implementation of the CARP, it
behooves the courts to exercise great caution in substituting its own determination
of the issue, unless there is grave abuse of discretion committed by the
administrative agency. In this case,there was none."[34]
In contrast with the petitioner's case, its members were not identified and
registered by the BARC as the subject land's beneficiaries; and the Notice of
Coverage was in fact lifted by the DAR Secretary via the July 26, 2000 Order which
Order the OP subsequently affirmed.
As the identification and selection of CARP beneficiaries are matters involving
strictly the administrative implementation of the CARP which the Court generally
respects, the CA's finding that the subject land is covered by RA No. 6657 (which is
not even reflected in its decision's fallo) cannot be validly relied upon by the
petitioner. At most, it is a non-binding obiter dictum.
DAR Administrative Order No. 9, series of 1994,[35] the rules governing the hearing
of protests involving the coverage of lands under RA No. 6657 at the time the PCGG
Chairman filed the letter request with the DAR Secretary, did not provide any
minimum period of time within which the protest or, in this case,;the PCGG letterrequest must be decided. As A.O. No. 9, series of 1994 provided, the MARO or
PARO shall, once the protest is filed, "comment oh said protest and submit the
same to the Regional Director who shall rule on the same."[36]
In short, the DAR's lifting of the Notice of Coverage issued by the MARO over the
subject land one day after the PCGG letter-request was filed was not inconsistent
with then existing rules and was, therefore, not irregular.
B. The constitutional considerations:
provisions governing agrarian
reform program do not entail
automatic grant of lands to
every farmer and farmworker.
Social justice in the land reform program also applies to landowners, not merely to
farmers and farmworkers. This is precisely why the law - RA No. 6657 - and the
applicable rules provide for the procedure for determining the proper beneficiaries
and grantees or awardees of the lands covered or to be covered under the CARP.
These procedures ensure that; only the qualified, identified, and registered
farmers and/or farmworkers-beneficiaries acquire the covered lands which they
themselves actually till (subject to the landowners retention rights as protected by
the law). Conversely, these procedures likewise ensure that landowners do not lose
their lands to usurpers and other illegal settlers who wish to take advantage of the
agrarian reform program to acquire lands to which they are not entitled.
In this light, for a particular land and its farmers, farmworkers, tillers, etc. to be
covered under the CARP, two requisites must concur: first, the land should be
covered by the corresponding Notice of Coverage;[37] and second, the beneficiaries
must be qualified and registered by the DAR, in coordination with the Barangay
Agrarian Reform Committee (BARC); copy of the BARC list or registry must be
posted[38] in accordance with the guidelines established by the Presidential Agrarian
Reform Council (PARC).[39]
In Sumalo Homeowners Association of Hermosa, Bataan v. Litton, et al.,[40] the
Court pointed out that the "CARL is specific in its requirements for registering
qualified beneficiaries." Those who have not been identified and registered as
qualified beneficiaries are not real parties-in-interest.
Thus, Section 15 of the CARL explicitly provides:

SEC. 15. Registration of Beneficiaries. - The DAR in coordination with the Barangay
Agrarian Reform Committee (BARC) as organized in this Act, shall register all
agricultural lessees, tenants and farm workers who are qualified to be beneficiaries
with the assistance of the BARC and the DAR shall provide the following data:
a) Names and members of their immediate farm household;
b) Location and area of the land they work;
c) Crops planted; and
d) Their share in the harvest or amount of rental paid or wages received.
A copy of the registry or list of all potential CARP beneficiaries in the barangay shall
be posted in the barangay hall, school or other public buildings in the barangay
where it shall be open to inspection by the public at all reasonable hours.
In other words, a claimant may fall under one of the categories of qualified
beneficiaries as enumerated under Section 22 of RA No. 6657, but he or she does
not automatically become a grantee of the covered land. RA No. 6657 specifically
requires that not only must he or she be a qualified beneficiary, he or she must,
above everything else, be identified and registered as such in accordance with the
procedures and guidelines laid out in the law and applicable rules.
In these lights, the views of Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen (Justice Leonen)
that the social justice principles of the Constitution guarantees the petitioner
automatic standing to question the DAR's July 26, 2000 Order is misplaced. So also,
Justice Leonen cannot rely on Department of Agrarian Reform v. Department of
Education Culture and Sports that the petitioner is a real party-in-interest because
the land has already been subjected to the coverage of the CARP. To emphasize and
reiterate, the land must be covered by the corresponding Notice of Coverage and
the beneficiaries must be both qualified and registered by the DAR for the subject
land and the petitioner's farmers and fishermen members to be covered by the
CARP. There is thus nothing irregular in the procedure undertaken by the DAR
Secretary in the lifting of the Notice of Coverage a day after the request was filed
by the PCGG Chairman.
C. The July 26, 2000 DAR Order has already
attained finality is no longer reviewable
by this Court.
Even assuming that the petitioner is a real party-in-interest, which we reiterate it is
not, the present petition for review on certiorari still fails because the July 26,
2000 Order of the DAR, which the petitioner ultimately seeks this Court to
review, has already attained finality.
The petitioner alleged that they filed with the DAR their petition to revoke the lifting
of the Notice of Coverage on the subject 129.4227-hectare property only on
October 29, 2004, or more than four (4) years after the Order was issued by
Secretary Morales on July 26, 2000. Section 15 of Executive Order (E.O.) No. 292,
[41]
the applicable general law at the time the assailed order was issued, provides
that:
SECTION 15. Finality of Order. The decision of the agency shall become final and
executory fifteen (15) days after the receipt of a copy thereof by the party
adversely affected unless within that period an administrative appeal or judicial
review, if proper, has been perfected.
One motion for reconsideration may be filed, which shall suspend the running of the
said period.
Without any motion for reconsideration or appeal filed from the assailed July 26,
2000 order, the order lapsed to finality and can no longer be reviewed.
This Court has held that administrative decisions must end sometime, as fully as
public policy demands that finality be written on judicial controversies. [42] In the
absence of any showing that the subject final order was rendered without
jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion, no court, not even this Court, has the
power to revive, review, change, or alter a final and executory judgment or
decision.
WHEREFORE, we DENY the petitioner's petition for review on certiorari. The
decision dated July 27, 2010 and resolution dated February 10, 2011 of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 100926 are hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
[1]
Rollo, pp. 9-20.
Penned by CA Associate Justice Florito S. Macalino, with Associate Justices Juan

Q. Enriquez, Jr. and Ramon M. Bato, Jr., concurring; Id. at 25-32.
[2]
[3]
Id. at 33-34.
[4]
Id. at 10.
[5]
Id. at 16-17.:
[6]
Id. at 26.
[7]
Id.
[8]
Id.
[9]
Id. at 11.
[10]
Id. at 26.
[11]
Id. at 25
[12]
Id. at 26.
The dispositive portion of the order stated:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Notice of Coverage issued on 16 June 1994
by MARO Dominador M. Delda is hereby LIFTED. The Provincial Agrarian Reform
Officer (PARO) of Bataan and the MARO of Mariveles, Bataan, are hereby directed
to stop acquisition proceedings for CARP coverage of the subject property.
[14]
Rollo, p. 26.
[13]
The CA decision, however, stated that the petitioner filed their petition to revoke
on November 11, 2004.
[15]
[16]
Rollo, p. 12.
[17]
Id. at 26.
[18]
Id. at 26-27,
[19]
Id.
[20]
Of the Rules of Court.
[21]
Supra note 2.
[22]
Rollo, p. 31.
[23]
[24]
Id.
[25]
Subido v. City of Manila, et al, 108 Phil. 462-468 (1960).
[26]
Garcia v. David, 67 Phil. 279, 285.
[27]
See Section 50 ofRA No. 6657.
[28]
G.R. No. 131457, April 24, 1998, 289 SCRA 624, 628.
[29]
G.R. No. 146061, August 31, 2006, 500 SCRA 385.
[30]
G.R. No. 152430, March 22, 2007, 518 SCRA 668.
[31]
Id. at 679. Id.
[33]
Rollo, p. 17.
[34]
469 Phil. 1083, 1094-1095 (2004).
Entitled "AUTHORIZING ALL REGIONAL DIRECTORS (RDS) TO HEAR AND

DECIDE ALL PROTESTS INVOLVING COVERAGE UNDER R.A. NO. 6657 OR P.D. NO.
27 AND DEFINING THE APPEAL PROCESS FROM THE RDS TO THE SECRETARY",
issued on August 30, 1994.
[35]
[36]
See Subsection A, Part III of A.O. No. 9, series of 1994.
[37]
See Chapter of RA No. 6657.
[38]
See Sections 15 and 47 RA No. 6657.
[39]
See Section 7 of RA No. 6657.
[40]
532 Phil. 86 (2006).
Entitled "Instituting the Administrative Code of 1987," signed into law July 25,
1987.
[41]
[42]
Camarines None Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. Torres, 350 Phil. 315, 330-331
(1998).
DISSENTING OPINION
LEONEN, J.:
The ponencia affirmed the Court of Appeals Decision dismissing the Petition on the
ground that petitioner was not a real party-in-interest.[1] The ponencia discussed
that "the party must have a real, actual, material, or substantial interest in the
subject matter of the action."[2] Petitioner is not the real party-in-interest to file an
action questioning the order lifting the Notice of Coverage over the 129.4227hectare land[3] in Barangay Ipag, Mariveles, Bataan since "it failed to allege and
prove that [its] members are identified and registered qualified beneficiaries of the
subject land, or have already been actually awarded portions of it, or have been
issued Certificates of Land Ownership Award (CLOAs)[.]"[4] The ponencia noted that
"petitioner even admits that the case folders of its members were not processed
because of [Department of Agrarian Reform Secretary Horacio R. Morales, Jr.'s] July
26, 2000 Order."[5]
Associations have legal personality to represent their members in actions before our
courts when the outcome of these actions affects the members' vital interests.
[6]
This holding has been reiterated in our jurisprudence.
Pharmaceutical and Health Care Association of the Philippines v. Health Secretary
Duque III[7] involves the constitutionality of the Milk Code's[8] implementing rules
and regulations.[9] In resolving the preliminary issue of whether petitioner
association "representing its members that are manufacturers of breastmilk
substitutes"[10]is a real party-in-interest, this Court adopted the following discussion
from Executive Secretary v. Court of Appeals:[11]
The modern view is that an association has standing to complain of injuries to its
members. This view fuses the legal identity of an association with that of its
members. An association has standing to file suit for its workers despite its lack of
direct interest if its members are affected by the action. An organization has
standing to assert the concerns of its constituents.
....
... We note that, under its Articles of Incorporation, the respondent was
organized ... to act as the representative of any individual, company, entity or

association on matters related to the manpower recruitment industry, and to
perform other acts and activities necessary to accomplish the purposes embodied
therein. The respondent is, thus, the appropriate party to assert the rights of its
members, because it and its members are in every practical sense identical. . . .
The respondent [association] is but the medium through which its individual
members seek to make more effective the expression of their voices and the
redress of their grievances.[12]
This Court held that the "petitioner, whose legal identity is deemed fused with its
members, should be considered as a real party-in-interest which stands to be
benefited or injured by any judgment in the present action." [13] This Court
considered the petitioner's amended articles of incorporation in that it was formed
"to represent directly or through approved representatives the pharmaceutical and
health care industry before the Philippine Government and any of its agencies, the
medical professions and the general public."[14]
Executive Secretary involves the constitutionality[15] of certain provisions of the
Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995.[16] This Court took cognizance
of Asian Recruitment Council Philippine Chapter, Inc.'s petition on behalf of its
recruitment agencies members and discussed that "[it] is but the medium through
which its individual members seek to make more effective the expression of their
voices and the redress of their grievances."[17] This Court noted that the 11 licensed
and registered recruitment agencies members approved separate resolutions
expressly authorizing Asian Recruitment Council Philippine Chapter, Inc. to file the
petition on their behalf.[18]
No less than our Constitution guarantees "[t]he right of the people, including those
employed in the public and private sectors, to form unions, associations, or
societies for purposes not contrary to law[.]"[19] It is easy to discern the
convenience and benefits in forming and joining associations. Labor organizations,
for example, "[exist] in whole or in part for the purpose of collective bargaining or
of dealing with employers concerning terms and conditions of
employment."[20] Those similarly situated can band together to find solutions for
their common concerns based on shared experience. An association can also
provide a layer of protection for individual members who have complaints and
grievances against their employers or landowners, but fear being singled out,
intimidated, or ignored if they raise their issues alone.
II
One of the key changes introduced in the 1987 Constitution was Article XIII on
Social Justice and Human Rights. Article XIII includes provisions on the role and
rights of people's organizations[21] defined as "bona fide associations of citizens with

demonstrated capacity to promote the public interest with identifiable leadership,
membership, and structure."[22] Section 15 mandates the state to "respect the role
of independent people's organizations to enable the people to pursue and protect,
within the democratic framework, their legitimate and collective interests and
aspirations through peaceful and lawful means."
Article XIII also includes provisions that specifically focus on agrarian reform.
Section 4 provides:
ARTICLE XIII
....
Agrarian and Natural Resources Reform
SECTION 4. The State shall, by law, undertake an agrarian reform program founded
on the right of farmers and regular farmworkers, who are landless, to own directly
or collectively the lands they till or, in the case of other farmworkers, to receive a
just share of the fruits thereof. To this end, the State shall encourage and
undertake the just distribution of all agricultural lands, subject to such priorities and
reasonable retention limits as the Congress may prescribe, taking Nmto account
ecological, developmental, or equity considerations, and subject to the payment of
just compensation. In determining retention Hmita,'the State shall respect the right
of small landowners. The State shall further provide incentives for voluntary landsharing.
Section 5 also mandates the state to "recognize the right of farmers, farmworkers,
and landowners, as well as cooperatives, and other independent farmers'
organizations to participate in the planning, organization, and management of the
program, and shall provide support to agriculture through appropriate technology
and research, and adequate financial, production, marketing, and other support
services." Congress enacted Republic Act No. 6657, otherwise known as the
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988,[23] pursuant to these provisions.[24]
Farmers should not be dissuaded from availing themselves of their rights under the
Constitution and agrarian reform laws. They can organize and join associations that
can represent their interests not only before executive bodies, but even before our
courts.
III
The Rules of Court requires that "[u]nless otherwise authorized by law or these
Rules, every action must be prosecuted or defended in the name of the real party in
interest[,]"[25] or "the party who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment

in the suit, or the party entitled to the avails of the suit."[26]
Samahang Magsasakang 53 Hektarya v. Masquera[27] discussed in the ponencia,
involves the exemption of a 53-hectare land from the Comprehensive Agrarian
Reform Program (CARP) coverage.[28] This Court harmonized Republic Act No.
6657[29] with the Rules of Court provisions[30] governing real parties-in-interest in
that organizations, represented by their authorized representatives, may bring
actions before the courts:
R.A. 6657 allows farmer leaders like Elvira Baladad to represent the Macabud
farmers or their Samahan in the proceedings before the DAR. The law, however,
should be harmonized with the provisions of the Rules of Court. Assuming that the
Macabud farmers are real parties-in-interest as defined by Sec, 2 of Rule 3 [of the
Rules of Court], the appeal may be brought by their representative since such is
allowed by R.A. 6657. The action may then be brought by 1) the organization
represented by its authorized representative (Sec. 1) OR 2) the representative with
the beneficiaries identified in the title of the case (Sec. 3). In the first option, the
organization should be duly registered in order to be clothed with juridical
personality (Sec. 1). Admittedly, petitioner Samahan is not registered with the
Securities and Exchange Commission. Thus, it is not a juridical person which can be
a party in a case. The Rules of Court, however, does not prevent the Macabud
farmers from filing an appeal since an action may be instituted in the name of their
representative with each farmer-beneficiary identified in the title of the case in
accordance with Sec. 3 of Rule 3. Unfortunately, petitioner also failed to comply
with this simple requirement. The petition was brought by the unregistered
Samahan represented by Elvira Baladad without mentioning the members of it. On
this score, the petition can already be dismissed.[31] (Emphasis supplied)
This Court held that the Samahan was not the real party-in-interest since its
members "have not yet been approved as awardees, actually awarded lands, or
granted CLOAs."[32] It cited Hon. Fortich v. Hon. Corona[33] in that mere
recommendee farmer-beneficiaries are not real parties-in-interest. [34]
The ponencia also discussed Sumalo Homeowners Association of Hermosa, Bataan
v. Litton[35] in that those who claim to be qualified beneficiaries, by mere assertion
of "clearing, tilling and planting the land under claim of ownership,"[36] cannot be
considered as real parties-in-interest to question a parcel of land's conversion or
consequent coverage or non-coverage under the CARP.[37]
Associations filing suits must comply with certain standards under relevant laws,
jurisprudence, and rules. An association must establish that its members are the
real parties-in-interest, and that it has the authority to represent its members
pursuant to its Articles of Incorporation or by board resolution.

Petitioner alleged in its Motion for Extension of Time to file Petition that it "is a
farmer Association duly registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission,
representing its members who are actual tillers and cultivators of subject
landholding located in Brgy. Ipag, Mariveles, Bataan." [38] This matter was never
contested by respondent Tomas Tan, who failed to file a comment despite several
show cause resolutions issued by this Court requiring compliance. [39] This Court
then required the Office of the Solicitor General to file a comment. [40] The Office of
the Solicitor General never questioned petitioner's allegation of its registration with
the Securities and Exchange Commission.[41] Instead, it argues that petitioner is not
the real party-in-interest since its members have not been declared as qualified
CARP beneficiaries; thus, their interest in the land grounds on a mere hope,
insufficient for claiming an enforceable right before a court of law.[42]
We apply the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law always within its context of
social justice, to further its objective of giving the highest consideration for the
welfare of the landless farmers and farmworkers. [43]
In this case, Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer Dominador M. Delda issued a Notice
of Coverage over the land in 1994,[44] even before the Presidential Commission on
Good Governance (PCGG) published an Invitation to Bid its Assets, which included
the land in April 4, 1995.[45] Respondent won as highest bidder and was issued a
Notice of Award on May 2, 2000.[46] The Office of the President gave its approval,
and by August 1, 2000, the PCGG executed a Deed of Sale with respondent. [47]
Meanwhile, ocular inspection was conducted sometime in late 1999, and the land
was targeted for CARP acquisition for year 2000.[48] Jorge V. Sarmiento
(Commissioner Sarmiento), Chairperson of the PCGG Committee on Privatization,
then wrote a letter dated July 25, 2000 requesting the Department of Agrarian
Reform to stop the acquisition of the land.[49] The following day, Department of
Agrarian Reform Secretary Horacio R. Morales, Jr. granted the request in the Order
dated July 26, 2000, and lifted the Notice of Coverage. [50] On October 29, 2004,
petitioner filed a Petition to Revoke the July 26, 2000 Order, but this, its motion for
reconsideration, and its appeal to the Office of the President [51] were denied.
The Court of Appeals found no indication that the property is not agricultural land
and held that the property is covered under Republic Act No. 6657. [52] It found that
the lifting of the Notice of Coverage merely a day after the request of Commissioner
Sarmiento "seem[ed] irregular in view of [Department of Agrarian Reform]'s own
rules on protests involving the coverage under CARP"; [53] thus, the July 26, 2000
Order cannot bind petitioner.[54] Nevertheless, the Court of Appeals dismissed the
Petition upon finding that petitioner is not a real party-in-interest. [55]
In Department of Agrarian Reform v. Department of Education, Culture and Sports,

[56]
this Court held that pursuant to Section 15 of Republic Act No. 6657, "the
identification of actual and potential beneficiaries under CARP is vested in the
Secretary of Agrarian Reform[.]"[57] In that case, the Barangay Agrarian Reform,
Committee found that the farmers "were potential CARP beneficiaries of the subject
properties"[58] and that the Municipal Agrarian Reform Office issued a Notice of
Coverage over the land.[59] Thus:
Since the identification and selection of CARP beneficiaries are matters involving
strictly the administrative implementation of the CARP, it behooves the courts to
exercise great caution in substituting its own determination of the issue, unless
there is grave abuse of discretion committed by the administrative agency. In this
case, there was none.
The Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) is the bastion of
social justice of poor landless farmers, the mechanism designed to
redistribute to the underprivileged the natural right to toil the earth, and
to liberate them from oppressive tenancy. To those who seek its benefit, it is
the means towards a viable livelihood and, ultimately, a decent life. The objective of
the State is no less certain: "landless farmers and farmworkers will receive the
highest consideration to promote social justice and to move the nation toward
sound rural development and industrialization."[60] (Emphasis supplied)
ACCORDINGLY, I vote to GRANT the Petition.
[1]
Ponencia, p. 3.
[2]
Id. at 4.
[3 ]
Id. at 2.
[4]
Id. at 4.
[5]
Id. at 5. 6
Purok Bagong Silang Association, Inc. v. Judge Yuipco, 523 Phil. 51, 64 (2006)
[Per J. Callejo, Sr., First Division,].
[6]
[7]
561 Phil. 386 (2007) [Per J. Austria-Martinez, En Banc].
[8]
Exec. Order No. 51 (1986).
Pharmaceutical and Health Care Association of the Philippines v. Health Secretary

Duque III, 561 Phil. 386, 392 (2007) [Per J. Austria-Martinez, En Banc].
[9]
[10]
Id. at 394.
[11]
473 Phil. 27, 50-51 (2004) [Per J. Callejo, Sr., Second Division].
Pharmaceutical and Health Care Association of the Philippines v. Health

Secretary Duque III, 561 Phil. 386, 395-396 (2007) [Per J. Austria-Martinez, En
Banc].
[12]
[13]
[14]
Id. at 396.
Id.
Executive Secretary v. Court of Appeals, 473 Phil. 27, 36-37 (2004) [Per J.
Callejo, Sr., Second Division].
[15]
[16]
Rep. Act No. 8042 (1995).
Executive Secretary v. Court of Appeals, 473 Phil. 27, 51 (2004) [Per J. Callejo,
St., Second Division].
[17]
[19]
CONST., art. III, sec. 8.
[20]
LABOR CODE, art, 219(g).
[21]
CONST., art. XIII, sees, 15 and 16.
[22]
CONST., art. XIII, see. 15.
[23]
Rep. Act No, 9700 was passed in 2009, amending Rep. Act No. 6657.
[24]
See Rep. Act No. 6657 (1988), sees. 15 and 22 on qualified beneficiaries:
SECTION 15. Registration of Beneficiaries. The DAR in coordination with the

Barangay Agrarian Reform Committee (BARC) as organized in this Act, shall register
all agricultural lessees, tenants and farmworkers who are qualified to be
beneficiaries of the CARP. These potential beneficiaries with the assistance of the
BARC and the DAR shall provide the following data:
(a) names and members of their immediate farm household;

(b) owners or administrators of the lands they work on and the length of tenurial
relationship:
(c) location and area of the land they work;
(d) crops planted; and
(e) their share in the harvest or amount of rental paid or wages received.
A copy of the registry or list of all potential CARP beneficiaries in the barangay shall
be posted in the barangay hall, school or other public buildings in the barangay
where it shall be open to inspection by the public at all reasonable hours.
....
SECTION 22. Qualified Beneficiaries. The lands covered by the CARP shall be
distributed as much as possible to landless residents of the same barangay, or in
the absence thereof, landless residents of the same municipality in the following
order of priority: (a) agricultural lessees and share tenants; (b) regular
farmworkers; (c) seasonal farmworkers; (d) other farmworkers; (e) actual tillers or
occupants of public lands; (f) collectives or cooperatives of the above beneficiaries;
and (g) others directly working on the land. Provided, however, That the children of
landowners who are qualified under Section 6 of this Act shall be given preference
in the distribution of the land of their parents: and Provided, further, That actual
tenant-tillers in the landholdings shall not be ejected or removed therefrom.
Beneficiaries under Presidential Decree No. 27 who have culpably sold, disposed of,
or abandoned their land are disqualified to become beneficiaries under this
Program. A basic qualification of a beneficiary shall be his willingness, aptitude, and
ability to cultivate and make the land as productive as possible. The DAR shall
adopt a system of monitoring the record or performance of each beneficiary, so that
any beneficiary guilty of negligence or misuse of the land or any support extended
to him shall forfeit his right to continue as such beneficiary. The DAR shall submit
periodic reports on the performance of the beneficiaries to the PARC. If, due to the
landowner's retention rights or to the number of tenants, lessees, or workers on the
land, there is not enough land to accommodate any or some of them, they may be
granted ownership of other lands available for distribution under this Act, at the
option of the beneficiaries. Farmers already in place and those not accommodated
in the distribution of privately-owned lands will be given preferential rights in the
distribution of lands from the public domain.)
[25 ]
[26]
RULES OF COURT, Rule 3, sec, 2.
[27]
547 Phil. 560 (2007) [Per J. Velasco, Jr., Second Division].
[28]
Id. at 563-564.
See Rep. Act No. 6657 (1988), sec. 50, as amended by Rep. Act No. 9700
(2009), sec. 18, which provides:
[29]
SEC. 50. Quasi-Judicial Powers of the DAR. .... Responsible farmer leaders shall
be allowed to represent themselves, their fellow farmers, or their organizations in
any proceedings before the DAR[.]
Samahang Magsamka ng 53 Hektarya v. Mosquera, 547 Phil. 560, 569-570
(2007) [Per J. Velasco, Jr., Second Division]. The case quoted Rule 3, sees. 1 to 3 of
the Revised Rules of Court, which provide:
[30]
SECTION 1. Who may be parties; plaintiff and defendant. Only natural or juridical
persons, or entities authorized by law may be parties in a civil action....
SEC. 2. Parties in interest. A real party in interest is the party who stands to be
benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit, or the party entitled to the avails
of the suit. Unless otherwise authorized by law or these Rules, every action must be
prosecuted or defended in the name of the real party in interest.
SEC. 3. Representatives as parties. Where the action is allowed to be prosecuted
or defended by a representative or someone acting in a fiduciary capacity, the
beneficiary shall be included in the title of the case and shall be deemed to be the
real party in interest. A representative may be a trustee of an express trust, a
guardian, an executor or administrator, or a party authorized by law or these
Rules[.]
Samahang Magsasaka ng 53 Hektarya v. Mosqmra, 547 Phil. 560, 570 (2007)
[Per J. Velasco, Jr., Second Division],
[31]
[32]
Id, at 571.
352 Phil. 461, 484 (1998) [Per J. Martinez, Second Division]. This was also
discussed in the ponencia.
[33]
Samahang Magsasaka ng 53 Hektarya v. Mosquera, 547 Phil. 560, 571 (2007)

[Per J. Velasco, Jr., Second Division],
[34]
[35]
532 Phil. 86 (2006): [Per J. Ynares-Santiago, First Division].
[36]
Id. at 98.
[37]
Id. at 96-98,
[38]
Rollo, p. 3, Motion for Extension of Time.
Id. at 46 (Supreme Court Resolution dated June 6, 2011), 59 (Supreme Court

Resolution dated October 10, 2011), 63 (Supreme Court Resolution dated March 7,
2012), 67 (Supreme Court Resolution dated July 30, 2012), 71 (Supreme Court
Resolution dated March 18, 2013).
[39]
[40]
Id. at 112, Supreme Court Resolution dated March 3, 2014.
[41]
Id. at 123-133, Solicitor General's Comment.
[42]
Id. at 126-127, Solicitor General's Comment.
Rep. Act No. 6557(1988), sec. 2, as amended by Rep. Act No. 9700 (2009), sec,
1, provides:
[43]
SEC. 2. Declaration of Principles and Policies. It is the policy of the State to

pursue a Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP). The welfare of the
landless farmers and farmworkers will receive the highest consideration to promote
social justice and to move the nation toward sound rural development and
industrialization, and the establishment of owner cultivatorship of economic-size
farms as the basis of Philippine agriculture[.]
[44]
Rollo, pp. 25-26, Court of Appeals Decision dated July 27, 2010.
[45]
Id. at 26, Court of Appeals Decision dated July 27, 2010.
[46]
Id.
[47]
Id.
[48]
Id.
[49]
Id.
[50]
Id.
[51]
Id. at 26-27, Court of Appeals Decision dated July 27, 2010.
[52]
[53]
[54]
[55]
Id. at 31.
[56]
469 Phil. 1083 (2004) [Per J. Ynares-Santlago, First Division].
[57]
Id. at 1094.
[58]
Id.
[59]
Id.
Id. at 1094-1095, citing Lercana v. Mandoni, 426 Phil. 319, 329 (2002) [Per J.
Quisumblng, Second Division] and Secretary of Agrarian Reform v. Tropical Homes,
Inc., 414 Phil. 389, 396-397 (2001) [Per J. De Leon, Jr., Second Division].
[60]

G.R.
No.
191616
FRANCIS C. CERVANTES, PETITIONER, VS. CITY SERVICE CORPORATION AND VALENTIN PRIETO, JR., RESPONDENTS.
April 18, 2016
THIRD DIVISION
[ G.R. No. 191616, April 18, 2016 ]
FRANCIS C. CERVANTES, PETITIONER, VS. CITY SERVICE
CORPORATION AND VALENTIN PRIETO, JR., RESPONDENTS.
DECISION
PERALTA, J.:
This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of
Court filed by petitioner Francis Cervantes assailing the Resolutions of the Court of
Appeals (CA), dated October 30, 2009[1] and March 11, 2010[2] in CA-G.R. SP No.
111037, which dismissed petitioner's petition for certiorari for having been filed out
of time and denied the petitioner's motion for reconsideration, respectively.
The instant petition stemmed from a Complaint for illegal dismissal dated December
19, 2007 filed before the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) by petitioner
Francis C. Cervantes against respondents City Service Corporation and/or Valentin
Prieto, Jr. for illegal dismissal, underpayment of salaries/wages, overtime pay,
holiday pay, holiday premium, rest day premium, service incentive leave,
separation pay, ECOLA, moral and exemplary damages, and attorney's fees.
On June 30, 2008, the Labor Arbiter, in NLRC-NCR-12-14080-07, dismissed the
complaint for lack of merit. It found that it was Cervantes who refused to work after
he was transferred to another client of City Service. The Labor Arbiter stressed that
employees of local manpower agencies, which are assigned to clients, do not
become employees of the client.
Cervantes appealed the Labor Arbiter's decision, but was denied in a Resolution
dated February 5, 2008. Undaunted, Cervantes moved for reconsideration, but was
denied anew in a Resolution[3] dated July 22, 2009.
Thus, on October 6, 2009, Cervantes, through counsel Atty. Angelito R. Villarin,
filed before the CA a Petition for Certiorari[4] under Rules 65 of the Rules of Court,
alleging grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the
part of the NLRC in affirming the assailed Resolutions dated February 9, 2009 and
July 22, 2009 which dismissed Cervantes' complaint for illegal dismissal and denied
his motion for reconsideration, respectively.
In the assailed Resolution[5] dated October 30, 2009, the CA dismissed Cervantes'
petition for certiorari for having been filed out of time. The appellate court argued
that, by petitioner's admission, his mother received the assailed Resolution of the
NLRC denying his motion for reconsideration on July 30, 2009. Thus, counting sixty
(60) days therefrom, petitioner had only until September 28, 2009 within which to
file the petition. However, the petition for certiorari was filed only on October 7,
2009, or nine (9) days late.
Cervantes moved for reconsideration, but was denied in Resolution [6] dated March
11, 2010. Thus, the instant petition for review on certiorari raising the following
issues:
WHETHER OR NOT THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED AN ERROR
OF LAW FOR RECKONING THE PERIOD FOR FILING A PETITION FOR CERTIORARI
UNDER RULE 65 FROM RECEIPT OF THE ASSAILED RESOLUTION OF THE NLRC
DATED JULY 22, 2009
WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED AN ERROR OF LAW FOR
RULING THAT THE SAID PETITION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED ANYWAY
BECAUSE PETITIONER FAILED TO ATTACH COPIES OF RESPONDENT'S REPLY
MEMORANDUM AND COMMENT TO THE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION FILED
WITH THE NLRC; AND
WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED AN ERROR OF LAW THAT
THE NLRC DID NOT COMMIT GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION FOR SUSTAINING THE
DECISION OF THE LABOR ARBITER THAT PETITIONER WAS NOT ILLEGALLY
DISMISSED.
Procedurally, petitioner insists that he filed the petition for certiorari on time, which
should be reckoned from the moment his counsel was informed about the
Resolution denying his motion for reconsideration, and not from the date his mother
received a copy of the NLRC Resolution.
The petition is partly meritorious.
In practice, service means the delivery or communication of a pleading, notice or
some other paper in a case, to the opposite party so as to charge him with receipt
of it and subject him to its legal effect. The purpose of the rules on service is to
make sure that the party being served with the pleading, order or judgment is duly
informed of the same so that he can take steps to protect his interests; i.e., enable
a party to file an appeal or apply for other appropriate reliefs before the decision
becomes final.[7]
The rule is
where a party appears by attorney in an action or proceeding in a court of record,
all notices required to be given therein must be given to the attorney of record; and
service of the court's order upon any person other than the counsel of record is not
legally effective and binding upon the party, nor may it start the corresponding
reglementary period for the subsequent procedural steps that may be taken by the
attorney. Notice should be made upon the counsel of record at his exact given
address, to which notice of all kinds emanating from the court should be sent in the
absence of a proper and adequate notice to the court of a change of address.
When a party is represented by counsel of record, service of orders and notices

must be made upon said attorney; and notice to the client and to any other lawyer,
not the counsel of record, is not notice in law.[8]
The NLRC Rules governing the issuance and service of notices and resolutions is,
likewise, no different:
SECTION 4. SERVICE OF NOTICES, RESOLUTIONS, ORDERS AND DECISIONS. - a)
Notices and copies of resolutions or orders, shall be served personally upon the
parties by the bailiff or duly authorized public officer within three (3) days from
his/her receipt thereof or by registered mail or by private courier;
b) In case of decisions and final awards, copies thereof shall be served on
both parties and their counsel or representative by registered mail or by
private courier; Provided that, in cases where a party to a case or his/her counsel
on record personally seeks service of the decision upon inquiry thereon, service to
said party shall be deemed effected as herein provided. Where parties are
numerous, service shall be made on counsel and upon such number of
complainants, as may be practicable and shall be considered substantial compliance
with Article 224 (a) of the Labor Code, as amended. For purposes of appeal, the
period shall be counted from receipt of such decisions, resolutions, or
orders by the counsel or representative of record.
c) The bailiff or officer serving the notice, order, or resolution shall submit his/her
return within two (2) days from date of service thereof, stating legibly in his/her
return his/her name, the names of the persons served and the date of receipt,
which return shall be immediately attached and shall form part of the records of the
case. In case of service by registered mail or by private courier, the name of the
addressee and the date of receipt of the notice, order or resolution shall be written
in the return card or in the proof of service issued by the private courier. If no
service was effected, the reason thereof shall be so stated. [9]
Also, in Ginete v. Sunrise Manning Agency, et al.,[10] the Court held that "the period
for filing a petition for certiorari should be reckoned from the time the counsel of
record received a copy of the Resolution denying the motion for
reconsideration."[11] The Court further clarified that the period or manner of "appeal"
from the NLRC to the Court of Appeals is governed by Rule 65, pursuant to the
ruling of the Court in the case of St. Martin Funeral Homes v. NLRC[12] in light of
Section 4 of Rule 65, as amended, which states that the "petition may be filed not
later than sixty (60) days from notice of the judgment, or resolution sought to be
assailed."
The Court further expounded therein, to wit:
Corollarily, Section 4, Rule III of the New Rules of Procedure of the NLRC expressly
mandates that "(F)or the purpose(s) of computing the period of appeal, the same
shall be counted from receipt of such decisions, awards or orders by the counsel of
record." Although this rule explicitly contemplates an appeal before the

Labor Arbiter and the NLRC, we do not see any cogent reason why the
same rule should not apply to petitions for certiorari filed with the Court of
Appeals from decisions of the NLRC. This procedure is in line with the
established rule that notice to counsel is notice to party and when a party
is represented by counsel, notices should be made upon the counsel of
record at his given address to which notices of all kinds emanating from
the court should be sent. It is to be noted also that Section 7 of the NLRC Rules
of Procedure provides that "(A)ttorneys and other representatives of parties shall
have authority to bind their clients in all matters of procedure" a provision which is
similar to Section 23, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court. More importantly, Section 2,
Rule 13 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure analogously provides that if any party
has appeared by counsel, service upon him shall be made upon his counsel. [13]
In Bello v. NLRC,[14] citing anew Ginete v. Sunrise Manning Agency, et al.,[15] the
Court held that "the period for filing a petition for certiorari should be reckoned
from the time the counsel of record received a copy of the Resolution denying the
motion for reconsideration."[16]
Thus, based on the foregoing, while in cases of decisions and final awards, copies
thereof shall be served on both parties and their counsel/representative by
registered mail, for purposes of appeal, however, the period shall be counted from
receipt of such decisions, resolutions, or orders by the counsel or representative of
record.
In the instant case, it is not disputed that during the NLRC proceedings, petitioner
was represented by counsel, Atty. Romeo S. Occena, as in fact the
NLRC albeitbelated, furnished a copy of its July 29, 2009 Resolution to Atty. Occena
on November 19, 2009. Petitioner's several motions during the proceedings before
the NLRC were likewise all signed by Atty. Occena as counsel. Consequently,
following the policy that the period to appeal shall be counted from receipt of
resolution by the counsel of record, considering that petitioner is represented by a
counsel, the latter is considered to have received notice of the NLRC Resolution
dated July 22, 2009 on November 19, 2009, the date when his representative and
counsel, Atty. Occena was served notice thereof and not on July 30, 2009, or the
date when petitioner's mother received the same decision.
Accordingly, the 60-day period for filing the petition for certiorari with the CA should
be counted from the receipt by the petitioner's counsel of a copy of the NLRC
Decision dated July 22, 2009 on November 19, 2009. It should be stressed that the
NLRC sent the notice of Resolution to petitioner's counsel only on November 19,
2009. While there was a notice of Resolution dated July 22, 2009, said notice was
not served upon petitioner's counsel. Thus, strictly speaking, the running of the 60day period to appeal should be counted from November 19, 2009 when the notice
of Resolution dated July 22, 2009 was served on petitioner's counsel. Considering
that petitioner filed his petition for certiorari on October 7, 2009, the same was well
within the prescribed period to appeal. The petition for certiorari was filed on time.
However, the foregoing discussion notwithstanding, we have reviewed the records
of the case at bar and find no reversible error committed by the NLRC concerning
the merits of the present petition. While the petition for certiorari was timely filed
with the CA, the instant petition would still suffer the same verdict of dismissal in
view of the identical findings of the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC. The findings of fact
made by Labor Arbiters and affirmed by the NLRC are not only entitled to great
respect, but even finality, and are considered binding if the same are supported by
substantial evidence.
We find that the NLRC correctly upheld petitioner's dismissal to be valid. Records
show that petitioner was relieved from his post in UST due to his poor work
performance and attitude. However, while petitioner was removed from UST, private
respondent immediately reassigned him to Mercury Drug Fairview which he refused
to accept. Despite notices requiring him to report back to work, petitioner refused
to heed. Considering that it was petitioner who went on absence without official
leave (AWOL), the same negates the allegation of illegal dismissal.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is DENIED. The NLRC Resolutions
dated February 9, 2009 and July 22, 2009 are AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
May 25, 2016

NOTICE OF JUDGMENT
Sirs / Mesdames:
Very truly yours,

[1]
Rollo, pp. 32-34.
[2]
Id. at 67-68.
[3]
Id. at 256-258.
[4]
Id. at 264-307.
[5]
Id. at 320-322.
[6]
Id. at 67-68.
[7]
Spouses Soriano v. Soriano, 558 Phil. 627, 641-642 (2007).
[8]
Id. at 642.
[9]
The 2011 NLRC Rules of Procedure, Rule 111, Sec. 4. (Emphasis ours)
[10]
411 Phil. 953 (2001).
[11]
Ginete v. Sunrise Manning Agency, et al., supra, at 956.
[12]
356 Phil. 811 (1998).
Ginete v. Sunrise Manning Agency, et al., supra note 10, at 958. (Emphasis
ours)
[13]
[14]
559 Phil. 20 (2007).
[15]
Supra note 10.
[16]
Bello v. NLRC, supra note 14, at 27.

G.R.
No.
202051
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS & HIGHWAYS; ENGINEER
SIMPLICIO D. GONZALES, DISTRICT ENGINEER, SECOND ENGINEERING DISTRICT OF CAMARINES SUR; AND
ENGINEER VICTORINO M. DEL SOCORRO, JR., PROJECT ENGINEER, DPWH, BARAS, CANAMAN, CAMARINES SUR,
PETITIONERS,
VS.
SPOUSES
ILDEFONSO
B.
REGULTO
AND
FRANCIA
R.
REGULTO,
RESPONDENTS.
April 18, 2016
THIRD DIVISION
[ G.R. No. 202051, April 18, 2016 ]
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS & HIGHWAYS; ENGINEER
SIMPLICIO D. GONZALES, DISTRICT ENGINEER, SECOND
ENGINEERING DISTRICT OF CAMARINES SUR; AND
ENGINEER VICTORINO M. DEL SOCORRO, JR., PROJECT
ENGINEER, DPWH, BARAS, CANAMAN, CAMARINES SUR,
PETITIONERS, VS. SPOUSES ILDEFONSO B. REGULTO AND
FRANCIA R. REGULTO, RESPONDENTS.
DECISION
PERALTA, J.:
For resolution of this Court is the petition for review on certiorari dated July 10,
2012 filed by petitioners, the Republic of the Philippines as represented by the
Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH); Engineer Simplicio D. Gonzales,
District Engineer, Second Engineering District of Camarines Sur; and Engineer
Victorino M. Del Socorro, Jr., Project Engineer, DPWH, Baras, Canaman, Camarines
Sur assailing the Order[1] dated May 24, 2012 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
Naga City, Branch 62, which ordered herein petitioners to pay respondents spouses
Ildefonso B. Regulto and Francia R. Regulto (Spouses Regulto) the amount of Two
Hundred Forty-Three Thousand Pesos (P243,000.00) as just compensation for the
part of their property traversed by the Naga City-Milaor Bypass Project of the
DPWH.
The factual antecedents are as follows:
Respondents spouses Ildefonso B. Regulto and Francia R. Regulto are the registered
owners of the property in controversy located at Mabel, Naga City, Camarines Sur
consisting of 300 square meters covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No.
086-2010000231.[2] The Spouses Regulto acquired the said property by virtue of a
deed of absolute sale executed by Julian R. Cortes, attorney-in-fact of the spouses
Bienvenido and Beatriz Santos, in February 1994.[3] The subject property originated
from a Free Patent property consisting of 7,759 square meters registered and
covered by Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 235 dated April 14, 1956.[4]
Sometime in April 2011, the DPWH Second Engineering District of Camarines Sur
apprised the Spouses Regulto of the construction of its road project, the Naga CityMilaor Bypass Road, which will traverse their property and other adjoining
properties.[5] The DPWH initially offered the spouses the sum of P243,000.00 or
P1,500.00 per square meter for the 162 square-meter affected area as just
compensation.[6]
However, in a letter dated May 11, 2006, the DPWH, through District Engr. Rolando
P. Valdez, withdrew the offer, and informed the Spouses Regulto that they were not
entitled to just compensation since the title of their land originated from a Free
Patent title acquired under Commonwealth Act (C.A.) No. 141, known as the Public
Land Act, which contained a reservation in favor of the government of an easement
of right-of-way of twenty (20) meters, which was subsequently increased to sixty
(60) meters by Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 635, for public highways and similar
works that the government or any public or quasi-public service enterprise may
reasonably require for carrying on their business, with payment of damages for the
improvements only.[7]
The Spouses Regulto, in their letter dated May 30, 2011, protested the findings of
the DPWH and ordered them to cease from proceeding with the construction.
[8]
They alleged that since their property is already covered by TCT No. 0862010000231, it ceased to be a public land.[9] They communicated that the market
value of the property is P450,000.00 plus the Zonal Value of the Bureau of Internal
Revenue (BIR), which is more or less the acceptable just compensation of their
property.[10]Furthermore, they requested that they be furnished, within five (5) days
from the receipt of their letter, with a Program of Works and Sketch Plan showing
the cost of the project and the extent or area covered by the road that will traverse
their property.[11]
The DPWH furnished the Spouses Regulto with the sketch plan showing the extent
of the road right-of-way that will cut across their property.[12] It also reiterated its
earlier position that the title to the land was acquired under C.A. No. 141. [13]
On October 8, 2011, the Spouses Regulto filed a complaint for payment of just
compensation, damages with prayer for issuance of temporary restraining order
and/or writ of preliminary injunction before the RTC of Naga City, Branch 62,
against herein petitioners Republic of the Philippines, represented by the DPWH;
District Engr. Valdez of the Second Engineering District of Camarines Sur; and
Project Engr. Del Socorro, Jr. of the DPWH, Baras, Canaman, Camarines Sur.[14]
The Spouses Regulto averred that the DPWH acted with deceit, misrepresentation
and evident bad faith in convincing them to sign on a paper after relying on the
assurance that they would be paid with just compensation.[15] They also alleged that
their property is outside the coverage of Section 112, C.A. No. 141 because their
land is a private property, and that the same is situated beyond the 60-meter
radius or width from the public highways, railroads, irrigation ditches, aqueducts,
telegraph and telephone lines, airport runways, and other government structures.
[16]
On August 5, 2011, the petitioners, through the Office of the Solicitor General
(OSG), filed a Motion to Dismiss on the ground that the Spouses Regulto do not
have a cause of action, and that their complaint failed to state the same.
[17]
Petitioners asseverated that Section 112 of C.A. No. 141 is explicit on the
encumbrance imposed upon lands originally covered by a free patent or any other
public land patent.[18] Petitioners also alleged that the respondents failed to exhaust
administrative remedies for not appealing the findings of the Regional Infrastructure
Right-of-Way (IROW) Committee with the DPWH Regional Director or to the
Secretary of Public Works and Highways.[19]
In an Order dated October 17, 2011, the RTC denied the motion filed by the
petitioners citing that the insufficiency of the cause of action must appear on the
face of the complaint to sustain a dismissal based on lack of cause of action. [20] In
this case, the complaint stated allegations of nonpayment of just compensation.
[21]
Furthermore, the court mentioned that one of the exceptions of the doctrine of
exhaustion of administrative remedies is when the issue is one of law and when
circumstances warrant urgency of judicial intervention, as in the case of the
Spouses Regulto whose portion of their property has already been occupied by the
petitioners without just compensation.[22]
In the Answer[23] dated November 16, 2011, the petitioners reiterated their defense
that no legal right has been violated since C.A. No. 141, as amended by P.D. No.
1361,[24] imposes a 60-meter wide lien on the property originally covered by a Free
Patent.[25] Petitioners also avowed that Section 5 of the Implementing Rules and
Regulation (IRR) of the Republic Act (R.A.) No. 8974[26] provides that if the private
property or land is acquired under the provisions of C.A. No. 141, the government
officials charged with the prosecution of the projects or their representative is
authorized to take immediate possession of the property subject to the lien as soon
as the need arises, and the government may obtain a quitclaim from the owners
concerned without the need for payment for the land acquired under the said
quitclaim mode except for the damages to improvements only.[27] Hence, petitioners
maintained that the Spouses Regulto are not entitled to a just compensation for the
portion of their property affected by the construction of the Naga City-Milaor Bypass
Road.[28]
The petitioners, in a Motion dated December 19, 2011, prayed for the issuance of
the writ of possession of the subject property in their favor for the construction of
the project to finally proceed and be completed without further delay.[29]
On January 2, 2012, the RTC ordered the respondents spouses to remove the
obstructions that they erected on the subject property within three days, or the
petitioners may dismantle the same to proceed with the construction of the bypass
road project.[30] Likewise, the petitioners were ordered to deliver the check already
prepared in the amount of Three Thousand Pesos (P3,000.00) for payment of the
trees/improvements on the property.[31] The petitioners were also ordered to deposit
with any authorized government depository bank the amount of Thirty-Six
Thousand Four Hundred Fifty Pesos (P36,450.00) equivalent to the assessed value
of the 162 square meters of the subject property, which was assessed at
P67,500.00 by the 2010 tax declaration, that the road project will traverse. [32]
In an Order dated January 27, 2012, the RTC dismissed the motion for
reconsideration filed by the Spouses Regulto, and sustained its earlier order that
the petitioners deposit the amount of P36,450.00. [33] The RTC also acknowledged
the receipt of the Spouses Regulto of the check for the payment of the
improvements on the property affected by the project.[34]
Consequently, the RTC, in its Order dated May 24, 2012, ordered the petitioners to
pay the Spouses Regulto the amount of P243,000.00 as just compensation for the
affected portion of their property.[35] The dispositive portion of the Order reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered ordering the
defendants Engr. Rolando F. Valdez and Engr. Victorino M. del Socorro, Jr., Republic
of the Philippines and the Dept. of Public Works and Highways to pay plaintiffs-
spouses Ildefonso and Francia Regulto the amount of P243,000.00 as just

compensation for their property traversed by the Naga-Milaor Bypass Project.
SO ORDERED.[36]
The RTC concluded that the government waived the encumbrance provided for in
C.A. No. 141 when it did not oppose the further subdivision of the original property
covered by the free patent or made an express intent on making its encumbrance
before the residential lots, which are part of the said subdivision, were sold to other
innocent purchasers for value, especially after the 25-year period has lapsed since
the free patent.[37]
Hence, the petitioners, through the OSG, filed the instant petition raising the
following issues:
THE RTC ERRED IN HOLDING THAT RESPONDENTS ARE ENTITLED TO AND
IN ORDERING PETITIONERS TO PAY JUST COMPENSATION DESPITE THE
UNDISPUTED FACT THAT THE LAND WAS ORIGINALLY PUBLIC LAND
AWARDED TO RESPONDENTS' PREDECESSORS-IN-INTEREST BY FREE
PATENT, AND THUS A LEGAL EASEMENT OF RIGHT-OF-WAY EXISTS IN
FAVOR OF THE GOVERNMENT.
THE TRIAL COURT'S RATIOCINATION - THAT THE SUBJECT-PROPERTY HAS IPSO
FACTO CEASED TO BE "PUBLIC LAND" AND THUS NO LONGER SUBJECT TO THE
LIEN IMPOSED BY SAID PROVISION OF C.A. NO. 141, BY VIRTUE OF THE SUBJECT
PROPERTY BEING ALREADY COVERED BY A TRANSFER CERTIFICATE OF TITLE IN
THEIR NAME - CONTRAVENES SECTION 44 OF P.D. NO. 1529 AND NATIONAL
IRRIGATION ADMINISTRATION VS. COURT OF APPEALS.
THE RTC ERRED IN HOLDING THAT SECTION 8 ("EXPROPRIATION"), NOT SECTION
5 ("QUIT CLAIM"), OF THE IMPLEMENTING RULES AND REGULATIONS OF R.A. NO.
8974 IS THE APPLICABLE PROVISION REGARDING THE MODE OF ACQUISITION OF
RESPONDENTS' PROPERTY.[38]
This Court finds the instant petition partially meritorious.
At the outset, it is noted that petitioners filed the instant petition before this Court
without appealing the said case before the Court of Appeals (CA). A strict
application of the policy of strict observance of the judicial hierarchy of courts is
unnecessary when cases brought before the appellate courts do not involve factual
but purely legal questions.[39] Section 2 (c),[40] Rule 41, of the Revised Rules of
Court provides that a decision or order of the RTC may, as done in the instant
petition, be appealed to the Supreme Court by petition for review
on certiorari under Rule 45, provided that such petition raises only questions of law.
[41]
The distinction between questions of law and questions of fact are explained in the
case of Navy Officers' Village Association, Inc. (NOVAI) v. Republic of the
Philippines[42] as follows:
A question of law exists when the doubt or controversy concerns the correct
application of law or jurisprudence on a certain state of facts. The issue does not
call for an examination of the probative value of the evidence presented, the truth
or falsehood of the facts being admitted. In contrast, a question of fact exists when
a doubt or difference arises as to the truth or falsehood of facts or when the query
invites the calibration of the whole evidence considering mainly the credibility of the
witnesses; the existence and relevancy of specific surrounding circumstances, as
well as their relation to each other and to the whole; and the probability of the
situation.
In the case at bar, the petitioners raise questions of law in disputing the denial by
the RTC in the application of C.A. No. 141 to impose the legal easement of right-ofway to the subject property, and the application of Section 8 (Expropriation) of the
IRR of R.A. No. 8974 instead of Section 5 (Quit Claim) in the acquisition of the said
property.
Essentially, the issue for resolution of this Court is whether the petitioners are liable
for just compensation in enforcing the Government's legal easement of right-of-way
on the subject property which originated from the 7,759 square-meter of public
land awarded by free patent to the predecessor-in-interest of the Spouses Regulto.
Petitioners allege that a legal easement of right-of-way exists in favor of the
Government since the land in controversy was originally public land awarded by
free patent to the Spouses Regulto's predecessors-in-interest.
The RTC, however, ruled that the provision of C.A. No. 141 regarding the easement
of right-of-way in favor of the government is not applicable to the subject property
since the law is clearly meant for lands granted gratuitously by the government in
favor of individuals tasked to make it agriculturally productive.[43] It ruled that the
subject property is already a private property since the Spouses Regulto acquired
the same through a deed of absolute sale from the spouses Bienvenido and Beatriz
Santos in February 1994, and that the same originated from the property covered
by TCT No. 24027.[44]
This Court finds that the RTC erroneously ruled that the provisions of C.A. No. 141
are not applicable to the case at bar. On the contrary, this Court held that "a legal
easement of right-of-way exists in favor of the Government over land that was
originally a public land awarded by free patent even if the land is subsequently sold
to another."[45] This Court has expounded that the "ruling would be otherwise if the
land was originally a private property, to which just compensation must be paid for
the taking of a part thereof for public use as an easement of right-of-way." [46]
It is undisputed that the subject property originated from and was a part of a
7,759-square-meter property covered by free patent registered under OCT No. 235.
[47]
furthermore, the Spouses Regulto's transfer certificate of title, which the RTC
relied, contained the reservation: "subject to the provisions of the Property
Registration Decree and the Public Land Act, as well as to those of the Mining Law,
if the land is mineral, and subject, further, to such conditions contained in the
original title as may be subsisting."[48]
Jurisprudence settles that one of the reservations and conditions under the Original
Certificate of Title of land granted by free patent is that the said land is subject "to
all conditions and public easements and servitudes recognized and prescribed by
law especially those mentioned in Sections 109, 110, 111, 112, 113 and 114,
Commonwealth Act No. 141, as amended."[49]
Section 112 of C.A. No. 141, as amended, provides that lands granted by patent
shall be subjected to a right-of-way in favor of the Government, to wit:
Sec. 112. Said land shall further be subject to a right-of-way not exceeding
sixty (60) meters on width for public highways, railroads, irrigation ditches,
aqueducts, telegraph and telephone lines, airport runways, including sites
necessary for terminal buildings and other government structures needed for full
operation of the airport, as well as areas and sites for government buildings for
Resident and/or Project Engineers needed in the prosecution of governmentinfrastructure projects, and similar works as the Government or any public or quasipublic service or enterprise, including mining or forest concessionaires, may
reasonably require for carrying on their business, with damages for the
improvements only.
Government officials charged with the prosecution of these projects or their
representatives are authorized to take immediate possession of the portion of the
property subject to the lien as soon as the need arises and after due notice to the
owners. It is however, understood that ownership over said properties shall
immediately revert to the title holders should the airport be abandoned or when the
infrastructure projects are completed and buildings used by project engineers are
abandoned or dismantled, but subject to the same lien for future improvements. [50]
In other words, lands granted by patent shall be subject to a right-of-way not
exceeding 60 meters in width for public highways, irrigation ditches, aqueducts, and
other similar works of the government or any public enterprise, free of charge,
except only for the value of the improvements existing thereon that may be
affected.[51]
We are not persuaded with the ruling of the RTC that the government waived the
encumbrance imposed by C.A. No. 141 (Public Land Act) when it did not oppose the
subdivision of the original property covered by the free patent. The reservation and
condition contained in the OCT of lands granted by free patent, like the origins of
the subject property, is not limited by any time period, thus, the same is subsisting.
[52]
This subsisting reservation contained in the transfer certificate of title of the
Spouses Regulto belies such supposition that the Government waived the
enforcement of its legal easement of right-of-way on the subject property when it
did not oppose to the subdivision of the property in 1995.
Petitioners allege that since the property in controversy was originally acquired
under the provisions of special laws, particularly C.A. No. 141, then Section 5 of the
IRR of R.A. No. 8974 should be applied in the present case. Petitioners insist that
the acquisition of the portion of the subject property is through execution of
quitclaims.
Section 5 of the IRR of R.A. No. 8974 provides:
SECTION 5. Quit Claim - If the private property or land is acquired under the
provisions of Special Laws, particularly Commonwealth Act No. 141, known as
the Public Land Act, which provides a 20-meter strip of land easement by the
government for public use with damages to improvements only, P.D. No. 635 which
increased the reserved area to a 60-meter strip, and P.D. No. 1361 which
authorizes government officials charged with the prosecution of projects or their
representative to take immediate possession of portion of the property subject to
the lien as soon as the need arises and after due notice to the owners, then a quit
claim from the owners concerned shall be obtained by the Implementing
Agency. No payment by the government shall be made for land acquired
under the quit claim mode.[53]
With the existence of the said easement of right-of-way in favor of the Government,
the petitioners may appropriate the portion of the land necessary for the
construction of the bypass road without paying for it, except for damages to the
improvements. Consequently, the petitioners are ordered to obtain the necessary
quitclaim deed from the Spouses Regulto for the 162-square-meter strip of land to
be utilized in the bypass road project.
It is noted that the 162 square meters of the subject property traversed by the
bypass road project is well within the limit provided by the law. While this Court
concurs that the petitioners are not obliged to pay just compensation in the
enforcement of its easement of right-of-way to lands which originated from public
lands granted by free patent, we, however, rule that petitioners are not free from
any liability as to the consequence of enforcing the said right-of-way granted over
the original 7,759-square-meter property to the 300-square-meter property
belonging to the Spouses Regulto.
There is "taking," in the context of the State's inherent power of eminent domain,
when the owner is actually deprived or dispossessed of his property; when there is
a practical destruction or material impairment of the value of his property or when
he is deprived of the ordinary use thereof.[54] Using one of these standards, it is
apparent that there is taking of the remaining area of the property of the Spouses
Regulto. It is true that no burden was imposed thereon, and that the spouses still
retained title and possession of the property. The fact that more than half of the
property shall be devoted to the bypass road will undoubtedly result in material
impairment of the value of the property. It reduced the subject property to an area
of 138 square meters.
Thus, the petitioners are liable to pay just compensation over the remaining area of
the subject property, with interest thereon at the rate of six percent (6%) per
annum from the date of writ of possession or the actual taking until full payment is
made.
The case of Republic v. Hon. Jesus M. Mupas[55] elucidated just compensation in this
language:
Just compensation is defined as "the full and fair equivalent of the property taken
from its owner by the expropriator." The word "just" is used to qualify the meaning
of the word "compensation" and to convey the idea that the amount to be tendered
for the property to be taken shall be real, substantial, full and ample. On the other
hand, the word "compensation" means "a full indemnity or remuneration for the
loss or damage sustained by the owner of property taken or injured for public use."
Simply stated, just compensation means that the former owner must be returned to
the monetary equivalent of the position that the owner had when the taking
occurred. To achieve this monetary equivalent, we use the standard value of "fair
market value" of the property at the time of the filing of the complaint for
expropriation or at the time of the taking of property, whichever is earlier.[56]
Consequently, the case is remanded to the court of origin for the purpose of
determining the final just compensation for the remaining area of the subject
property. The RTC is thereby ordered to make the determination of just
compensation payable to the respondents Spouses Regulto with deliberate dispatch.
The RTC is cautioned to make a determination based on the parameters set forth by
law and jurisprudence regarding just compensation.
WHEREFORE, the petition for review on certiorari dated July 10, 2012 filed by the
Republic of the Philippines as represented by the Department of Public Works and
Highways; Engineer Simplicio D. Gonzales, District Engineer, Second Engineering
District of Camarines Sur; and Engineer Victorino M. Del Socorro, Jr., Project
Engineer, DPWH, Baras, Canaman, Camarines Sur, is hereby PARTIALLY
GRANTED.
The case is hereby REMANDED to the Regional Trial Court of Naga City, Branch 62
for the determination of the final just compensation of the compensable area
consisting of 138 square meters, with interest thereon at the rate of six percent
(6%) per annum from the date of writ of possession or the actual taking until full
payment is made.
SO ORDERED.
Velasco, Jr., (Chairperson), Perez, Reyes, and Perlas-Bernabe,* JJ., concur.
May 25, 2016

NOTICE OF JUDGMENT
Sirs / Mesdames:
Very truly yours,

Designated Additional Member in lieu of Associate Justice Francis H. Jardeleza, per

Raffle dated September 14, 2014.
*
[1]
Penned by Judge Antonio C.A. Ayo, Jr., rollo, pp. 36-38.
[2]
Rollo, p. 46.
[3]
Id.
[4]
Id. at 54.
[5]
Id. at 47.
[6]
Id. at 38.
[7]
Id. at 60.
[8]
Id. at 61.
[9]
Id.
[10]
Id.
[11]
Id.
[12]
Id. at 62.
[13]
Id.
[14]
Id. at 45.
[15]
Id. at 47.
[16]
Id. at 49.
[17]
Id. at 64-72.
[18]
Id. at 66.
[19]
Id. at 69-70.
[20]
Id. at 73.
[21]
Id.
[22]
Id.
[23]
Id. at 74-92.
FURTHER AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION ONE HUNDRED TWELVE OF

COMMONWEALTH ACT NUMBERED ONE HUNDRED FORTY-ONE, AS AMENDED BY
PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NUMBERED SIX HUNDRED THIRTY-FIVE
[24]
[25]
Rollo, p. 78.
An Act to Facilitate the Acquisition of Right-of-Way, Site or Location for National

Government Infrastructure Projects and for Other Purposes.
[26]
[27]
Rollo, pp. 80-81.
[28]
Id. at 89.
[29]
Id. at 96-10.3.
[30]
Id. at 104.
[31]
Id.
[32]
Id.
[33]
Id. at 105.
[34]
Id.
[35]
Id. at 38.
[36]
Id.
[37]
Id.
[38]
Rollo, pp. 19-20.
Dio v. Subic Bay Marine Exploratorium, Inc., G.R. No. 189532, June 11, 2014,
726 SCRA 244, 252.
[39]
[40]
Section 2. Modes of appeal.
(c) Appeal by certiorari. In all cases where only questions of law are raised or
involved, the appeal shall be to the Supreme Court by petition for review
on certiorariin accordance with the Rule 45.
[41]
Dio v. Subic Bay Marine Exploratorium, Inc., supra note 39.
[42]
G.R. No. 177168, August 3, 2015. (Citations omitted)
[43]
Rollo, p. 38.
[44]
Id.
[45]
NIA v. Court of Appeals, 395 Phil. 48, 56 (2000).
[46]
Id.
[47]
Rollo, pp. 39-44, Annex B, OCT No. 235.
[48]
Id. at 54-55, Annex A, TCT No. 086-2010000231.
[49]
NIA v. Court of Appeals, supra note 45, at 55.
[50]
Emphasis supplied.
[51]
Republic v. Andaya, 552 Phil. 40, 45 (2007).
[52]
NIA v. Court of Appeals, supra note 45, at 55.
[53]
Emphasis supplied.
Republic of the Philippines, rep. by the National Power Corporation v. Heirs of

Saturnino Q. Borbon, et al., G.R. No. 165354, January 12, 2015, citing Ansaldo v.
Tantuico, Jr., 266 Phil 319, 323 (1990).
[54]
[55]
G.R. Nos. 181892, 209917, 209696 & 209731, September 8, 2015.
[56]
Citation omitted.

G.R.
No.
195552
ACS DEVELOPMENT & PROPERTY MANAGERS, INC., PETITIONER, VS. MONTAIRE REALTY AND DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION,
April 18, 2016
RESPONDENT.
THIRD DIVISION
[ G.R. No. 195552, April 18, 2016 ]
ACS DEVELOPMENT & PROPERTY MANAGERS, INC.,
PETITIONER, VS. MONTAIRE REALTY AND DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION, RESPONDENT.
RESOLUTION
REYES, J.:
Before the Court is a Petition for Certiorari[1] filed by ACS Development & Property
Managers, Inc. (ADPROM) against Mont-Aire[2] Realty and Development Corporation
(MARDC) to assail the Decision[3] dated March 28, 2000 and Resolution[4] dated
November 9, 2010 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 48805, which
affirmed with modification the Decision[5] dated August 17, 1998 of the Construction
Industry Arbitration Commission (CIAC) in CIAC Case No. 32-97.
ADPROM and MARDC were parties to a Construction Agreement[6] executed on April
25, 1996, whereby ADPROM, as contractor, was to construct 17 units of MARDC's
Villa Fresca Townhomes in Barangay Kaybagal, Tagaytay City. The total
consideration for the contract was P39,500,000.00, inclusive of labor, materials,
supervision and taxes. ADPROM was to be paid periodically based on monthly
progress billings, less 10% retention.[7] Angel Lazaro & Associates (ALA) was hired
by MARDC as the project's construction manager.[8]
The parties later amended their Construction Agreement, reducing the number of
units to be erected to 11 and the total contract price to P25,500,000.00. On May 2,
1996, ADPROM commenced with the construction of the townhouses. [9]
MARDC fully satisfied ADPROM'S Progress Billing Nos. 1 to 8 for a total amount of
P23,169,183.43. In Progress Billing No. 9 for work performed in February 1997,
ADPROM demanded from MARDC the amount of P1,495,345.24. [10] ALA, however,
approved the payment of only P94,460.28, as it disputed specific amounts in the
billing, including cost additives.[11] ADPROM refused to allow a reduction in its
demanded amount. In a letter[12] dated March 14, 1997, it even insisted on
MARDC's acceptance of the accomplishments identified in Progress Billing No. 9
before it could proceed further with construction works. Beginning March 18, 1997,
when Progress Billing No. 9 remained unpaid, ADPROM decided on a work
stoppage.[13]
The stoppage prompted MARDC to serve upon ADPROM on March 20, 1997 a notice
of default.[14] After several meetings among the parties and ADPROM's issuance of
consolidated Progress Billing Nos. 9 and 10[15] intended to supersede the contested
Progress Billing No. 9, ALA still advised MARDC to defer the payment of ADPROM's
demand.[16] ADPROM's consolidated billing of P1,778,682.06 was still greater than
ALA's approved amount of P1,468,348.60.[17]
On June 5, 1997, MARDC decided to terminate the subject Construction Agreement.
[18]
It demanded from ADPROM the return of alleged overpayments amounting to
P11,188,539.69, after it determined from ALA that ADPROM's accomplished work
constituted only 54.67%. An evaluation by another firm hired by MARDC, TCGI
Engineers, also provided that ADPROM'S work accomplishment was only at 46.98%.
[19]
Feeling aggrieved, ADPROM instituted with the CIAC a case for sum of money
against MARDC, which in turn filed its own counterclaim against ADPROM.
On August 17, 1998, the CIAC rendered its Decision [20] that concluded with the
following awards:
IX. SUMMARY OF AWARD
The Tribunal therefore makes the summary of award as follows:
A. FOR [ADPROM]
Claims
Award
P1,468,348.60P1,468,348.60
19,755.23 109,824.43*
1. Unpaid Billings
2. Interest on Billings
3. Refund of
accumulated 10%
2,806,814.00 2,806,814.00
retention
4. Interest on retention
202,396.71
0.00
Total
P4,497,314.54P4,384,987.03
[* computed at 6% per annum from 19 May 1997 up to 17 August 1998, the date
of the promulgation of this award]
B. FOR [MARDC]
1. Refund for
P11,188,539.69
overpayment
2. Interest on
167,828.10
overpayment
3. Liquidated Damages 6,517,500.00
Total
P17,873,867.7
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
9
C. NET AWARD for CLAIMANT
P4,384,987.03
NET
AWARD
84,987.03
P4,3
X. AWARD
[MARDC] therefore is ordered to pay [ADPROM] the amount of PESOS FOUR
MILLION [THREE] HUNDRED [EIGHTY-FOUR] THOUSAND [NINE] HUNDRED
[EIGHTY-SEVEN] AND [03]/100 (P4,384,987.03) within fifteen (15) days from
receipt of notice hereof. Interest of twelve percent (12%) per annum shall be
charged on said amount or any balance thereof from the time due until fully paid. [21]
Ruling of the CA
Dissatisfied, MARDC appealed the CIAC decision to the CA via a petition for review.
On March 28, 2000, the CA rendered its Decision [22] deleting the award of interest
on unpaid billings, and holding ADPROM liable to MARDC for liquidated damages at
P39,500.00 per calendar day from March 20, 1997 until September 1, 1997. Thus,
the dispositive portion of the CA decision reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the assailed Decision of [CIAC] is hereby
MODIFIED. It is affirmed in part, insofar as it awards [ADPROM] its unpaid billings
and the refund of its retention. The award of interest on the unpaid billings is set
aside for lack of merit. Finally, [ADPROM] is hereby held liable to [MARDC] for
liquidated damages in the amount of Thirty[-]Nine Thousand Five Hundred Pesos
(Php39,500.00) per calendar day, computed from March 20, 1997, the dale
ADPROM was served a notice of default for unjustified work stoppage, until
September 1, 1997, when [MARDC] contracted another construction corporation,
the Ulanday Contractors, Inc., to complete the project.
SO ORDERED.[23]
ADPROM filed a motion for reconsideration while MARDC filed a motion for partial
reconsideration. Both motions were denied by the CA in its Resolution [24] dated
November 9, 2010.
Unyielding, ADPROM filed the Petition for Certiorari before this Court arguing that
the CA gravely abused its discretion in deleting the award of interest on unpaid
billings and in ordering it to pay liquidated damages.
Ruling of the Court
The Court dismisses the petition.

At the outset, the Court emphasizes that ADPROM availed of the wrong remedy
when it filed with the Court a petition for certiorari to question the CA decision that
reviewed the CIAC's rulings. Instead of filing a petition for certiorari under Rule 65
of the Rules of Court, ADPROM should have filed a petition for review under Rule
45.[25] In Spouses Leynes v. Former Tenth Division of the CA, et al.,[26] the Court
emphasized:
The proper remedy of a party aggrieved by a decision of the [CA] is a petition for
review under Rule 45 which is not similar to a petition for certiorari under Rule 65
of the Rules of Court. As provided in Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, decisions, final
orders, or resolutions of the [CA] in any case, i.e., regardless of the nature of the
action or proceedings involved, may be appealed to us by filing a petition for
review, which would be but a continuation of the appellate process over the original
case. A special civil action under Rule 65 is an independent action based on the
specific grounds therein provided and, as a general rule, cannot be availed of as a
substitute for the lost remedy of an ordinary appeal, including that under Rule 45.
Accordingly, when a party adopts an improper remedy, his petition may be
dismissed outright.[27]
Even granting that the Court adopts a liberal application of the rules and treats the
present petition as a petition for review, there still exists no cogent reason for a
reversal of the rulings made by the CA.
The appellate court sufficiently explained its bases in modifying the CIAC's
monetary awards. As regards the deletion of the interest on the unpaid billings, the
CA explained that with the parties' agreement that ALA would have to first approve
ADPROM's progress billings before MARDC would be obligated to pay, the latter did
not incur any delay in the payment of ADPROM's demands. On the award of
liquidated damages, the CA cited ADPROM's unjustified work stoppage that resulted
in MARDC's clear disadvantage. Even the non-payment of its demands upon MARDC
failed to justify ADPROM's decision, given its own refusal to adjust its billings in
accordance with the findings of ALA. Moreover, the subject Construction Agreement
provided that in case of disputes that would arise from the contract, the parties
should strive to resolve them through an amicable settlement. [28]
The foregoing pronouncements of the CA were in accord with the pertinent
provisions of the parties' Construction Agreement. First, ADPROM was not entitled
to CIAC's awarded interest of P109,824.43, whicli was supposedly computed based
on the unpaid billings at six percent (6%) per annum from May 19, 1997 up to the
date of promulgation of the CIAC decision.[29] Specifically on the accrual of MARDC's
obligation to pay for work perfomied by ADPROM, the parties deemed necessary the
prior approval by ALA of the billings to be paid, as recognized in the following

stipulations:
Article III
SCOPE OF OWNER'S RESPONSIBILITY
3.1 [MARDC] shall make payments directly to [ADPROM] based on the latter''s
progress billing as approved by [ALA].
Article IV
CONTRACT PRICE AND TERMS OF PAYMENT
xxxx
4.2 Terms of Payment
xxx
x
4.2.3[MARDC] shall pay [ADPROM] within seven (7) working days from receipt of the
progress billing submitted by [ADPROM], duly approved by [ALA].
xxx
x
4.2.5All payments/releases shall be effected strictly in accordance with the "Scope of Works,
Cost Breakdown and Weight Percentage for Billing" attached as Annexes A and C and the
stipulations herein provided and upon presentment by [ADPROM] of a written certification
certifying as to the percentage of completion and accompanied by a certificate attesting to
the said percentage of completion and recommending approval by [ALA] for the
appropriate payment thereof, subject to the warranties and obligations of [ADPROM].
[30]
(Emphasis ours)
Clearly, given its consent to the foregoing conditions, ADPROM could not have
compelled MARDC to satisfy the unpaid billings unless and until its progress billings
had been approved by ALA. In the same vein, no default could be attributed to
MARDC in the absence of such action from ALA. Records indicate that as of May 9,
1997, pending the settlement of the disputed matters between the parties, ALA
only recommended payment by MARDC of the reduced amount of P1,468,348.60.
[31]
ADPROM then could neither fault nor penalize MARDC for its deferment of the
demanded amounts. On the other hand, in withliolding approval, ALA made clear its
grounds for refusing to agree on the full amount of ADPROM's claim.
Contrary to the statement of ADPROM in its petition that ALA later approved on
April 4, 1997 the payment of the consolidated Progress Billing Nos. 9 and 10, the
minutes of the meeting among representatives of MARDC, ADPROM and ALA on
even date indicated that the consolidated billings were then still subject to
evaluation.[32] Records even show that as of May 9, 1997, there were still items in
the billings that were being contested by ALA, already made known to ADPROM. [33]
The CA's award of liquidated damages upon MARDC was also supported by
sufficient bases. In justifying the award, the appellate court correctly cited the
unjustified decision of ADPROM to cease in its construction of MARDC's townhouse
project. The pending conflict between the parties on the unpaid billings was not a
sufficient ground for such recourse. Article XIII, Section 13.1 of the Construction
Agreement even provided that "[t]he parties shall attempt to settle any dispute
arising from the Agreement amicably."[34]
The Court reiterates that MARDC was allowed under the parties' contract to rely on
the findings of ALA on the percentage of completion and the appropriate payment
that should be given therefor, and to act in accordance with such findings. However,
beginning March 18, 1997, at a time when no approval for full payment was as yet
issued by ALA, ADPROM proceeded with its threat to cease working on the
townhouse project already conveyed in its letter dated March 14, 1997. Such work
stoppage by ADPROM was not based on justifiable grounds, and thus rendered
applicable the following agreement of the parties on liability for liquidated damages:
Article IX
LIQUIDATED DAMAGES
9.1. [ADPROM] acknowledges that time is of the essence of this Agreement and that any
unexcused day of delay as determined in accordance with [S]ection 5.1 hereof as defined in
the general conditions of this Agreement will result in injury or damages to [MARDC], in
view of which, the parties have hereto agreed that for every calendar day of unexcused
delay in the completion of its Work under this Agreement, [ADPROM] shall pay [MARDC]
the sum of Thirty[-]Nine Thousand Five Hundred (P39,500.00) per calendar day as
liquidated damages. Said amount is equivalent to 1/10 of 1% of the Total Contract Price.
Liquidated damages under this provision may be deducted by [MARDC] from the stipulated
Contract Price or any balance thereof, or to any progress billings due [ADPROM].[35]
Section 5.1 of Article V referred to in the aforequoted provision provides that the
townhouse project shall be completed within 180 calendar days, to be effective
from the date of the agreement's execution, MARDC's payment of the required
down payment and the issuance of a Notice to Proceed. [36] Based on records, the
parties agreed on an extension of the period to complete the project until April 30,
1997.[37]
There clearly was an unexcused delay in the completion of the project because of
ADPROM's decision on a work stoppage. Given the terms of the Construction
Agreement, ADPROM neither had the authority to terminate their contract, nor to
unilaterally decide to discontinue a prompt performance of its duties under the
agreement, especially after no default could as yet be attributed to MARDC. Records
indicate that MARDC had been prompt in the payment of Progress Billing Nos. 1 to
8 for the period covering June 1996 to January 1997, having already paid a total
amount of P23,169,183.43 for the construction of the townhouses. The dispute only
arose from the February 1997 billing. ADPROM's unilateral and hasty decision to
cease constructing, and the consequent delay in the project's completion, then
made it liable for the stipulated liquidated damages. In Philippine Charter Insurance
Corporation v. Petroleum Distributors & Services Corporation,[38] the Court
reiterated:
Article 2226 of the Civil Code allows the parties to a contract to stipulate on
liquidated damages to be paid in case of breach. It is attached to an obligation in
order to insure performance and has a double function: (1) to provide for liquidated
damages, and (2) to strengthen the coercive force of the obligation by the threat of
greater responsibility in the event of breach. As a general rule, contracts constitute
the law between the parties, and they are bound by its stipulations. For as long as
they are not contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order or public policy,
the contracting parties may establish such stipulations, clauses, terms and
conditions as they may deem convenient.[39] (Citations omitted)
Subsequent to the execution of the Construction Agreement, the parties decided to
vary the terms of their contract by reducing the project's number of units and the
corresponding contract price. There was nonetheless no indication that they
resolved to reduce the amount of liquidated damages to be paid by ADPROM in the
event of its unexcused delay. The foregoing circumstances also do not affect
ADPROM's entitlement to the unpaid billings of P1,468,348.60, after it was
established before the CIAC and by the CA that work for such value had been
completed by the company.[40] MARDC then rightly had to compensate ADPROM for
such amount, together with the 10% retention of P2,806,814.00.
The imposable interest on the monetary awards after their finality must however be
clarified, as the CA made no pronouncement on the CIAC's award of interest on the
total money judgment, pegged by the CIAC at the rate of 12% per annum from the
time they become due until full payment. To be consistent with prevailing
jurisprudence, this must be modified in that all monetary awards shall bear interest
at the rate of only six percent (6%) per annum, and to be computed from the time
the awards attain finality until full payment thereof.[41]
WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED. The Decision dated March 28, 2000 and
Resolution dated November 9, 2010 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No.
48805 are AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in that the monetary awards to the
parties shall bear interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the time
the awards become final until full satisfaction thereof.
SO ORDERED.
May 25, 2016

NOTICE OF JUDGMENT
Sirs / Mesdames:
Very truly yours,

Division/Clerk of Court
[1]
Rollo, pp. 2-72.
[2]
Montaire in the Petition for Certiorari.
Penned by Associate Justice Elvi John S. Asuncion, with Associate Justices Corona
Ibay-Somera and Portia Alio-Hormachuelos concurring; rollo, pp. 311-317.
[3]
Penned by Associate Justice Jane Aurora C. Lantion, with Associate Justices

Josefina Guevara-Salonga and Japar B. Dimaampao concurring; id. at 319-320.
[4]
[5]
Id. at 80-09.
[6]
Id. at 105-111.
[7]
Id. at 107.
[8]
Id. at 312.
[9]
Id. at 81.
[10]
Id. at 261.
[11]
Id. at 268-269.
[12]
Id. at 271-272.
[13]
Id. at 271-275, 312.
[14]
Id. at 273.
[15]
Id. at 283.
[16]
Id. at 284, 312.
[17]
Id. at 283.
[18]
Id. at 289.
[19]
Id. at 312-313.
[20]
Id. at 80-99.
[21]
Id. at 98-99.
[22]
Id. at 311-317.
[23]
Id. at 317.
[24]
Id. at 319-320.
[25]
See Phil. Commercial Int'l. Bank v. CA, 452 Phil. 542, 551 (2003).
[26]
655 Phil. 25 (2011).
[27]
Id. at 44-45.
[28]
Rollo, pp. 315-316.
[29]
Id. at 99.
[30]
Id. at 107.
[31]
Id. at 312.
[32]
Id. at 279-280.
[33]
Id. at 284-286.
[34]
Id. at 109-A.
[35]
Id. at 109.
[36]
Id. at 107.
[37]
Id. at 97, 260.
[38]
686 Phil. 154 (2012).
[39]
Id. at 164-165.
[40]
Rollo, p. 283.
S.C. Megaworld Construction and Development Corporation v. Parada, G.R. No.

183804, September 11, 2013, 705 SCRA 584, 609.
[41]

G.R.
No.
197136
ROMEO PUCYUTAN, FOR AND IN BEHALF OF THE CITY OF MUNTINLUPA, METRO MANILA AS ITS CITY TREASURER,
PETITIONER,
VS.
MANILA
ELECTRIC
COMPANY,
April 18, 2016
April 18, 2016
THIRD DIVISION
INC.,
RESPONDENT.
[ G.R. No. 197136, April 18, 2016 ]

ROMEO PUCYUTAN, FOR AND IN BEHALF OF THE CITY OF
MUNTINLUPA, METRO MANILA AS ITS CITY TREASURER,
PETITIONER, VS. MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY, INC.,
RESPONDENT.
DECISION
PERALTA, J.:
For this Court's consideration is the Petition for Review on Certiorari,[1] under Rule
45 of the Rules of Court, dated July 4, 2011 of petitioner Romeo Pucyutan, for and
in behalf of the City of Muntinlupa as its City Treasurer, seeking the reversal of the
Decision[2] dated October 22, 2010 and Resolution[3] dated May 27, 2011, both of
the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA G.R. SP No. 108266 that affirmed the Orders dated
September 4, 2006[4] and October 14, 2008[5] of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
Makati City ruling that respondent Manila Electric Company, Inc. (MERALCO) was
not furnished with a notice of assessment.
The facts follow.
MERALCO, a duly-organized Philippine corporation engaged in the distribution of
electricity, erected four (4) power-generating plants in Sucat, Muntinlupa, namely,
the Gardner I, Gardner II, Snyder I and Snyder II from 1969 to 1972. Thereafter,
on December 29, 1978, MERALCO sold all the said power-generating plants,
including their landsites, to the National Power Corporation (NAPOCOR).
Sometime in 1985, the Assessor of Muntinlupa, while reviewing records pertaining
to assessment and collection of real property taxes, allegedly discovered that for
the period beginning January 1, 1976 to December 29, 1978, MERALCO
misdeclared and/or failed to declare for taxation purposes a number of real
properties consisting of several equipment and machineries found in the earlier
mentioned power-generating plants. The Municipal Assessor, upon its review of the
sale between MERALCO and NAPOCOR, found that the true value of the machineries
and equipment in said power plants were misdeclared, and accordingly determined
and assessed their value for taxation purposes for the years 1977 to 1978, as later
reflected in Tax Declaration Nos. T-009005486 to T-05506.
A certification of non-payment of real property taxes was issued, and notices of
delinquency were accordingly posted when MERALCO failed to pay taxes as
assessed by said tax declarations and, on October 4, 1990, the Municipal Treasurer
issued Warrants of Garnishment attaching MERALCO's bank deposits in three (3)

different banks equivalent to its unpaid real property taxes.
Thereafter, MERALCO filed before the RTC a Petition for Prohibition with prayer for
Writ of Preliminary Mandatory Injunction and/or Temporary Restraining Order (TRO)
which eventually reached this Court, and on June 29, 2004, [6] with the then Acting
Municipal Treasurer Nelia A. Barlis as respondent, this Court rendered a Resolution
that partly reads as follows:
This Court finds and so rules that the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion
amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction in declaring that [MERALCO] is not the
taxpayer liable for the taxes due claimed by [BARLIS]. Indeed, in its May 18, 2001
Decision, this Court ruled:
The fact that NAPOCOR is the present owner of the Sucat power plant machineries
and equipment does not constitute a legal barrier to the collection of delinquent
taxes from the previous owner, MERALCO, who has defaulted in its payment. x x x
However, the Court holds that the RTC did not commit any grave abuse of discretion
when it denied [BARLIS1] motion to dismiss on the claim that for [MERALCO's]
failure to appeal from the 1986 notice of assessment of the Municipal Assessor, the
assessment had become final and enforceable under Section 64 of P.D. No. 454.
Section 22 of P.D. No. 464 states that, upon discovery of real property, the
provincial, city or municipal assessor shall have an appraisal and assessment of
such real property in accordance with Section 5 of the law, irrespective of any
previous assessment or taxpayer's valuation thereon. The provincial, city or
municipal assessor is tasked to determine the assessed value of the property
meaning the value placed on taxable property for ad valorem tax purposes. The
assessed value multiplied by the tax rate will produce the amount of tax due. It is
synonymous to taxable value.
An assessment fixes and determines the tax liability of a taxpayer. It is a notice to
the effect that the amount therein stated is due as tax and a demand for payment
thereof. The assessor is mandated under Section 27 of the law to give written
notice within thirty days of such assessment, to the person in whose name the
property is declared. The notice should indicate the kind of property being
assessed, its actual use and market value, the assessment level and the assessed
value. The notice may be delivered either personally to such person or to the
occupant in possession, if any, or by mail, to the last known address of the person
to be served, or through the assistance of the barrio captain. The issuance of a
notice of assessment by the local assessor shall be his last action on a particular
assessment. For purposes of giving effect to such assessment, it is deemed made
when the notice is released, mailed or sent to a taxpayer. As soon as the notice is
duly served, an obligation arises on the part of the taxpayer to pay the amount
assessed and demanded.
If the taxpayer is not satisfied with the action of the local assessor in the
assessment of his property, he has the right, under Section 30 of P.D. No. 464, to
appeal to the Local Board of Assessment Appeals by filing a verified petition within
sixty (60) days from service of said notice of assessment. If the taxpayer fails to
appeal in due course, the right of the local government to collect the taxes due
becomes absolute upon the expiration of such period, with respect to the taxpayer's
property. The action to collect the taxes due is akin to an action to enforce a
judgment. It bears stressing, however, that Section 30 of P.D. No. 464 pertains to
the assessment and valuation of the property for purposes of real estate taxation.
Such provision does not apply where what is questioned is the imposition of the tax
assessed and who should shoulder the burden of the tax.
Comformably to Section 57 of P.D. No. 464, it is the local treasurer who is tasked
with collecting taxes due from the taxpayer. x x x
xxxx
In this case, [MERALCO] denied receiving copies of Tax Declarations Nos. B-0095501 to B-009-5494 prepared by the respondent Municipal Assessor in 1985. In the
face of [MERALCO's] denial, the respondent was burdened to prove the service of
the tax declarations on the petitioner. While the respondent alleged in his Comment
on the Petition at bar that the Municipal Assessor furnished the petitioner with
copies of the said tax declarations on November 29, 1985, the only proof preferred
by the respondent to prove such claim was the receipt signed by a certain Basilio
Afuang dated November 29, 1985. The records foiled to show the connection of
Basilio Afuang to the petitioner, or that he was authorized by the petitioner to
receive the owner's copy of the said tax declaration from the Office of the Municipal
Assessor. We note that the respondent even failed to append a copy of the said
receipt in its motion to dismiss in the trial court. Conformably, this Court, in its May
18, 2001 Decision, declared as follows:
. . . The records, however, are bereft of any evidence showing actual receipt by
petitioner of the real property tax declaration sent by the Municipal Assessor.
However, the respondent in a Petition for Certiorari (G.R. No. 100763) filed with
this Court which later referred the same to the Court of Appeals for resolution,
narrated that "the municipal assessor assessed and declared the afore-listed
properties for taxation purposes as of 28 November 1985." Significantly, in the
same petition, respondent referred to former Municipal Treasurer Norberto A. San
Mateo's notices to MERALCO, all dated 3 September 1986, as notices of assessment
and not notices of collection as it claims in this present petition. Respondent cannot
maintain diverse positions.
The question that now comes to [the] fore is, whether the respondent's Letters to
the [MERALCO] dated September 3, 1986 and October 31, 1989, respectively, are
mere collection letters as contended by the petitioner and as held by this Court in
its February 1, 2002 Resolution; or, as claimed by the respondent and as ruled by
this Court in its May 18, 2001 Decision, are notices of assessment envisaged in
Section 27 of P.D. No. 464.
xxxx
The Court, in its February 1, 2002 Resolution, upheld the petitioner's contention
and ruled that the aforequoted letter/notices are not notices of assessment
evisaged in Section 27 of P.D. No. 464. Thus:
xxxx
Upon careful review of the records of this case and the applicable jurisprudence, we
find that it is the contention of [MERALCO] and the ruling of this Court in its
February 1, 2002 Resolution which is correct. Indeed, even the respondent
admitted in his comment on the petition that:
Indeed, respondent did not issue any notice of assessment because statutorily, he
is not the proper officer obliged to do so. Under Chapter VII, Sections 90 and 90-A
of the Real Property Tax Code, the functions related to the appraisal and
assessment for tax purposes of real properties situated within a municipality
pertains to the Municipal Deputy Assessor and for the municipalities within the
Metropolitan Manila, the same is lodged, pursuant to P.D. No. 921, on the Municipal
Assessor.
Consequently then, Sections 30 and 64 of P.D. No. 464 had no application in the
case before the trial. The petitioner's action for prohibition was not premature.
Hence, the Court of Appeals erred in rendering judgment granting the petition
for certiorari of [BARLIS].
Moreover, the petitioner, in its petition for prohibition before the court a quo, denied
liability for the taxes claimed by the respondent, asserting that if at all, it is the
NAPOCOR, as the present owner of the machineries/equipment, that should be held
liable for such taxes. The petitioner had further alleged that the assessment and
collection of the said taxes had already prescribed. Conformably to the ruling of this
Court in Testate Estate of him vs. City of Manila, Section 30 of P.D. No. 464 will not
apply.
The Court further rules that there is a need to remand the case for further
proceedings, in order for the trial court to sesolve the factual issue of
whether or not the Municipal Assessor served copies of Tax Declarations
Nos. B-009-05499 to B-009-05502 on [MERALCO], and, if in the
affirmative, when [MERALCO] received the same; and to resolve the other
issues raised by the parties in their pleadings. It bears stressing that the
Court is not a trier of facts.[7]
Respondent therein, on August 5, 2004, moved for the reconsideration of this
Court's June 29, 2004 Resolution, and on March 29, 2005, [8] this Court, En Banc
"Denied with Finality," respondent Barlis' motion for reconsideration. The resolution
partly reads:
The Court shall now address the substantive issue raised by respondent Municipal
Treasurer in his motion for reconsideration: "The applicability of Section 64 is not
dependent on the resolution of the issue of whether or not the petitioner was
furnished with Notices of Assessment."
Section 64 of RPTC reads:
Sec. 64. Restriction upon power of court to impeach tax. - No court shall entertain
any suit assailing the validity of tax assessed under this Code until the taxpayer
shall have paid, under protest, the lax assessed against him nor shall any court
declare any tax invalid by reason of irregularities or informalities in the proceedings
of the officers charged with the assessment or collection of taxes, or of failure to
perform their duties within the time specified for their performance unless such
irregularities, informalities or failure shall have impaired the substantial rights of
the taxpayer; nor shall any court declare any portion of the tax assessed under the
provisions of this Code invalid except upon condition that the taxpayer shall pay the
just amount of the tax, as determined by the court in the pending proceeding.
Respondent Municipal Treasurer adamantly asserts that whether or not petitioner
MERALCO was furnished with a notice of assessment is not necessary for the
applicability of the above provision. She hinges this assertion on the use of the term
"tax assessed," not "tax assessment," in the above provision. This allegedly means
that the moment a taxpayer is charged with the payment of a tax, he must pay the
same under protest before he may file a suit in court.
Contrary to respondent Municipal Treasurer's stance, the determination of whether
or not petitioner MERALCO was furnished with a notice of assessment is necessary
in order that Section 64 of the RPTC would apply to its petition for prohibition
before the court a quo. It must be recalled that the real property taxes sought to be
collected by the City of Muntinlupa from petitioner MERALCO are based on the
finding that it "misdeclared and/or failed to declare for taxation purposes a number
of real properties, consisting of several equipment and machineries, found in the
power plants." In other words, the said taxes are presumably based on "new or
revised assessments" made by the respondent Municipal Treasurer. In this
connection, Section 27 of the RPTC provides:
Sec. 27. Notification of New or Revised Assessments. - When a real property is
assessed for the first time or when an existing assessment is increased or
decreased, the provincial or city assessor shall within thirty days give written notice
of such new or revised assessment to the person in whose name the property is
declared. The notice may be delivered personally to such person or to the occupant
in possession, if any, or by mail to the last known address of the person to be
served, or through the assistance of the barrio captain.
The term "tax assessed" in Section 67 should, thus, be read in relation to Section
27 because the particular words, clauses and phrases in a law should not be studied
as detached and isolated expressions, but the whole and every part thereof must be
considered in fixing the meaning of any of its parts and in order to produce a
harmonious whole.
Section 64 stated that "no court shall entertain any suit assailing the validity of tax
assessed under this Code until the taxpayer shall have been paid, under protest,
the tax assessed against him . . ." However, in relation to Section 27, the taxpayer's
obligation to pay the tax assessed against him arises only upon notification of such
assessment. It bears reiterating that the assessment fixes and determines the tax
liability of the taxpayer. The basic postulate of fairness thus requires that it is only
upon notice of such assessment that the obligation of the taxpayer to pay the same
arises. As it was explained in the Resolution of June 29, 2004:
An assessment fixes and determines the tax liability of a taxpayer. It is a notice to
the effect that the amount therein stated is due as tax and a demand for payment
thereof. The assessor is mandated under Section 27 of the law to give written
notice within thirty days of such assessment, to the person in whose name the
property is declared. The notice should indicate the kind of property being
assessed, its actual use and market value, the assessment level and the assessed
value. The notice may be delivered either personally to such person or to the
occupant in possession, if any, or by mail, to the last known address of the person
to be served, or through the assistance of the barrio captain. The issuance of a
notice of assessment by the local assessor shall be his last action on a particular
assessment. For purposes of giving effect to such assessment, it is deemed made
when the notice is released, mailed or sent to the taxpayer. As soon as the notice is
duly served, an obligation arises on the part of the taxpayer to pay the amount
assessed and demanded.
It is in this light that the determination of whether or not petitioner MERALCO was
furnished with a notice of assessment is necessary in order that Section 64 of the
RPTC would apply to its petition for prohibition before the court a quo. If petitioner
MERALCO had been furnished with such notice, then its obligation to pay the real
property taxes assessed against it has already accrued. Consequently, conformably
with Section 64 of the RPTC, the court a quohas no jurisdiction over the petition for
prohibition for non-payment by petitioner MERALCO of the said taxes. As a
corollary, if petitioner MERALCO had not been furnished with such notice, then its
obligation to pay the taxes assessed against it has not, as yet, accrued. The court a
quo then has jurisdiction over petitioner MERALCO's petition for prohibition despite
non-payment of the said taxes because, in such a case, Section 64 of the RPTC is
not applicable.
As held in the Resolution of June 29, 2004, whether or not petitioner
MERALCO was furnished with a notice of assessment is a question of fact.
The determination thereof as well as the other factual issues raised by the
parties in their pleadings are best undertaken by the court a quo.
ACCORDINGLY, the Motion for Reconsideration dated August 5, 2004 of respondent
Municipal Treasurer is DENIED with FINALITY.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City, Branch 66, is hereby DIRECTED to
conduct the necessary proceedings with DISPATCH and to RESOLVE the said case
within six (6) months from notice hereof.[9]
The case was, therefore, remanded to the RTC for the determination of the question
of fact of "whether or not petitioner MERALCO was furnished with a notice of
assessment x x x as well as other factual issues raised by the parties in their
pleadings x x x."
The RTC, on May 2, 2006, rendered a Decision [10] finding that the transmittal letter
of the then Office of the Municipal Assessor of Muntinlupa and the tax declarations
received by the petitioner, through its employee Basilio Afuang in November 29,
1985, are effectively notices of assessment.
Dissatisfied, MERALCO filed a Motion for Reconsideration which the RTC granted in
an Order[11] dated September 4, 2006, stating the following, among others:
After carefully considering the arguments of the parties in their respective
pleadings, the Court reconsiders and sets aside the Decision dated May 2, 2006.
The Court finds that the municipal assessor of Muntinlupa failed to furnish
MERALCO with the mandatory notice of assessment. This is evident from
the admission of respondent that aside from Exhibits "1" to "10" and two
letters dated 3 September 1986 and 13 October 1989, no other documents
were received by MERALCO in connection with this case (Order dated 24
January 2006). The Court likewise reverses its ruling that the "transmittal
letter" of the then Office of the Municipal Assessor of Muntinlupa and the
tax declarations received by the petitioner through its employee Basilio
Afuang on November 1985 arc effectively "notices of assessment."
Article VII-K of Assessment Regulations No. 3-75 dated February 10, 1975
otherwise known as the "Rules and Regulations for the Implementation of
the Real Property Tax Code (P.D. 464)," specifically paragraph (4)
mandates that forms of notice of assessment RPA No. 7 shall be used
which may be mimeographed by assessors for their use and that "the
notice of assessment and owner's copy of the tax declaration shall be

delivered or mailed to property owners within thirty days from entry of tax
declarations covering the assessment of property in the Record of
Assessments."
Undoubtedly, therefore, the two are separate and distinct; hence, the tax
declarations and the receipt issued for said tax declarations cannot be considered
effectively [sic] notices of assessment. Assessment is deemed made when the
notice to this effect is released, mailed or sent to the taxpayer for the purpose of
giving effect to said assessment. In other words, without the notice of assessment,
there is no valid assessment.
The Court finds that there is arbitrariness and denial of due process on the part of
the respondent in his attempts to collect real estate taxes from MERALCO although
its obligation to pay the same had not yet arisen due to the failure of the municipal
assessor to furnish MERALCO with the mandated notice of assessment.
In the Resolution of March 29, 2005, this Court was mandated to determine
whether or not petitioner MERALCO was furnished with a notice of assessment.
According to the Supreme Court x x x the determination of whether or not petitioner MERALCO was furnished with a
notice of assessment is necessary in order that Section 64 of the RPTC would apply
to its petition for prohibition before the court a quo. If petitioner MERALCO had
been furnished with such notice, then its obligation to pay the real property taxes
assessed against it has already accrued. Consequently, conformably with Section 64
of the RPTC, the court a quo has no jurisdiction over the petition for prohibition for
nonpayment of petitioner MERALCO of the said taxes. As corollary, if petitioner
MERALCO had not been furnished with such notice, then its obligation to pay the
taxes assessed against it has not, as yet, accrued. The court a quo then has
jurisdiction over petitioner MERALCO's petition for prohibition despite non-payment
of the said taxes because, in such a case, Section 64 of the RPTC is not applicable.
As held in the Resolution of June 29, 2004, whether or not petitioner MERALCO was
furnished with a notice of assessment is a question of fact. The determination
thereof as well as the other factual issues raised by the parties in their pleadings
are best undertaken by the court a quo.
In view therefore of this Court's finding that petitioner MERALCO had not been
furnished with the notice of assessment, then its obligation to pay property taxes
has not accrued. This Court then has jurisdiction over MERALCO's petition for
prohibition. Likewise, MERALCO's obligation to pay the taxes has not yet accrued
and the three warrants of garnishment against petitioner's bank deposits with the
Philippines Commercial International Bank (now Equitable PCI Bank)[,] Metropolitan
Bank and Trust Company, and Bank of Philippine Islands prematurely issued by the
respondent treasurer are null and void. Any withdrawal from the bank deposits of
MERALCO by virtue of said writs of garnishment is hereby declared illegal. [12]
Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, but the same was denied in the
Order[13] dated October 14, 2008.
An appeal was, therefore, filed with the CA and in dismissing the appeal, the CA
ruled:
x x x Simply put, what the trial court was finally called upon to resolve is the factual
issue of "whether or not petitioner MERALCO was furnished with a notice of
assessment," and no longer "the factual issue of whether or not the Municipal
Assessor served copies of Tax Declaration Nos. B-009-05499 to B-009-05502 on
[MERALCO]."
xxxx
the Supreme Court could not have been clearer on its point that the tax declaration
here cannot be validly considered as a notice of assessment under Section 27 of
P.D. No. 464.
First, a tax declaration is issued pursuant to "Section 22 of P.D. No. 464" which
mandates "that upon discovery of real property, the provincial, city or municipal
assessor shall make an appraisal and assessment of such real property in
accordance with Section 5 of the law, irrespective of any previous assessment on
taxpayers valuation thereon," while a notice of assessment is issued pursuant to
Section 27 of the law which mandates the "assessor x x x to give written notice
within thirty days of such assessment, to the person in whose name the property is
declared."
Second, a tax declaration is mandated by Section 22 of P.D. No. 464 to be issued
"upon discovery" by the assessor of the "real property" to be appraised and
assessed, while a "written notice of assessment" as required by Section 27 of the
same law has to be issued by the assessor "within thirty days" from "such
assessment."
Third, no tax accrues as a result of the assessor's issuance of a tax declaration, for
at that time, the assessor is merely tasked by Section 22 of the law "to determine
the assessed value of the property, meaning, the value placed on taxable property
for ad valorem tax purposes." On the other hand, the written notice of assessment
is what ripens into a demandable tax. It is for said reason that the notice must
conform to the standards set by Section 27 of P.D. No. 464 x x x.
xxxx
In sum, the RFC could not have erred when it found "that the municipal assessor of
Muntinlupa failed to furnish MERALCO with the mandatory notice of assessment.
This is evident from the admission of respondent that aside from Exhibits "1" to
"10" and two letters dated 3 September 1986 and 13 October 1989, no other
documents were received by MERALCO in connection with this case.
WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is DISMISSED for lack of merit. The appealed
Orders dated September 4, 2006 and October 14, 2008 are hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.[14]
Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied. Hence, this petition, in which the
petitioner raised the following grounds:
a. rejecting and/or failing to resolve the issues raised by Petitioner in the subject
case and resolved instead the issue it formulated in it The Assailed Order is a coram
non-judice judgment;
b. validating a trial court's resolution of "legal issues" in a proceeding its jurisdiction
over was explicitly directed by the Supreme Court to be rectified to the resolution of
the one "factual issue" stated in its said directive;
c. legitimizing a trial court's absurd claim that it, a mere trial court, was tasked by
the Supreme Court to resolve and hand down for and in its behalf the resolution of
a purely legal issue, and
d. affirming orders and rulings of a trial court which disregarded and even mocked
doctrinal teachings of the Supreme Court. [15]
Petitioner contends that the CA failed to resolve the issues raised by petitioner in
his appeal, thus making the assailed decision coram non-judice. According to
petitioner, it is a general principle of law that a court cannot set itself in motion, nor
has it power to decide questions except as presented by the parties in their
pleadings and anything that is decided beyond them is coram non-judice and void.
It is also the contention of petitioner that the final judgment of this Court in G.R.
No. 114231 was the Resolution it adopted on June 29, 2004, the verdict of which
has already been registered in its Book of Entry of Judgment on April 13, 2005. In
the said resolution, the petitioner claims that this Court ruled that a notice of
assessment is not an existing, fixed, and standard legal form, and what is
controlling is that it is a written advice that in effect or effectively informs the
taxpayer of the essential information the Real Property Tax Code under P.D. No. 464
obliges such taxpayer to be so informed.
Petitioner further claims that the RTC's first Decision (before it was overturned by
its resolution granting MERALCO's motion for reconsideration) dated May 2, 2006
abided by the directive of this Court's Resolution dated June 29, 2005 because it
ruled that petitioner provided MERALCO with the Tax Declarations specified in the
said resolution of this Court before issuing the warrants of garnishment. As such,
petitioner insists, only this Court's Resolution dated June 29, 2004 and the RTC's
Decision dated May 2, 2006 can put a resolution on this case.
In its Comment,[16] MERALCO insists that the CA did not err in formulating the sole
issue to be resolved in its appeal: whether or not the RTC erred in holding in its
assailed Orders that "The City did not provide MERALCO with the notices of
assessment as envisaged in P.D. No. 464." MERALCO further adds that when the
case was called for pre-trial, the parties have agreed that pursuant to the
Resolution dated March 29, 2005 of this Court, the actual issue to be resolved is
whether or not MERALCO was furnished a notice of assessment by the City of
Muntinlupa.
Furthermore, MERALCO argues that while the tax declarations furnished it contain
the essential information such as the kind of property being assessed, its actual use
and market value, which a notice of assessment should indicate, said tax
declarations do not fix and determine the tax liability of the taxpayer and are not
notices to the taxpayers that the liability fixed and determined therein are due as
with a demand for the payment thereof.
MERALCO also points out that this Court's Resolution dated March 29, 2005 is a
clarification as to the directive on how to proceed with the case on remand.
The petition lacks merit.
A close reading of the arguments presented before this Court eventually and
ultimately raises the question of whether this Court's Resolution dated June 29,
2004 and Resolution dated March 29, 2005, contain the same ruling. As claimed by
the petitioner, in this Court's Resolution dated June 29, 2004, it ordered the case to
be remanded to the RTC for factual determination of whether MERALCO received
the "tax declarations" or not. If the same is true, then the RTC's Decision dated May
2, 2006 should be upheld since it resolved the said issue. However, based on the
Order dated September 4, 2006 of the RTC and the Decision of the CA, this Court's
latter Resolution dated March 29, 2005 calls for the determination of the RTC of
whether or not a "notice of assessment" as contemplated in RD. No. 464 was
provided to MERALCO. Thus, only a clarification from this Court as to its two earlier
resolutions is necessary in order to put the final nail in the coffin of this case.
While it is true that in this Court's Resolution dated June 29, 2004, it gave the
directive to the RTC to "resolve the factual issue of whether or not the Municipal
Assessor served copies of Tax Declarations Nos. B-009-05499 to B-009-05502 on

the petitioner," this Court made it clear or clarified in its latter Resolution dated
March 29, 2005 resolving the motion for reconsideration of the Resolution dated
June 29, 2004 that the directive is for the RTC to determine whether or not
MERALCO was furnished with a notice of assessment. Specifically, this Court ruled:
It is in this light that the determination of whether or not petitioner MERALCO was
furnished with a notice of assessment is necessary in order that Section 64 of the
RPTC would apply to its petition for prohibition before the court a quo. If petitioner
MERALCO had been furnished with such notice, then its obligation to pay the real
property taxes assessed against it has already accrued. Consequently, conformably
with Section 64 of the RPTC, the court a quohas no jurisdiction over the petition for
prohibition for non-payment of petitioner MERALCO of the said taxes. As a corollary,
if petitioner MERALCO had not been furnished with such notice, then its obligation
to pay the taxes assessed against it has not, as yet, accrued. The court a quo then
has jurisdiction over petitioner MERALCO's petition for prohibition despite nonpayment of Hie said taxes because, in such a case, Section 64 of the RPTC is not
applicable.
As held in the Resolution of June 29, 2004, whether or not petitioner
MERALCO was furnished with a notice of assessment is a question of fact.
The determination thereof as well as the other factual issues raised by the
parties in their pleadings are best undertaken by the court a quo.[17]
Thus, as a guide, this Court, in the same Resolution dated March 29, 2005, went on
to discuss the nature and what constitutes a notice of assessment. The following
was thus, expounded:
Section 64 stated that "no court shall entertain any suit assailing the validity of tax
assessed under this Code until the taxpayer shall have paid, under portest, the tax
assessed against him . . ." However, in relation to Section 27, the taxpayer's
obligation to pay the tax assessed against him arises only upon notification of such
assessment. It bears reiterating that the assessment fixes and determines the tax
liability of the taxpayer. The basic postulate of fairness thus requires that it is only
upon notice of such assessment that the obligation of the taxpayer to pay the same
arises. As it was explained in the Resolution of June 29, 2004:
An assessment fixes and determines the tax liability of a taxpayer. It is a
notice to the effect that the amount therein stated is due as tax and a
demand for payment thereof. The assessor is mandated under Section 27
of the law to give written notice within thirty days of such assessment, to
the person in whose name the property is declared. The notice should
indicate the kind of property being assessed, its actual use and market
value, the assessment level and the assessed value. The notice may be
delivered either personally to such person or to the occupant in
possession, if any, or by mail, to the last known address of the person to
be served, or through the assistance of the barrio captain. The issuance of
a notice of assessment by the local assessor shall be his last action on a

particular assessment. For purposes of giving effect to such assessment, it
is deemed made when the notice is released, mailed or sent to the
taxpayer. As soon as the notice is duly served, an obligation arises on the
part of the taxpayer to pay the amount assessed and demanded.[18]
It is therefore wrong for the petitioner to allege that among the fundamental rulings
in the Resolution dated June 29, 2004 is that a notice of assessment is not an
existing, fixed, and standard legal form and all that is legal and mandatory in its
physical feature or make-up is that it should be in writing, and so long as it is a
written advice that, in effect or effectively informs the taxpayer of the essential
information that the Real Property Tax Code under P.D. No. 464 obliges such
taxpayer to be so informed. A careful reading of the Resolution dated June 29, 2004
does not support such claim of the petitioner. The same Resolution emphasized that
a notice of assessment fixes and determines the tax liabilty of a taxpayer and is a
notice to the effect that the amount stated therein is due as tax and a demand to
pay thereof. This Court also reminded that a notice of assessment as provided for in
the Real Property Tax Code should effectively inform the taxpayer of the value of a
specific property, or proportion thereof subject to tax, including the discovery,
listing, classification, and appraisal of properties. Nowhere does the resolution state
that the tax declarations can be considered as notices of assessment. Consequently,
having thus discussed the nature and contents of a notice of assessment, the
factual issue of whether or not Meralco was furnished with a notice of assessment is
necessary to resolve the issues of the case. Hence, being a question of fact, this
Court deemed it necessary to remand the case for its proper resolution. To
reiterate, the RTC was called upon to resolve the factual issue of whether or not
Meralco was furnished with a notice of assessment and not the factual issue of
whether or not the Municipal Assessor served copies of Tax Declaration Nos. B-00905499 to B-009-05502 on Meralco.
What is controlling, therefore, is the directive of this Court contained in its
Resolution dated March 29, 2005.
In finding that the municipal assessor of Muntinlupa failed to furnish MERALCO with
a notice of assessment, the RTC, in its Order dated September 4, 2006, ruled, thus:
The Court finds that the municipal assessor of Muntinlupa failed to furnish
MERALCO with the mandatory notice of assessment. This is evident from the
admission of respondent that aside from Exhibits "1" to "10" and two
letters dated 3 September 1986 and 13 October 1989, no other documents
were received by MERALCO in connection with this case (Order dated 24
January 2006). The Court likewise reverses its ruling that the "transmittal letter"
of the then Office of the Municipal Assessor of Muntinlupa and the tax declarations
received by the petitioner through its employee Basilio Afuang on November 1985
(Exhibits "1" to "10") are effectively "notices of assessment."
Article VII-K of Assessment Regulations No. 3-75 dated February 10, 1975
otherwise known as the "Rules and Regulations for the Implementation of the Real
Property Tax Code (P.D. 464)," specifically paragraph (4) mandates that forms of
notice of assessment RPA No. 7 shall be used which may be mimeographed by
assessors for their use and that "the notice of assessment and owner's copy of the
tax declaration shall be delivered or mailed to property owners within thirty days
from entry of tax declarations covering the assessment of property in the Record of
Assessments."
Undoubtedly, therefore, the two are separate and distinct; hence, the tax
declarations and the receipt issued for said tax declarations cannot be considered
effectively [sic] notices of assessment. Assessment is deemed made when the
notice to this effect is released, mailed or sent to the taxpayer for the purpose of
giving effect to said assessment. In other words, without the notice of assessment,
there is no valid assessment.[19]
In affirming the RTC, the CA did not err in ruling that the tax declarations cannot be
validly considered as a notice of assessment under Section 27 of P.D. No. 464, thus:
within thirty days of such assessment, to the person in whose name the property is
declared."
assessment."
is what ripens into a demandable tax. x x x.[20]
Such factual issue, having been decided by the RTC and affirmed by the CA, may no
longer be reversed by this Court. Time and again, this Court has ruled that "the
factual findings of the trial court are given weight when supported by substantial
evidence and carries more weight when affirmed by the Court of Appeals." [21]
Anent the issue raised by petitioner that the CA decision is coram non-judice or a
void judgment, this Court finds it to be erroneous. The CA, by formulating and
resolving the sole issue of whether or not the RTC erred in holding in its assailed
Orders that the petitioner did not provide MERALCO with the notice of assessment
envisaged in P.D. No. 464 did not abandon or fail to resolve the other issues raised
by the petitioner. Petitioner contends that the following issues raised in his
Memorandum[22] have not been resolved by the CA:
1. Did or did not the court a quo have jurisdiction or authority to issue the Villarosa
Orders #1 and #2 and, assuming it did have such authority, did it abide by the
Supreme Court's ruling in G.R. No. 114231 in exercising it?
2. Were the Tax Declarations Meralco stipulated The City did provide it relative to its
suited tax claim effectively the "Notice of Assessment" envisaged in P.D. No. 464?
3. Given Meralco's stipulation of its actual receipt from The City of the
aforementioned Tax Declarations, must or may its Treasurer's Letters of 03
September 1986 and 31 October 1989 still be held to be mere collection letters and
not demands for the payment of the amounts stated therein?
4. Was there a notice of assessment structured as "RPA Form No. 7?" [23]
A close reading of the CA decision in question shows that the above-mentioned
issues have been addressed by the appellate court. As aptly pointed out by
MERALCO in its Comment dated October 27, 2011:
Regarding the first issue which the Court of Appeals allegedly did not resolve, it will
be noted that the Court of appeals, after quoting on pages 8-10 of its Decision the
discussion of the Court En Banc in its Resolution dated March 29, 2005, pertaining
to the resolution of the substantive issue raised by the Municipal Treasurer in his
Motion for Reconsideration that the applicability of Section 64 of the then Real
Property Tax Code is not dependent on the resolution of the issue of whether or not
Petitioner was furnished with Notices of Assessment, concluded:
Thus, the case was remanded to the RTC for the determination of the "question of
fact" of whether or not petitioner MERALCO was furnished with a notice of
assessment x x x as well as other factual issues raised by the parties in their
pleadings x x x.
The trial court in its Orders dated 4 September 2006 and 14 October 2008,
respectively, complied with said directive of the Honorable Supreme Court En Banc
in its Resolution dated March 29, 2005.
In the Order dated September 4, 2006 (the so-called Villarosa Order #1), the trial
court found that the municipal assessor of Muntinlupa failed to furnish Meralco with
the mandatory notice of assessment which was evident from the admission of
respondent that aside from Exhibits "1" to "10" and the two letters dated 3
September 1986 and 31 October 1989, no other documents were received by
MERALCO in connection with this case.

Consequently, the trial court rulings (1) that Meralco's obligation to pay the taxes,
has not yet accrued; (2) that the trial court has jurisdiction over petitioner
Meralco's petition for prohibition despite nonpayment of said taxes because in such
a case, Section 64 of P.D. 464 is not applicable; (3) that since the taxes has not, as
yet accrued, the three warrants of garnishment against Meralco's bank deposits
with the Philippine Commercial Industrial Bank and Trust Company, and Bank of
Philippine Islands were prematurely issued and therefore null and void and (4) that
the withdrawal of the City Treasurer from the Meralco's bank deposit with the Bank
of Philippine Islands by virtue of the null and void writ of garnishment should be
refunded to the Meralco, are logical consequences of this aforesaid determination
by the trial court in compliance with the directive in the Resolution En Banc dated
29 June 2005. No legal issue was resolved by the trial court.
In view thereof, when the Court of appeals upheld the aforesaid determination by
the trial court, in effect ruled that the trial court complied with the Court En Banc
Resolutions.
With regard to the second issue, the Court of Appeals ruled:
Clearly, the tax decalrations referred to as Exhibits "2" and "10-A", and the
assesor's letter of transmittal thereof offered in evidence as Exhibit "1" are not
either signed singly or collectively, the notice of assessment envisaged in Section
27 of P.D. No. 464.
xxxxxx
xxx
the Supreme Court could not have been clearer on its point that the tax declaration
here cannot be validly considered as a notice of assessment under Section 27 of
P.D. No. 464.
within thirty days of such assessment to the person in whose name the property is
declared."

assessment."
is what ripens into a demandable tax.
In view thereof, the Court of appeals ruled on the second issue reaised by
respondent City Treasurer.
As to the third issue, the Court of Appeals likewise disposed the same, thus:
Neither can respondent-appellant validly claim that the Supreme Court would not
have "held x x x 'that the aforequoted letters/notices are not the notices of
assessment envisaged in Section 27 of P.D. No. 464' but merely rather 'collection
letter' as contended by 'Petitioner-appellee,'" had MERALCO not "denied receiving
copies of Tax Declarations Nos. B-009-5501 to B-009-5994 prepared by the
respondent Municipal Assessor in 1985" because if such were the case, the
Supreme Court would not have amended its June 29, 2004 Resolution which
originally read:
The Court further rules that there is a need to remand the case for further
proceedings, in order for the trial court to resolve the factual issue of whether or
not the Municipal Assessor served copies of Tax Declarations Nos. B-009-05499 to
B-009-05502 on [MERALCO], and, if in the affirmative, when [MERALCO] received
the same; and to resolve the other issues raised by the parties in their pleadings. It
bears stressing that the Court is not a trier of facts.
to what its March 29, 2005 Resolution now clarifies as the issue to be resolved in
the remanded case, viz.:
As held in the Resolution of June 29, 2004, whether or not petitioner MERALCO was
furnished with a notice of assessment is a question of fact. The determination
thereof as well as the other factual issues raised by the parties in their pleadings
are best undertaken by the court a quo.
Simply put, what the trial court was finally called upon to resolve is the factual
issue of "whether or not petitioner MERALCO was furnished with a notice of
assessment," and no longer the factual issue of whether or not the Municipal
Assessor served copies of Tax Declaration Nos. B-009-05499 to B-009-05502 on
[MERALCO].
As regards the fourth issue raised by respondent, it was no longer necessary for the
Court of Appeals to resolve the question if there was a notice of assessment
structured as "RPA Form No. 7" when it ruled that -
In sum, the RTC could not have erred when it found that the municipal assessor of
Muntinlupa failed to furnish MERALCO with the mandatory notice of assessment.
This is evident from the admission of respondent that aside from Exhibits "1" to
"10" and two letters dated 3 September 1986 and 13 October 1989, no other
documents were received by MERALCO in connection with this case.
WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is DISMISSED for lack of merit. The appealed
Orders dated September 4, 2006 and October 14, 2008 are hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.[24]
Due to the above disquisitions, the other issues raised by petitioner in his present
petition have already been adequately addressed by this Court.
WHEREFORE, the Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of
Court, dated July 4, 2011 of petitioner Romeo Pucyutan is DENIED for lack merit.
Consequently, the Decision dated October 22, 2010 and Resolution dated May 27,
2011, both of the Court of Appeals, are AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
May 25, 2016

NOTICE OF JUDGMENT
Sirs / Mesdames:
Very truly yours,

[1]
Rollo, pp. 7-230.
Penned by Associate Justice Vicente S. E. Veloso, with Associate Justices

Francisco P. Acosta and Samuel H. Gaerlan, concuring; id. at 37-57.
[2]
[3]
Rollo, p. 59.
[4]
Penned by Judge Joselito C. Villarosa; id. at 92-94.
[5]
Id. at. 96-100.
[6]
Manila Electric Company v. Nelia A. Barlis, 477 Phil. 12 (2004).
Manila Electric Company v. NeliaA. Barlis, supra, at 37-46. (Emphasis ours;

citations omitted)
[7]
[8]
Rollo, pp. 60-71.
[9]
Id. at 68-71. (Citations and italics omitted; emphasis ours)
[10]
Penned by Pairing Judge Rommel O. Baybay, id. at 300-304.
[11]
Penned by Presiding Judge Joselito C. Villarosa, id. at 305-307.
[12]
Rollo, pp. 306-307. (Emphasis ours; citations omitted)
[13]
Id. at 308-312.
[14]
Id. at 53-56. (Emphases omitted)
[15]
Id. at 9. (Underscoring omitted)
[16]
Dated October 27, 2011, id. at 241-283.
[17]
Rollo, p. 296. (Emphasis ours)
[18]
Id. (Emphasis ours)
[19]
Id. at 306-307. (Emphasis ours; citations omitted)
[20]
Manila Bankers Life Insurance Corp. v. Eddy Ng Kok Wei, 463 Phil. 871, 878
(2003), citing Lim v. Chan, 405 Phil. 496, 502 (2001), citing Valgosons Realty, Inc.
v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 126233, September 11, 1998, 295 SCRA 449, 461.
[21]
[22]
Rollo, pp. 101-120.
[23]
Id. at 108.
[24]

G.R.
No.
215534
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, PETITIONER, VS. LIQUIGAZ PHILIPPINES CORPORATION, RESPONDENT.

[G.R.
NO.
215557]
LIQUIGAZ PHILIPPINES CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, RESPONDENT.
April 18, 2016
SECOND DIVISION
[ G.R. No. 215534, April 18, 2016 ]
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, PETITIONER, VS.
LIQUIGAZ PHILIPPINES CORPORATION, RESPONDENT.
[G.R. NO. 215557]
LIQUIGAZ PHILIPPINES CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, RESPONDENT.
DECISION
MENDOZA, J.:
Presented before us is a novel issue. When may a Final Decision on Disputed
Assessment (FDDA) be declared void, and in the event that the FDD A is found
void, what would be its effect on the tax assessment?
Assailed in these consolidated petitions for review on certiorari filed under Rule 45
of the Rules of Court are the May 22, 2014 Decision [1] and the November 26, 2014
Resolution[2] of the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) En Banc which affirmed the
November 22, 2012 Decision[3] of the CTA Division, Second Division (CTA Division).
Liquigaz Philippines Corporation (Liquigaz) is a corporation duly organized and
existing under Philippine laws. On July 11, 2006, it received a copy of Letter of
Authority (LOA) No. 00067824, dated July 4, 2006, issued by the Commissioner of
Internal Revenue (CIR), authorizing the investigation of all internal revenue taxes
for taxable year 2005.[4]
On April 9, 2008, Liquigaz received an undated letter purporting to be a Notice of
Informal Conference (NIC), as well as the detailed computation of its supposed tax
liability. On May 28, 2008, it received a copy of the Preliminary Assessment
Notice[5] (PAN), dated May 20, 2008, together with the attached details of
discrepancies for the calendar year ending December 31, 2005. [6] Upon
investigation, Liquigaz was initially assessed with deficiency withholding tax
liabilities, inclusive of interest, in the aggregate amount of P23,931,708.72, broken
down as follows:
Expanded Withholding Tax (EWT)

Withholding Tax on Compensation (WTC)
Fringe Benefits Tax (FBT)
TOTAL
P5,456,141.82
P4,435,463.97
P14,040,102.93
P23,931,708.72
Thereafter, on June 25, 2008, it received a Formal Letter of Demand [7] (FLD)/Formal
Assessment Notice (FAN), together with its attached details of discrepancies, for the
calendar year ending December 31, 2005. The total deficiency withholding tax
liabilities, inclusive of interest, under the FLD was P24,332,347.20, which may be
broken down as follows:
EWT
WTC
FBT
TOTAL
P 5,535,890.38
P 4,500,169.94
P 14,296,286.88
P 24,332,347.20
On July 25, 2008, Liquigaz filed its protest against the FLD/FAN and subsequently
submitted its supporting documents on September 23, 2008.
Then, on July 1, 2010, it received a copy of the FDDA [8] covering the tax audit
under LOA No. 00067824 for the calendar year ending December 31, 2005. As
reflected in the FDDA, the CIR still found Liquigaz liable for deficiency withholding
tax liabilities, inclusive of interest, in the aggregate amount of P22,380,025.19,
which may be broken down as follows:
EWT
WTC
FBT
TOTAL
P 3,479,426.75
P 4,508,025.93
P14,392,572.51
P 22,380,025.19
Consequently, on July 29, 2010, Liquigaz filed its Petition for Review before the CTA
Division assailing the validity of the FDDA issued by the CIR.[9]
The CTA Division Ruling
In its November 22, 2012 Decision, the CTA Division partially granted Liquigaz's
petition cancelling the EWT and FBT assessments but affirmed with modification the
WTC assessment. It ruled that the portion of the FDDA relating to the EWT and the
FBT assessment was void pursuant to Section 228 of the National Internal Revenue
Code (NIRC) of 1997, as implemented by Revenue Regulations (RR) No. 12-99.
The CTA Division noted that unlike the PAN and the FLD/FAN, the FDDA issued did
not provide the details thereof, hence, Liquigaz had no way of knowing what items
were considered by the CIR in arriving at the deficiency assessments. This was
especially true because the FDDA reflected a different amount from what was
stated in the FLD/FAN. The CTA Division explained that though the legal bases for
the EWT and FBT assessment were stated in the FDDA, the taxpayer was not
notified of the factual bases thereof, as required in Section 228 of the NIRC.
On the other hand, it upheld the WTC assessment against Liquigaz. It noted that
the factual bases used in the FLD and the FDDA with regard thereto were the same
as the difference in the amount merely resulted from the use of a different tax rate.
The CTA Division agreed with Liquigaz that the tax rate of 25.40% was more
appropriate because it represents the effective tax compensation paid, computed
based on the total withholding tax on compensation paid and the total taxable
compensation income for the taxable year 2005. It did not give credence to
Liquigaz's explanation that the salaries account included accrued bonus, 13 th month
pay, de minimis benefits and other benefits and contributions which were not
subject to withholding tax on compensation. The CTA Division relied on the report
prepared by Antonio O. Maceda, Jr., the court-commissioned independent
accountant, which found that Liquigaz was unable to substantiate the discrepancy
found by the CIR on its withholding tax liability on compensation. The dispositive
portion of the CTA Division decision reads:
WHEREFORE, the Petition for Review is hereby PARTIALLY GRANTED.
Accordingly, the assessments for deficiency expanded withholding tax in the
amount of P3,479,426.75 and fringe benefits tax in the amount of P14,392,572.51
issued by respondent against petitioner for taxable year 2005, both inclusive of
interest and compromise penalty is hereby CANCELLED and WITHDRAWN for
being void.
However, the assessment for deficiency withholding tax on compensation for
taxable year 2005 is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS. Accordingly,
petitioner is hereby ORDERED to PAY respondent the amount of P2,958,546.23,
inclusive of the 25% surcharge imposed under Section 248(A)(3) of the NIRC of
1997, as amended, computed as follows:
Salaries per ITR

Less: Salaries per Alphalist
Discrepancy
Tax rate
Basic Withholding Tax on Compensation
Add: 25% Surcharge
Total Amount Due
P52,239,313.00
P42,921,057-16
P9,318,255-84
25.40%
P2,366,836.98
P591,709.5
P2,958,546.23
In addition, petitioner is liable to pay: (a) deficiency interest at the rate of twenty
percent (20%) per annum of the basic deficiency withholding tax on compensation
of P2,958,546.23 computed from January 20, 2006 until full payment thereof
pursuant to Section 249(B) of the NIRC of 1997, as amended; and (b) delinquency
interest at the rate of twenty percent (20%) per annum on the total amount due of
2,958,546.23 and on the deficiency interest which have accrued as aforestated in
(a) computed from July 1, 2010 until full payment thereof, pursuant to Section
249(0(3) of the NIRC of 1997, as amended.
The compromise penalty of P25,000.00, originally imposed by respondent is hereby
excluded there being no compromise agreement between the parties.
SO ORDERED[10]
Both the CIR and Liquigaz moved for reconsideration, but their respective motions
were denied by the CTA Division in its February 20, 2013 Resolution.
Aggrieved, they filed their respective petitions for review before the CTA En Banc.
The CTA En Bane- Ruling
In its May 22, 2014 Decision, the CTA En Banc affirmed the assailed decision of the
CTA Division. It reiterated its pronouncement that the requirement that the
taxpayer should be informed in writing of the law and the facts on which the
assessment was made applies to the FDDA otherwise the assessment would be
void. The CTA En Bane explained that the FDDA determined the final tax liability of
the taxpayer, which may be the subject of an appeal before the CTA.
The CTA En Banc echoed the findings of the CTA Division that while the FDDA
indicated the legal provisions relied upon for the assessment, the source of the
amounts from which the assessments arose were not shown. It emphasized the
need for stating the factual bases as the FDDA reflected different amounts than that
contained in the FLD/FAN.
On the other hand, the CTA En Banc sustained Liquigaz' WTC assessment. It
observed that the basis for the assessment was the same for the FLD and the
FDDA, which was a comparison of the salaries declared in the Income Tax
Return (ITR) and the Alphalist that resulted in a discrepancy of P9,318,255.84. The
CTA En Banchighlighted that the change in the amount of assessed WTC deficiency
simply arose from the revision of the tax rate usedfrom 32% to the effective tax
rate of 25.40% suggested by Liquigaz.
Further, it disregarded the explanation of Liquigaz on the ground of its failure to
specify how much of the salaries account pertained to de minimis benefits, accrued
bonuses, salaries and wages, and contributions to the Social Security System,
Medicare and Pag-Ibig Fund. The CTA En Banc reiterated that even the courtcommissioned independent accountant reported that Liquigaz was unable to
substantiate the discrepancy found by the CIR.
Both parties moved for a partial reconsideration of the CTA En Banc Decision, but
the latter denied the motions in its November 26, 2014 Resolution.
Not satisfied, both parties filed their respective petitions for review, anchored on
SOLE ISSUE
WHETHER THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS EN BANC ERRED IN PARTIALLY

UPHOLDING THE VALIDITY OF THE ASSESSMENT AS TO THE
WITHHOLDING TAX ON COMPENSATION BUT DECLARING INVALID THE
ASSESSMENT ON EXPANDED WITHHOLDING TAX AND FRINGE BENEFITS
TAX.
The present consolidated petitions revolve around the same FDDA where Liquigaz
seeks the cancellation of its remaining tax liability and the CIR aims to revive the
assessments struck down by the tax court. Basically, Liquigaz asserts that like its
assessment for EWT and FBT deficiency, the WTC assessment should have been
invalidated because the FDDA did not provide for the facts on which the assessment
was based. It argues that it was deprived of due process because in not stating the
factual basis of the assessment, the CIR did not consider the defenses and
supporting documents it presented.
Moreover, Liquigaz is adamant that even if the FDDA would be upheld, it should not
be liable for the deficiency WTC liability because the CIR erred in comparing its ITR
and Alphalist to determine possible discrepancies. It explains that the salaries of its
employees reflected in its ITR does not reflect the total taxable income paid and
received by the employees because the same refers to the gross salaries of the
employees, which included amounts that were not subject to WTC.
On the other hand, the CIR avers that the assessments for EWT and FBT liability
should be upheld because the FDDA must be taken together with the PAN and FAN,
where details of the assessments were attached. Hence, the CIR counters that
Liquigaz was fully apprised of not only the laws, but also the facts on which the
assessment was based, which were likewise evidenced by the fact that it was able
to file a protest on the assessment. Further, the CIR avers that even if the FDDA
would be declared void, it should not result in the automatic abatement of tax
liability especially because RR No. 12-99 merely states that a void decision of the
CIR or his representative shall not be considered as a decision on the assessment.
The Court's Ruling
Central to the resolution of the issue is Section 228 [11] of the NIRC and RR No. 1299,[12] as amended. They lay out the procedure to be followed in tax assessments.
Under Section 228 of the NIRC, a taxpayer shall be informed in writing of the law
and the facts on which the assessment is made, otherwise, the assessment shall be
void. In implementing Section 228 of the NIRC, RR No. 12-99 reiterates the
requirement that a taxpayer must be informed in writing of the law and the facts on
which his tax liability was based, to wit:
SECTION 3. Due Process Requirement in the Issuance of a Deficiency Tax

Assessment.
3.1 Mode of procedures in the issuance of a deficiency tax assessment:
3.1.1 Notice for informal conference. The Revenue Officer who audited the
taxpayer's records shall, among others, state in his report whether or not the
taxpayer agrees with his findings that the taxpayer is liable for deficiency tax or
taxes. If the taxpayer is not amenable, based on the said Officer's submitted report
of investigation, the taxpayer shall be informed, in writing, by the Revenue District
Office or by the Special Investigation Division, as the case may be (in the case
Revenue Regional Offices) or by the Chief of Division concerned (in the case of the
BIR National Office) of the discrepancy or discrepancies in the taxpayer's payment
of his internal revenue taxes, for the purpose of "Informal Conference," in order to
afford the taxpayer with an opportunity to present his side of the case. If the
taxpayer fails to respond within.fifteen (15) days from date of receipt of the notice
for informal conference, he shall be considered in default, in which case, the
Revenue District Officer or the Chief of the Special Investigation Division of the
Revenue Regional Office, or the Chief of Division in the National Office, as the case
may be, shall endorse the case with the least possible delay to the: Assessment
Division of the Revenue Regional Office or to the Commissioner or his duly
authorized representative, as the case may be, for appropriate review and issuance
of a deficiency tax assessment, if warranted.
3.1.2 Preliminary Assessment Notice (PAN). If after review and evaluation by the
Assessment Division or by the Commissioner or his duly authorized representative,
as the case may be, it is determined that there exists sufficient basis to assess the
taxpayer for any deficiency tax or taxes, the said Office shall issue to the taxpayer,
at least by registered, mail, a Preliminary Assessment Notice (PAN) for the
proposed assessment, showing in detail, the facts and the law, rules and
regulations, or jurisprudence on which the proposed assessment is based (see
illustration in ANNEX A hereof). If the taxpayer fails to respond within fifteen (15)
days from date of receipt of the PAN, he shall be considered in default, in which
case, a formal letter of demand and assessment notice shall be caused to be issued
by the said Office, calling for payment of the taxpayer's deficiency tax liability,
inclusive of the applicable penalties. xxx
3.1.4 Formal Letter of Demand and Assessment Notice. The formal letter of
demand and assessment notice shall be issued by the Commissioner or his duly
authorized representative. The letter of demand calling for payment of the
taxpayer's deficiency tax or taxes shall state the facts, the law, rules and
regulations, or jurisprudence on which the assessment is
based, otherwise, the formal letter of demand and assessment notice shall
be void (see illustration in ANNEX B hereof), xxx

3.1.5 Disputed Assessment. The taxpayer or his duly authorized representative
may protest administratively against the aforesaid formal letter of demand and
assessment notice within thirty (30) days from date of receipt thereof. If there are
several issues involved in the formal letter of demand and assessment notice but
the taxpayer only disputes or protests against the validity of some of-the issues
raised, the taxpayer shall be required to pay the deficiency tax or taxes attributable
to the undisputed issues, in which case, a collection letter shall be issued to the
taxpayer calling for payment of the said deficiency tax, inclusive of the applicable
surcharge and/or interest. No action shall be taken on the taxpayer's disputed
issues until the taxpayer has paid the deficiency tax or taxes attributable to the said
undisputed issues. The prescriptive period for assessment or collection of the tax or
taxes attributable to the disputed issues shall be suspended, xxx
3.1.6 Administrative Decision on a Disputed Assessment. The decision of the
Commissioner or his duly authorized representative shall (a) state the
facts, the applicable law, rules and regulations, or jurisprudence on which
such decision is based, otherwise, the decision shall be void(see illustration
in ANNEX C hereof), in which case, the same shall not be considered a decision on
a disputed assessment; and (b) that the same is his final decision.
[Emphases and Underscoring Supplied]
The importance of providing the taxpayer of adequate written notice of his tax
liability is undeniable. Section 228 of the NIRC declares that an assessment is void
if the taxpayer is not notified in writing of the facts and law on which it is made.
Again, Section 3.1.4 of RR No. 12-99 requires that the FLD must state the facts and
law on which it is based, otherwise, the FLD/FAN itself shall be void. Meanwhile,
Section 3.1.6 of RR No. 12-99 specifically requires that the decision of the CIR or
his duly authorized representative on a disputed assessment shall state the facts,
law and rules and regulations, or jurisprudence on which the decision is based.
Failure to do so would invalidate the FDDA.
The use of the word "shall" in Section 228 of the NIRC and in RR No. 12-99
indicates that the requirement of informing the taxpayer of the legal and factual
bases of the assessment and the decision made against him is mandatory.[13] The
requirement of providing the taxpayer with written notice of the factual and legal
bases applies both to the FLD/FAN and the FDDA.
Section 228 of the NIRC should not be read restrictively as to limit the written
notice'only to the assessment itself. As implemented by RR No. 12-99, the written
notice requirement for both the FLD and the FAN is in observance of due process
to afford the taxpayer adequate opportunity to file a protest on the assessment and
thereafter file an appeal in case of an adverse decision.
To rule otherwise would tolerate abuse and prejudice. Taxpayers will be unable to
file an intelligent appeal before the CTA as they would be unaware on how the CIR
or his' authorized representative appreciated the defense raised in connection with
the assessment. On the other hand, it raises the possibility that the amounts
reflected in the FDDA were arbitrarily made if the factual and legal bases thereof
are not shown.
A void FDDA does not
ipso facto render the
assessment void
The CIR arid Liquigaz are at odds with regards to the effect of a void FDDA.
Liquigaz harps that a void FDDA will lead to a void assessment because the FDDA
ultimately determines the final tax'liability of a'taxpayer, which may then be
appealed before the CTA. On the other hand, the CIR believes that a void FDDA
does notipso facto result in the nullification of the assessment.
In resolving the issue on the effects of a void FDDA, it is necessary to differentiate
an "assessment" from a "decision." In St. Stephen's Association v. Collector of
Internal Revenue,[14] the Court has long recognized that a "decision"- differs from
an "assessment," to wit:
In the first place, we believe the respondent court erred in holding that the
assessment in question is the respondent Collector's decision or ruling appealable
to it, and that consequently, the period of thirty days prescribed by section li of
Republic Act No. 1125 within which petitioner should have appealed to the
respondent court must be counted from its receipt of said assessment. Where a
taxpayer questions an assessment and asks the Collector to reconsider or cancel
the same because he (the taxpayer) believes he is not liable therefor, the
assessment becomes a "disputed assessment" that the Collector must decide, and
the taxpayer can appeal to the Court of Tax Appeals only upon receipt of the
decision of the Collector on the disputed assessment, in accordance with paragraph
(1) of section 7, Republic Act No. 1125, conferring appellate jurisdiction upon the
Court of Tax Appeals to review "decisions of the Collector of Internal Revenue in
cases involving disputed assessment..."
The difference is likewise readily apparent in Section 7[15] of R.A. 1125,[16] as
amended, where the CTA is conferred with appellate jurisdiction over the decision of
the CIR in cases involving disputed assessments, as well as inaction of the CIR in
disputed assessments. From the foregoing, it is clear that what is appealable to the
CTA is the "decision" of the CIR on disputed assessment and not the assessment
itself.
An assessment becomes a disputed assessment after a taxpayer has filed its
protest to the assessment in the administrative level. Thereafter, the CIR either
issues a decision on the disputed assessment or fails to act on it and is, therefore,
considered denied. The taxpayer may then appeal the decision on the disputed
assessment or the inaction of the CIR. As such, the FDDA is not the only means
that the final tax liability of a taxpayer is fixed, which may then be appealed by the
taxpayer. Under the law, inaction on the part of the CIR may likewise result in the
finality of a taxpayer's tax liability as it is deemed a denial of the protest filed by
the latter, which may also be appealed before the CTA.
Clearly, a decision of the CIR on a disputed assessment differs from the assessment
itself. Hence, the invalidity of one does not necessarily result to the invalidity of the
otherunless the law or regulations otherwise provide.
Section 228 of the NIRC provides that an assessment shall be void if the taxpayer is
not informed in writing of the law and the facts on which it is based. It is, however,
silent with regards to a decision on a disputed assessment by the CIR which fails to
state the law and facts on which it is based. This void is filled by RR No. 12-99
where it is stated that failure of the FDDA to reflect the facts and law on which it is
based will make the decision void. It, however, does not extend to the nullification
of the entire assessment.
With the effects of a void FDDA expounded, the next issue to be addressed is
whether the assailed FDDA is void for failure to state the facts and law on which it
was based.
The FDDA must state the
facts and law on which it
is based to provide the
taxpayer the opportunity
to file an intelligent
appeal
The CIR and Liquigaz are also in disagreement whether the FDDA issued was
compliant with the mandatory requirement of written notice laid out in the law and
implementing rules and regulations. Liquigaz argues that the FDDA is void as it did
not contain the factual bases of the assessment and merely showed the amounts of
its alleged tax liabilities.
A perusal of the FDDA issued in the case at bench reveals that it merely contained a
table of Liquigaz's supposed tax liabilities, without providing any details. The CIR
explains that the FDDA still complied with the requirements of the law as it was
issued in connection with the PAN and FLD/FAN, which had an attachment of the
details of discrepancies. Hence, the CIR concludes that Liquigaz was sufficiently
informed in writing of the factual bases of the assessment.
The reason for requiring that taxpayers be informed in writing of the facts and law
on which the assessment is made is the constitutional guarantee that no person
shall be deprived of his property without due process of law.[17] Merely notifying the
taxpayer of its tax liabilities without elaborating on its details is insufficient. In CIR
v. Reyes,[18] the Court further explained:.
In the present case, Reyes was not informed in writing of the law and the facts on
which the assessment of estate taxes had been made:. She was merely notified of
the findings by the CIR, who had simply relied upon the provisions of former
Section 229 prior to its amendment by Republic Act (RA) No. 8424, otherwise
known as the Tax Reform Act of 1997.
First, RA 8424 has already amended the provision of Section 229 on protesting an
assessment. The old -requirement- of merely notifying the taxpayer of the CIR's
findings was changed in 1998 to informing the taxpayer of not only the law, but
also of the facts on which an assessment would be made; otherwise, the
assessment itself would be invalid, xxx
At the time the pre-assessment notice was issued to Reyes, RA 8424 already stated
that the taxpayer must be informed of both the law and facts on which the
assessment was based. Thus, the CIR should have required the assessment officers
of the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) to follow the clear mandate of the new law.
The old regulation governing the issuance of estate tax assessment notices ran
afoul of the rule that tax regulations old as they were should be in harmony
with, and not supplant or modify, the law. xxx
Fourth, petitioner violated the cardinal rule in administrative law that the taxpayer
be accorded due process. Not only was the law here disregarded, but no valid
notice was sent, either. A void assessment bears no valid fruit.
The law imposes a substantive, not merely a formal, requirement. To proceed
heedlessly with tax collection without first establishing a valid assessment is
evidently violative of the cardinal principle in administrative investigations: that
taxpayers should be able to present their case and adduce supporting evidence. In
the instant case, respondent has not been informed of the basis of the
estate tax liability. Without complying with the unequivocal mandate of
first informing the taxpayer of the government's claim, there can be no
deprivation of property, because no effective protest can be made. The

haphazard shot at slapping an assessment, supposedly based on estate taxation's
general provisions that are expected to be known by the taxpayer, is utter
chicanery.
Even a cursory review of the preliminary assessment notice, as well as the demand
letter sent, reveals the lack of basis for not to mention the insufficiency of the
gross figures and details of the itemized deductions indicated in the notice and the
letter. This Court cannot countenance an assessment based on estimates
that appear to have been arbitrarily or capriciously arrived at. Although
taxes are the lifeblood of the government, their assessment .and collection "should
be made in accordance with law as any arbitrariness will negate the very reason for
government itself."
[Emphases Supplied]
In CIR v. United Salvage and Towage (Phils.), Inc.,[19] the Court struck down an
assessment where the FAN only contained a table of the taxes due without
providing further detail thereto, to wit:
In the present case, a mere perusal of the FAN for the deficiency EWT for taxable
year 1994 will show that other than a tabulation of the alleged deficiency taxes due,
no further detail regarding the assessment was provided by petitioner. Only the
resulting interest, surcharge and penalty were anchored with legal
basis. Petitioner should have at least attached a detailed notice of
discrepancy or stated an explanation why the amount of P48,461.76 is
collectible against respondent and how the same was arrived at. Any shortcuts to the prescribed content of the assessment or the process thereof should not
be countenanced, in consonance with the ruling in Commissioner of Internal
Revenue v. Enron Subic Power Corporation to wit:
The CIR insists that an examination of the facts shows that Enron was properly
apprised of its tax deficiency. During the pre-assessment stage, the CIR advised
Enron's representative of the tax deficiency, informed it of the proposed tax
deficiency assessment through a preliminary five-day letter and furnished Enron a
copy of the audit working paper allegedly showing in detail the legal and factual
bases of the assessment. The CIR argues that these steps sufficed to inform Enron
of the laws and facts on which the deficiency tax assessment was based.
We disagree. The advice of tax deficiency, given by the CIR to an employee of
Enron, as well as the preliminary five-day letter, were not valid substitutes for the
mandatory notice in writing of the legal and factual bases of the assessment. These
steps were mere perfunctory discharges of the CIR's duties in correctly assessing a
taxpayer. The requirement for issuing a preliminary or final notice, as the case may
be, informing a taxpayer of the existence of a deficiency tax assessment is
markedly different from the requirement of what such notice must contain. Just
because the CIR issued an advice, a preliminary letter during the pre-assessment
stage and a final notice, in the order required by law, does not necessarily mean
that Enron was informed of the law and facts on which the deficiency tax
assessment was made.
The law requires that the legal and factual bases of the assessment be stated in the
formal letter of demand and assessment notice. Thus, such cannot be presumed.
Otherwise, the express provisions of Article 228 of the NIRC and RR No. 12-99
would be rendered nugatory. The alleged "factual bases" in the advice, preliminary
letter and "audit working papers" did not suffice. There was no going around the
mandate of the law that the legal and factual bases of the assessment be stated in
writing in the formal letter of demand accompanying the assessment notice.
We note that the old law merely required that the taxpayer be notified of the
assessment made by the CIR. This was changed in 1998 and the taxpayer must
now be informed not only of the law but also of the facts on which the assessment
is made. Such amendment is in keeping with the constitutional principle that no '
person shall be deprived of property without due process. In view of the absence of
a fair opportunity for Enron to be informed of the legal and factual bases of the
assessment against it, the assessment in question was void.....
xxx
Applying the aforequoted rulings to the case at bar, it is clear that the assailed
deficiency tax assessment for the EWT in 1994 disregarded the provisions of
Section 228 of the Tax Code, as amended, as well as Section 3.1.4 of Revenue
Regulations No. 12-99 by not providing the legal and factual bases of the
assessment. Hence, the formal letter of demand and the notice of assessment
issued relative thereto are void.
[Emphasis Supplied]
Nevertheless, the requirement of providing the taxpayer with written notice of the
facts and law used as basis for the assessment is not to be mechanically. applied.
Emphasis on the purpose of the written notice is important. The requirement should
be in place so that the taxpayer could be adequately informed of the basis of the
assessment enabling him to prepare an intelligent protest or appeal of the
assessment or decision. In Samar-I Electric Cooperative v. CIR,[20] the Court
elaborated:
The above information provided to petitioner enabled it to protest the PAN by

questioning respondent's interpretation of the laws cited as legal basis for the
computation of the deficiency withholding taxes and assessment of minimum
corporate income tax despite petitioner's position that it remains exempt therefrom.
In its letter-reply dated May 27, 2002, respondent answered the arguments raised
by petitioner in its protest, and requested it to pay the assessed deficiency on the
date of payment stated in the PAN. A second protest letter dated June 23, 2002
was sent by petitioner, to which respondent replied (letter dated July 8, 2002)
answering each of the. two issues reiterated by petitioner: (1) validity of EO 93
withdrawing the tax exemption privileges under PD 269; and (2) retroactive
application of RR No. 8-2000. The FAN was finally received by petitioner on
September 24, 2002, and protested by it in a letter dated October 14, 2002 which
reiterated in lengthy arguments its earlier interpretation of the laws and regulations
upon which the assessments were based.
Although the FAN and demand letter issued to petitioner were not accompanied by
a written explanation of the legal and factual bases of the deficiency taxes assessed
against the petitioner, the records showed that respondent in its letter dated April
10, 2003 responded to petitioner's October 14, 2002 letter-protest, explaining at
length the factual and legal bases of the deficiency tax assessments and denying
the protest.
Considering the foregoing exchange of correspondence and documents between the
parties, we find that the requirement of Section 228 was substantially complied
with. Respondent had fully informed petitioner in writing of the factual and legal
bases of the deficiency taxes assessment, which enabled the latter to file an
"effective" protest, much unlike the taxpayer's situation in Enron. Petitioner's right
to due process was thus not violated.
Thus, substantial compliance with the requirement under Section 228 of the NIRC is
permissible, provided that the taxpayer would be eventually apprised in writing of
the factual and legal bases of the assessment to allow him to file an effective
protest against.
The above-cited cases refer to the compliance of the FAN/FLD of the due process
requirement embodied in Section 228 of the NIRC and RR No. 12-99. These may
likewise applied to the FDDA, which is similarly required to include a written notice
of the factual and legal bases thereof. Without sounding repetitious, it is important
to note that Section 228 of the NIRC did not limit the requirement of stating the
facts and law only to the FAN/FLD. On the other hand, RR No. 12-99 detailed the
process of assessment and required that both the FAN/FLD and the FDDA state the
law and facts on which it is based.
Guided by the foregoing, the Court now turns to the FDDA in issue.
It is undisputed that the FDDA merely showed Liquigaz' tax liabilities without any
details on the specific transactions which gave rise to its supposed tax deficiencies.
While it provided for the legal bases of the assessment, it fell short of informing
Liquigaz of the factual bases thereof. Thus, the FDDA as regards the EWT and FBT
tax deficiency did not comply with the requirement in Section 3.1.6 of RR No. 1299, as amended, for failure to inform Liquigaz of the factual basis thereof.
The CIR erred in claiming that Liquigaz was informed of the factual bases of the
assessment because the FDDA made reference to the PAN and FAN/FLD, which
were accompanied by details of the alleged discrepancies. The CTA En
Banc highlighted that the amounts in the FAN and the FDDA were different. As
pointed out by the CTA, the FLD/FAN and the FDDA reflected the following
amounts:[21]
Basic
Deficiency
Tax
Expanded
Withholding
Tax
Withholding
Tax on
Compensation
Fringe
Benefits Tax
Total
Per FLD
P3,675,048.78
P2,981,841.84
P9,501,564-07
P16,158,454.72
Per FDDA
P1,823,782.67
P2,366,836.98
P7,572,236.16
P11,762,855.81
Difference
P1,851,266.11
P615,004.80
P1,929,327.91
P4,395,598.91
As such, the Court agrees with the tax court that it becomes even more imperative
that the FDDA contain details of the discrepancy. Failure to do so would deprive
Liquigaz adequate opportunity to prepare an intelligent appeal. It would have no
way of determining what were considered by the CIR in the: defenses it had raised
in the protest to the FLD. Further, without the details of the assessment, it would
open the possibility that the reduction of the assessment could have been arbitrarily
or capriciously arrived at.
The Court, however, finds that the CTA erred in concluding that the assessment on
EWT and FBT deficiency was void because the FDDA covering the same was void.
The assessment remains valid notwithstanding the nullity of the FDDA because as
discussed above, the assessment itself differs from a decision on the disputed
assessment.
As established, an FDDA that does not inform the taxpayer in writing of the facts
and law on which it is based renders the decision void. Therefore, it is as if there
was no decision rendered by the CIR. It is tantamount to a denial by inaction by the
CIR, which may still be appealed before the CTA and the assessment evaluated on
the basis of the available evidence and documents. The merits of the EWT and FBT
assessment should have been discussed and not merely brushed aside on account
of the void FDDA.
On the other hand, the Court agrees that the FDDA substantially informed Liquigaz
of its tax liabilities with regard to its WTC assessment. As highlighted by the CTA,
the basis for the assessment was the same for the FLD and the FDDA, where the
salaries reflected in the ITR and the alphalist were compared resulting in a
discrepancy of P9,318,255.84. The change in the amount of assessed deficiency
withholding taxes on compensation merely arose from the modification of the tax
rates used 32% in the FLD and the effective tax rate of 25.40% in the FDDA. The
Court notes it was Liquigaz itself which proposed the rate of 25.40% as a more
appropriate tax rate as it represented the effective tax on compensation paid for
taxable year 2005.[22] As such, Liquigaz was effectively informed in writing of the
factual bases of its assessment for WTC because the basis for the FDDA, with
regards to the WTC, was identical with the FAN which had a detail of discrepancy
attached to it.
Further, the Court sees no reason to reverse the decision of the CTA as to the
amount of WTC liability of Liquigaz. It is a time-honored doctrine that the findings
and conclusions of the CTA are accorded the highest respect and will not be lightly
set aside because by the very nature of the CTA, it is dedicated exclusively to the
resolution of tax problems and has accordingly developed an expertise on the
subject.[23] The issue of Liquigaz' WTC liability had been thoroughly discussed in the
courts a quo and even the court-appointed independent accountant had found that
Liquigaz was unable to substantiate its claim concerning the discrepancies in its
WTC.
To recapitulate, a "decision" differs from an "assessment" and failure of the FDDA to
state the facts and law on which it is based renders the decision voidbut not
necessarily the assessment. Tax laws may not be extended by implication beyond
the clear import of their language, nor their operation enlarged so as to embrace
matters not specifically provided.[24]
WHEREFORE, the May 22, 2014 Decision and the November 26, 2014 Resolution
of the Court of Tax Appeals En Banc are PARTIALLY AFFIRMED in that the
assessment on deficiency Withholding Tax in Compensation is upheld.
The case is REMANDED to the Court of Tax Appeals for the assessment on
deficiency Expanded Withholding Tax and Fringe Benefits Tax.
SO ORDERED.
Penned by Associate Justice Amelia R. Cotangco-Manalastas, with Associate

Justice Juanito C. Castaeda, Jr., Associate Justice Lovell R. Bautista, Associate
Justice Caesar A. Casanova, Associate Justice Esperanza R. Fabon-Victorino and
Associate Justice Cielito N. Mindaro-Grulla concurring; Presiding Justice Roman G.
del Rosario concurring and dissenting, and Associate Justice Ma. Belen M. RingpisLiban dissenting; Associate Justice Erlinda P. Uy on leave; rollo (G.R. No. 215557),
pp. 44-53.
[1]
Penned by Associate Justice Amelia R. Cotangco-Manalastas, with Associate

Justice Juanito C. Castaneda, Jr., Associate Justice Lovell R. Bautista, Associate
Justice Erlinda P. Uy, Associate Justice Caesar A. Casanova, Associate Justice
Esperanza R. Fabon-Victorino and Associate Justice Cielito N. Mindaro-Grulla
concurring; Presiding Justice Roman G. del Rosario concurring and dissenting, and
Associate Justice Ma. Belen M. Ringpis-Liban dissenting; id. at 70-76.
[2]
Penned by Associate Justice Caesar A. Casanova, with Associate Justice Juanito

C. Castaneda and Associate Justice Cielito N. Mindaro-Grulla concurring; id. at 105129.
[3]
[4]
Id. at 45.
[5]
Rollo (G.R. No. 215534), pp. 80-83.
[6]
Id. at 46.
[7]
Id. at 87-90.
[8]
Rollo (G.R. No. 215557), pp. 103-104.
[9]
Id. at 46.
[10]
Id. at 127-128.
Sec. 228. Protesting of Assessment. - When the Commissioner or his duly

authorized representative finds that proper taxes should be assessed, he shall first
notify the taxpayers. Provided, however, That a preassessment notice shall not be
required in the following cases:
[11]
(a) When the finding for any deficiency tax is the result of mathematical error in the
computation of the tax as appearing on the face of the return;

(b) When a discrepancy has been determined between the tax withheld and the
amount actually remitted by the withholding agent; or
(c) When a taxpayer who opted to claim a refund or tax credit of excess creditable
withholding tax for a taxable period was determined to have carried over and
automatically applied the same amount claimed against the estimated tax liabilities
for the taxable quarter or quarters of the succeeding taxable year; or
(d) When the excise tax due on excisable articles had not been paid; or
(e) When an article locally purchased or imported by an exempt person, such as,
but not limited to vehicles, capital equipment, machineries and spare parts, has
been sold, traded, or transferred to non-exempt persons.
The taxpayers shall be informed in writing of the law and the facts on
which the assessment is made; otherwise, the assessment shall be void.
Within a period to be prescribed by implementing rules and regulations, the
taxpayer shall be required to respond to said notice. If the taxpayer fails to
respond, the Commissioner or his duly authorized representative shall issue an
assessment based on his findings.
Such assessment may be protested administratively by filing a request for
reconsideration or reinvestigation within thirty (30) days from receipt of the
assessment in such form and manner as may be prescribed by implementing rules
and regulations. Within sixty (60) days from filing of the protest, all relevant
supporting'documents shall have been submitted; otherwise, the assessment
shall become final.
If the protest is denied in whole or in party, or is not acted upon within one hundred
eighty (180) days from submission of documents, the taxpayer adversely
affected by the decision or inaction may appeal to the Court of Tax Appeals
within thirty (30) days from receipt of the said decision, or from the lapse of the
one hundred eighty (180) -day period; otherwise, the decision shall become
final, executor and demandable. (Emphases supplied)
Implementing the Provisions of the National Internal Revenue Code of 1997
Governing the Rules on Assessment of National Internal Revenue Taxes, Civil
Penalties and Interest and the Extra-Judicial Settlement of a Taxpayer's Criminal
Violation of the Code Through Payment of a Suggested Compromise Penalty.
[12]
CIR v. United Salvage and Towage (Phils.), Inc., G.R. No. 197515, July 2, 2014,
729 SCRA 113, 128.
[13]
[14]
104 Phil. 314,317(1958).
[15]
SEC. 7. Jurisdiction. - The CTA shall exercise:

a. Exclusive appellate jurisdiction to review by appeal, as herein provided:
1. Decisions of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue in cases involving
disputed assessments, refunds of internal revenue taxes, fees or other
charges, penalties thereto, or other matters arising under the National
Internal Revenue or other laws administered by the Bureau of Internal
Revenue;
2. Inaction by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue in cases involving
disputed assessments, refunds of internal revenue taxes, fees or other
charges, penalties thereto, or other matters arising under the National
Revenue, where the National Internal Revenue Code provides a
specific period of action, in which case the inaction shall be deemed a
denial; xxx
[16]
An Act Creating the Court of Tax Appeals.
[17]
CIR v. Bank of the Philippine Islands, 549 Phil. 886, 899 (2007).
[18]
516 Phil. 176. 186-190(2006).
[19]
Supra note 13.
[20]
G.R. No. 193100, December 10, 2014.
[21]
Rollo (G.R. No. 215557), p. 50.
[22]
Id. at 123.
[23]
CIR v. Mirant (Philippines) Operations, Corporation, 667 Phil. 208, 222 (2011).
[24]
Philippine Health Care Providers, Inc. v. CIR, 616 Phil. 387, 411 (2009).

G.R.
No.
217508
JOSEPH SCOTT PEMBERTON, PETITIONER, VS. HON. LEILA M. DE LIMA, IN HER CAPACITY AS THE SECRETARY OF
JUSTICE, JUDGE ROLINE GINEZ- JABALDE, IN HER CAPACITY AS PRESIDING JUDGE OF BRANCH 74 OF THE REGIONAL
TRIAL
COURT
OF
OLONGAPO
CITY,
AND
MARILOU
LAUDE
SERDONCILLO,
RESPONDENTS.
April 18, 2016
SECOND DIVISION
[ G.R. No. 217508, April 18, 2016 ]
JOSEPH SCOTT PEMBERTON, PETITIONER, VS. HON. LEILA M.
DE LIMA, IN HER CAPACITY AS THE SECRETARY OF JUSTICE,
JUDGE ROLINE GINEZ- JABALDE, IN HER CAPACITY AS
PRESIDING JUDGE OF BRANCH 74 OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL
COURT OF OLONGAPO CITY, AND MARILOU LAUDE Y
SERDONCILLO, RESPONDENTS.
DECISION
LEONEN, J.:
This resolves a Petition for Certiorari[1] praying that the Resolutions dated January
27, 2015[2] and February 20, 2015[3] of respondent Secretary of Justice Leila M. De
Lima (Secretary De Lima) in I.S. No. III-10-INV-14J-01102[4] be reversed and set
aside.[5]
A complaint for murder was filed by the Philippine National Police-Olongapo City
Police Office and private respondent Marilou Laude y Serdoncillo (Laude) against
petitioner Joseph Scott Pemberton (Pemberton).[6]
On October 17, 2014, Pemberton received a Subpoena [7] issued by the City
Prosecutor of Olongapo City giving him 10 days from receipt within which to file a
counter-affidavit.[8] Laude filed an Omnibus Motion[9] dated October 21, 2014
praying that the City Prosecutor of Olongapo City issue subpoenas addressed to:
(a) "Pemberton, directing him to present himself for the lifting of his fingerprint and
of buccal swabs during the clarificatory hearing set on [November 5,] 2014;" [10] and
(b) the Philippine National Police Crime Laboratory, directing the Chief of Office to
assign forensic personnel to gather fingerprints and buccal swabs from Pemberton
and subject him to "forensic examination and analysis, including DNA
testing."[11] Pemberton opposed this in his Opposition to the Omnibus Motion dated
21 October 2014[12] dated October 27, 2014.[13] He also filed a Manifestation and
Omnibus Motion: (1) For Clarification; (2) To Declare Absence of Probable Cause for
Murder or Any Other Crime Against [Petitioner]; and (3) By Way of Ad Cautela [sic]
Prayer, in the Event that this Honorable Office does not Declare the Absence of
Probable Cause, at the very least, To Reduce the Charge to Homicide Considering
the Lack of Circumstances Qualifying the Offense to Murder [14] dated October 27,
2014.[15]
During the preliminary investigation on October 27, 2014, the City Prosecutor of
Olongapo City stated that Pemberton's right to file a counter-affidavit was deemed
waived.[16] In the Order dated October 29, 2014, the City Prosecutor directed the
Philippine National Police Crime Laboratory to obtain latent fingerprint and buccal
swabs from Pemberton and "to submit . . . the results of the forensic examination
within a period of three (3) weeks . . . from the date of actual collection of the
specimen[s.]"[17]
Pemberton filed a Manifestation with Omnibus Motion: 1) to Determine Probable
Cause on the Basis of Evidence Submitted as of 27 October 2014; and 2) For
Reconsideration of the Order dated 29 October 2014 [18] dated November 4, 2014.[19]
However, the City Prosecutor of Olongapo City continued to evaluate the evidence
and conducted ocular inspections in connection with the preliminary investigation.
[20]
Through the Resolution dated December 15, 2014, it "found probable cause
against [Pemberton] for the crime of murder."[21] On the same day, an
Information[22]for murder was filed against Pemberton before the Regional Trial
Court of Olongapo City.[23] The case was docketed as Criminal Case No. 865-2014
and was raffled to Branch 74 of the Regional Trial Court.[24] The trial court issued a
warrant of arrest.[25]
On December 18, 2014, Pemberton filed his Petition for Review before the
Department of Justice.[26] On the same day, he filed a Motion to Defer the
Proceedings[27]before the Regional Trial Court.[28]
In the Resolution dated January 27, 2015, Secretary De Lima denied Pemberton's
Petition for Review[29] and stated that based on the evidence on record, there was
"no reason to alter, modify, or reverse the resolution of the City Prosecutor of
Olongapo City."[30] Pemberton's Motion for Reconsideration was likewise denied for
lack of merit in the Resolution dated February 20, 2015. [31]
Aggrieved, Pemberton filed this Petition for Certiorari with application for the exparte issuance of a temporary restraining order and/or writ of preliminary
injunction.[32]
Pemberton argues that in sustaining a finding of probable cause, Secretary De Lima
committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess or absence of jurisdiction
based on the following grounds: (a) Secretary De Lima took into account additional
evidence which the City Prosecutor allegedly had no authority to receive and which
Pemberton had no opportunity to address and rebut, thereby denying him due
process of law;[33] (b) Secretary De Lima found probable cause to charge Pemberton
with the crime of murder when "the evidence on record does not support the
existence of probable cause to indict [him] . . . with either homicide or
murder[;]"[34] and (c) Secretary De Lima found that "the killing was attended with
the qualifying circumstances of treachery, abuse of superior strength[,] and cruelty
despite prevailing jurisprudence dictating that the elements of these qualifying
circumstances . . . be established by direct evidence." [35]
Secretary De Lima, through the Office of the Solicitor General, points out that this
Petition is procedurally infirm. The Petition assails the appreciation of evidence and
law by Secretary De Lima, which are "errors of judgment . . . [that] cannot be
remedied by a writ of certiorari."[36] Further, by filing this Petition before this court
and not the Court of Appeals, Pemberton violated the principle of hierarchy of
courts.[37] Moreover, the case is moot and academic, considering that the Regional
Trial Court has convicted Pemberton for the crime charged. [38]
Thus, for resolution are the following issues:
First, whether respondent Secretary Leila M. De Lima committed grave abuse of
discretion in sustaining the finding of probable cause against petitioner Joseph Scott
Pemberton, thereby denying petitioner due process of law;
Second, whether petitioner violated the principle of hierarchy of courts by filing his
Petition before this Court instead of the Court of Appeals; and
Lastly, whether this case has been rendered moot and academic.
We deny the Petition for Certiorari for lack of merit and for being moot and
academic.
I
In Alafriz v. Nable,[39] this Court defined grave abuse of discretion:
Certiorari lies where a court has acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with
grave abuse of discretion. "Without jurisdiction" means that the court acted with
absolute want of jurisdiction. There is "excess of jurisdiction" where the court has
jurisdiction but has transcended the same or acted without any statutory authority.
"Grave abuse of discretion" implies such capricious and whimsical exercise of
judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction, or, in other words, where the
power is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion or
personal hostility, and it must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of
positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined or to act at all in
contemplation of law.[40] (Citations omitted)
In Ching v. Secretary of Justice,[41] this Court expounded on the evidence required
for a determination of probable cause:
Probable cause need not be based on clear and convincing evidence of guilt, as the
investigating officer acts upon probable cause of reasonable belief. Probable cause
implies probability of guilt and requires more than bare suspicion but less than
evidence which would justify a conviction. A finding of probable cause needs only to
rest on evidence showing that more likely than not, a crime has been committed by
the suspect.[42]
This was reiterated in Chan v. Secretary of Justice:[43]
Probable cause has been defined as the existence of such facts and circumstances
as would lead a person of ordinary caution and prudence to entertain an honest and
strong suspicion that the person charged is guilty of the crime subject of the
investigation. Being based merely on opinion and reasonable belief, it does not
import absolute certainty. Probable cause need not be based on clear and
convincing evidence of guilt, as the investigating officer acts upon reasonable belief.
Probable cause implies probability of guilt and requires more than bare suspicion
but less than evidence which would justify a conviction.[44]
There is no basis to doubt that respondent De Lima judiciously scrutinized the
evidence on record. Based on respondent De Lima's assessment, there was ample
evidence submitted to establish probable cause that petitioner murdered the victim:
First, the killing of Laude has been indubitably confirmed.
Second, the various pieces of evidence so far presented in this case, i.e., the CCTV
footage of Ambyanz showing Gelviro, Laude and respondent leaving the club
together; the unequivocal testimonies of Gelviro and Gallamos positively identifying
respondent as the person who was last seen with Laude on the night he died; the
result of the general physical examination conducted on respondent showing
abrasions and light scratches on different parts of his body; his latent print on one
of the condoms found at the crime scene; and the unequivocal testimonies of
respondent's fellow Marine servicemen who were with him on that fateful night,
lead to no other conclusion than that respondent was the perpetrator of the crime.
Third, the results of the physical examination conducted on respondent and Laude's
cadaver, as well as the ocular inspection of the crime scene, demonstrate the
attendant qualifying circumstances of treachery, abuse of superior strength, and
cruelty.
Finally, the killing is neither parricide nor infanticide as provided under the RPC, as
amended. Hence, the charge of murder.
The convergence of the foregoing circumstances all taken together leads to the fair
and reasonable inference that respondent is probably guilty of killing Laude through
treachery, abuse of superior strength, and cruelty.
Maintaining his innocence, respondent points out the lack of any direct evidence
linking him to the crime. We are not persuaded.
Absence of direct evidence does not preclude a finding of probable cause. It has
been the consistent pronouncement of the Supreme Court that, in such cases, the
prosecution may resort to circumstantial evidence. Crimes are usually committed in
secret and under conditions where concealment is highly probable. If direct
evidence is insisted upon under all circumstances, the guilt of vicious felons who
committed heinous crimes in secret or in secluded places will be hard, if not
impossible, to prove.
In view of the importance of the qualifying circumstances as the bases for
respondent's indictment for the crime of murder, the same are heretofore discussed
and explained.
There is treachery when these two elements occur: (1) the employment of means
of execution that give the persons attacked no opportunity to defend themselves or
retaliate; and (2) the means of execution were deliberately or consciously adopted.
Treachery clearly attended the killing of Laude. The evidence reveals that
respondent choked him from behind. The autopsy results as well as the
examination conducted by the NCIS indicate that there were visible pressure marks
and a circular purplish discoloration around his neck. In addition, the Medico Legal
Report No. A14-163RCLO5 shows that the external portion of the right horn of his
larynx is contused and that there is hematoma on the upper inner portions of the
larynx below the glottis. It is apparent that the manner of attack employed by
respondent rendered Laude unable to defend himself or to retaliate.

It has been repeatedly held that the essence of treachery is the sudden attack by
an aggressor without the slightest provocation on the part of the victim, depriving
the latter of any real chance to defend himself, thereby ensuring the commission of
the crime without risk to the aggressor. We note that the short span of time it took
to kill Laude indicates the suddenness of the attack. According to the separate
testimonies of certain witnesses, the lifeless body of Laude was discovered thirty
(30) minutes after Gelviro left the room.
Moreover, the absence of provocation on the part of Laude to warrant such vicious
attack need not be debated. He went with respondent on his own volition to engage
in sexual acts in exchange for money. Thus, he most probably did not expect to be
in danger and, consequently, he was unlikely unable to defend himself against the
unwarranted attack.
In appreciating the element of abuse of superior strength, it is not only necessary
to evaluate the physical conditions of the protagonists or opposing forces and the
arms or objects employed by both sides, but it is also necessary to analyse the
incidents and episodes constituting the total development of the event. We aptly
note that respondent is a member of [the] United States Marine Corps, which is
known to have the strictest recruitment standards among the Uniformed Services of
the United States Armed Forces. In view of the rigorous physical and mental
training requirements for enlistment, all members of the Marine Corps possess
superior strength and exceptional combat skills. On the other hand, Laude, albeit
biologically a man, is a transgender who chose to adapt (sic) a woman's physical
appearance and behavior. Thus, it is clear that there is manifest physical disparity
between respondent and Laude and that the former took advantage of his superior
strength to cause the death of Laude, as evidenced by the multiple abrasions and
contusions found on the latter.
On the other hand, there is cruelty when the culprit enjoys and delights in making
his victim suffer slowly and gradually, causing him unnecessary physical pain in the
consummation of the criminal act. The test is whether respondent deliberately and
sadistically augmented the wrong by causing another wrong not necessary for its
commission or inhumanly increased the victim's suffering or outraged or scoffed at
his person or corpse. The autopsy results that Laude died of "asphyxia due to
drowning and strangulation" shows that while he was still breathing, respondent
drowned him by forcefully submerging his head in the water inside the toilet bowl.
This grisly scenario, coupled with Laude's other major injuries, clearly show that he
suffered excessively prior to his death. Respondent opted to kill him in a manner
that increased his suffering and caused him unnecessary physical pain before his
death. Drowning Laude in a toilet bowl evidently indicates respondent's intention to

degrade him.[45] (Citations omitted)
Respondent De Lima's finding of probable cause against petitioner was not rendered
with grave abuse of discretion. Rather, her determination was based on a careful
evaluation of evidence presented.
Moreover, petitioner was fully accorded due process in the preliminary investigation
proceedings. This Court has explained that the essence of due process is an
opportunity to be heard:
The essence of due process is that a party is afforded a reasonable opportunity to
be heard in support of his case; what the law abhors and prohibits is the absolute
absence of the opportunity to be heard. When the party seeking due process was in
fact given several opportunities to be heard and to air his side, but it was by his
own fault or choice that he squandered these chances, then his cry for due process
must fail.[46] (Citations omitted)
Petitioner had multiple opportunities to controvert the evidence presented during
the preliminary investigation. He was directed to file a counter-affidavit, which was
an opportunity to refute the allegations against him. Petitioner was also given the
opportunity to seek reconsideration of the initial finding of probable cause.
II
In The Diocese of Bacolod v. Commission on Elections,[47] we explained the role of
this Court in relation to the doctrine of hierarchy of courts:
This brings us to the issue of whether petitioners violated the doctrine of hierarchy
of courts in directly filing their petition before this court.
Respondents contend that petitioners' failure to file the proper suit with a lower
court of concurrent jurisdiction is sufficient ground for the dismissal of their
petition. They add that observation of the hierarchy of courts is compulsory,
citing Heirs of Bertuldo Hinog v. Melicor. While respondents claim that while there
are exceptions to the general rule on hierarchy of courts, none of these are present
in this case
On the other hand, petitioners cite Fortich v. Corona on this court's discretionary
power to take cognizance of a petition filed directly to it if warranted by "compelling
reasons, or [by] the nature and importance of the issues raised . . . ." Petitioners
submit that there are "exceptional and compelling reasons to justify a direct resort
[with] this Court."
In Baez, Jr. v. Concepcion, we explained the necessity of the application of the
hierarchy of courts:
The Court must enjoin the observance of the policy on the hierarchy of courts, and
now affirms that the policy is not to be ignored without serious consequences. The
strictness of the policy is designed to shield the Court from having to deal with
causes that are also well within the competence of the lower courts, and thus leave
time to the Court to deal with the more fundamental and more essential tasks that
the Constitution has assigned to it. The Court may act on petitions for the
extraordinary writs of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus only when absolutely
necessary or when serious and important reasons exist to justify an exception to
the policy.
In Baez, we also elaborated on the reasons why lower courts are allowed to issue
writs of certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus, citing Vergara v. Suelto:
The Supreme Court is a court of last resort, and must so remain if it is to
satisfactorily perform the functions assigned to it by the fundamental charter and
immemorial tradition. It cannot and should not be burdened with the task of dealing
with causes in the first instance. Its original jurisdiction to issue the so-called
extraordinary writs should be exercised only where absolutely necessary or where
serious and important reasons exist therefore. Hence, that jurisdiction should
generally be exercised relative to actions or proceedings before the Court of
Appeals, or before constitutional or other tribunals, bodies or agencies whose acts
for some reason or another are not controllable by the Court of Appeals. Where the
issuance of an extraordinary writ is also within the competence of the Court of
Appeals or a Regional Trial Court, it is in either of these courts that the specific
action for the writ's procurement must be presented. This is and should continue to
be the policy in this regard, a policy that courts and lawyers must strictly observe.
The doctrine that requires respect for the hierarchy of courts was created by this
court to ensure that every level of the judiciary performs its designated roles in an
effective and efficient manner. Trial courts do not only determine the facts from the
evaluation of the evidence presented before them. They are likewise competent to
determine issues of law which may include the validity of an ordinance, statute, or
even an executive issuance in relation to the Constitution. To effectively perform
these functions, they are territorially organized into regions and then into branches.
Their writs generally reach within those territorial boundaries. Necessarily, they
mostly perform the all-important task of inferring the facts from the evidence as
these are physically presented before them. In many instances, the facts occur
within their territorial jurisdiction, which properly present the 'actual case' that
makes ripe a determination of the constitutionality of such action. The
consequences, of course, would be national in scope. There are, however, some
cases where resort to courts at their level would not be practical considering their
decisions could still be appealed before the higher courts, such as the Court of
Appeals.
The Court of Appeals is primarily designed as an appellate court that reviews the
determination of facts and law made by the trial courts. It is collegiate in nature.
This nature ensures more standpoints in the review of the actions of the trial court.
But the Court of Appeals also has original jurisdiction over most special civil actions.
Unlike the trial courts, its writs can have a nationwide scope. It is competent to
determine facts and, ideally, should act on constitutional issues that may not
necessarily be novel unless there are factual questions to determine.
This court, on the other hand, leads the judiciary by breaking new ground or further
reiterating in the light of new circumstances or in the light of some confusions of
bench or bar existing precedents. Rather than a court of first instance or as a
repetition of the actions of the Court of Appeals, this court promulgates these
doctrinal devices in order that it truly performs that role. [48]
We proceeded to name exceptional cases, where direct resort to this Court may be
allowed:
First, a direct resort to this court is allowed when there are genuine issues of
constitutionality that must be addressed at the most immediate time. A direct
resort to this court includes availing of the remedies of certiorari and prohibition to
assail the constitutionality of actions of both legislative and executive branches of
the government.
In this case, the assailed issuances of respondents prejudice not only petitioners'
right to freedom of expression in the present case, but also of others in future
similar cases. The case before this court involves an active effort on the part of the
electorate to reform the political landscape. This has become a rare occasion when
private citizens actively engage the public in political discourse. To quote an
eminent political theorist:
[T]he theory of freedom of expression involves more than a technique for arriving
at better social judgments through democratic procedures. It comprehends a vision
of society, a faith and a whole way of life. The theory grew out of an age that was
awakened and invigorated by the idea of new society in which man's mind was free,
his fate determined by his own powers of reason, and his prospects of creating a
rational and enlightened civilization virtually unlimited. It is put forward as a
prescription for attaining a creative, progressive, exciting and intellectually robust
community. It contemplates a mode of life that, through encouraging toleration,
skepticism, reason and initiative, will allow man to realize his full potentialities. It
spurns the alternative of a society that is tyrannical, conformist, irrational and
stagnant.
In a democracy, the citizen's right to freely participate in the exchange of ideas in
furtherance of political decision-making is recognized. It deserves the highest
protection the courts may provide, as public participation in nation-building is a
fundamental principle in our Constitution. As such, their right to engage in free
expression of ideas must be given immediate protection by this court.
A second exception is when the issues involved are of transcendental importance.
In these cases, the imminence and clarity of the threat to fundamental

constitutional rights outweigh the necessity for prudence. The doctrine relating to
constitutional issues of transcendental importance prevents courts from the
paralysis of procedural niceties when clearly faced with the need for substantial
protection.
In the case before this court, there is a clear threat to the paramount right of
freedom of speech and freedom of expression which warrants invocation of relief
from this court. The principles laid down in this decision will likely influence the
discourse of freedom of speech in the future, especially in the context of elections.
The right to suffrage not only includes the right to vote for one's chosen candidate,
but also the right to vocalize that choice to the public in general, in the hope of
influencing their votes. It may be said that in an election year, the right to vote
necessarily includes the right to free speech and expression. The protection of these
fundamental constitutional rights, therefore, allows for the immediate resort to this
court.
Third, cases of first impression warrant a direct resort to this court. In cases of first
impression, no jurisprudence yet exists that will guide the lower courts on this
matter. In Government of the United States v. Purganan, this court took cognizance
of the case as a matter of first impression that may guide the lower courts:
In the interest of justice and to settle once and for all the important issue of bail in
extradition proceedings, we deem it best to take cognizance of the present case.
Such proceedings constitute a matter of first impression over which there is, as yet,
no local jurisprudence to guide lower courts.
This court finds that this is indeed a case of first impression involving as it does the
issue of whether the right of suffrage includes the right of freedom of expression.
This is a question which this court has yet to provide substantial answers to,
through jurisprudence. Thus, direct resort to this court is allowed.
Fourth, the constitutional issues raised are better decided by this court. In Drilon v.
Lim, this court held that:
. . . it will be prudent for such courts, if only out of a becoming modesty, to defer to
the higher judgment of this Court in the consideration of its validity, which is better
determined after a thorough deliberation by a collegiate body and with the
concurrence of the majority of those who participated in its discussion.
In this case, it is this court, with its constitutionally enshrined judicial power, that
can rule with finality on whether COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion or
performed acts contrary to the Constitution through the assailed issuances.
Fifth, the time element presented in this case cannot be ignored. This case was filed
during the 2013 election period. Although the elections have already been
concluded, future cases may be filed that necessitate urgency in its resolution.
Exigency in certain situations would qualify as an exception for direct resort to this
court.
Sixth, the filed petition reviews the act of a constitutional organ. COMELEC is a
constitutional body. In Albano v. Arranz, cited by petitioners, this court held that
"[i]t is easy to realize the chaos that would ensue if the Court of First Instance of
each and every province were [to] arrogate itself the power to disregard, suspend,
or contradict any order of the Commission on Elections: that constitutional body
would be speedily reduced to impotence."
In this case, if petitioners sought to annul the actions of COMELEC through pursuing
remedies with the lower courts, any ruling on their part would not have been
binding for other citizens whom respondents may place in the same situation.
Besides, this court affords great respect to the Constitution and the powers and
duties imposed upon COMELEC. Hence, a ruling by this court would be in the best
interest of respondents, in order that their actions may be guided accordingly in the
future.
Seventh, petitioners rightly claim that they had no other plain, speedy, and
adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law that could free them from the
injurious effects of respondents' acts in violation of their right to freedom of
expression.
In this case, the repercussions of the assailed issuances on this basic right
constitute an exceptionally compelling reason to justify the direct resort to this
court. The lack of other sufficient remedies in the course of law alone is sufficient
ground to allow direct resort to this court.
Eighth, the petition includes questions that are "dictated by public welfare and the
advancement of public policy, or demanded by the broader interest of justice, or the
orders complained of were found to be patent nullities, or the appeal was
considered as clearly an inappropriate remedy." In the past, questions similar to
these which this court ruled on immediately despite the doctrine of hierarchy of
courts included citizens' right to bear arms, government contracts involving
modernization of voters' registration lists, and the status and existence of a public
office.
This case also poses a question of similar, if not greater import. Hence, a direct
action to this court is permitted.
It is not, however, necessary that all of these exceptions must occur at the same
time to justify a direct resort to this court. While generally, the hierarchy of courts
is respected, the present case falls under the recognized exceptions and, as such,
may be resolved by this court directly.[49]
A direct invocation of this Court's original jurisdiction to issue these writs should be
allowed only when there are special and important reasons clearly and specifically
set out in the petition.[50]
In this case, petitioner alleges that the case against him has been scheduled for an
expedited trial.[51] Thus, petitioner claims that it is necessary "to expeditiously
arrive at a definitive ruling as to whether . . . respondent [De Lima] committed
grave abuse of discretion . . . in issuing the [a]ssailed [r]esolutions." [52] In his view,
a direct invocation of this Court's original jurisdiction is necessary. Petitioner argues
that without this Court's intervention, a situation may result where "the trial has
already concluded[,] while the issue on whether there exists probable cause to
charge [petitioner] with the crime of murder . . . has not been settled with
finality."[53]
This argument is completely bereft of merit. It is not clear why any action by the
Court of Appeals, which has concurrent original jurisdiction in petitions
for certiorariunder Rule 65, cannot be considered as sufficient for review of
petitioner's case.
Furthermore, the possibility of the conclusion of the trial of the case against
petitioner is not a reason that is special and important enough to successfully
invoke this Court's original jurisdiction. Once there has been a judicial finding of
probable cause, an executive determination of probable cause is irrelevant.
Consequently, even assuming that grave abuse of discretion somehow taints an
executive finding of probable cause, such grave abuse of discretion has no effect in
a trial. Whether respondent De Lima, indeed, committed grave abuse of discretion
in relation to the executive determination of probable cause is irrelevant to the trial
itself.
III
A petition for certiorari questioning the validity of the preliminary investigation in
any other venue is rendered moot by the issuance of a warrant of arrest and the
conduct of arraignment. In De Lima v. Reyes:[54]
The filing of the information and the issuance by the trial court of the respondent's
warrant of arrest has already rendered this Petition moot.
It is settled that executive determination of probable cause is different from the
judicial determination of probable cause. In People v. Castillo and Mejia:
There are two kinds of determination of probable cause: executive and judicial. The
executive determination of probable cause is one made during preliminary
investigation. It is a function that properly pertains to the public prosecutor who is

given a broad discretion to determine whether probable cause exists and to charge
those whom he believes to have committed the crime as defined by law and thus
should be held for trial. Otherwise stated, such official has the quasi-judicial
authority to determine whether or not a criminal case must be filed in
court. Whether or not that function has been correctly discharged by the public
prosecutor, i.e., whether or not he has made a correct ascertainment of the
existence of probable cause in a case, is a matter that the trial court itself does not
and may not be compelled to pass upon.
The judicial determination of probable cause, on the other hand, is one made by the
judge to ascertain whether a warrant of arrest should be issued against the
accused. The judge must satisfy himself that based on the evidence submitted,
there is necessity for placing the accused under custody in order not to frustrate the
ends of justice. If the judge finds no probable cause, the judge cannot be forced to
issue the arrest warrant.
The courts do not interfere with the prosecutor's conduct of a preliminary
investigation. The prosecutor's determination of probable cause is solely within his
or her discretion. Prosecutors are given a wide latitude of discretion to determine
whether an information should be filed in court or whether the complaint should be
dismissed.
A preliminary investigation is "merely inquisitorial," and is only conducted to aid the
prosecutor in preparing the information. It serves a two-fold purpose: first, to
protect the innocent against wrongful prosecutions; and second, to spare the state
from using its funds and resources in useless prosecutions . . . .
....
Once the information is filed in court, the court acquires jurisdiction of the case and
any motion to dismiss the case or to determine the accused's guilt or innocence
rests within the sound discretion of the court. In Crespo v. Mogul:
The filing of a complaint or information in Court initiates a criminal action. The
Court thereby acquires jurisdiction over the case, which is the authority to hear and
determine the case. When after the filing of the complaint or information a warrant
for the arrest of the accused is issued by the trial court and the accused either
voluntarily submitted himself to the court or was duly arrested, the Court thereby
acquired jurisdiction over the person of the accused.
The preliminary investigation conducted by the fiscal for the purpose of determining
whether a prima facie case exists warranting the prosecution of the accused is
terminated upon the filing of the information in the proper court. In turn, as above
stated, the filing of said information sets in motion the criminal action against the
accused in Court. Should the fiscal find it proper to conduct a reinvestigation of the
case, at such stage, the permission of the Court must be secured. After such
reinvestigation the finding and recommendations of the fiscal should be submitted
to the Court for appropriate action. While it is true that the fiscal has the quasijudicial discretion to determine whether or not a criminal case should be filed in
court or not, once the case had already been brought to Court whatever disposition
the fiscal may feel should be proper in the case thereafter should be addressed for
the consideration of the Court, the only qualification is that the action of the Court
must not impair the substantial rights of the accused or the right of the People to
due process of law.
Whether the accused had been arraigned or not and whether it was due to a
reinvestigation by the fiscal or a review by the Secretary of Justice whereby a
motion to dismiss was submitted to the Court, the Court in the exercise of its
discretion may grant the motion or deny it and require that the trial on the merits
proceed for the proper determination of the case.
However, one may ask, if the trial court refuses to grant the motion to dismiss filed
by the fiscal upon the directive of the Secretary of Justice will there not be a
vacuum in the prosecution? A state prosecutor to handle the case cannot possibly
be designated by the Secretary of Justice who does not believe that there is a basis
for prosecution nor can the fiscal be expected to handle the prosecution of the case
thereby defying the superior order of the Secretary of Justice.
The answer is simple. The role of the fiscal or prosecutor as We all know is to see
that justice is done and not necessarily to secure the conviction of the person
accused before the Courts. Thus, in spite of his [or her] opinion to the contrary, it is
the duty of the fiscal to proceed with the presentation of evidence of the
prosecution to the Court to enable the Court to arrive at its own independent
judgment as to whether the accused should be convicted or acquitted. The fiscal
should not shirk from the responsibility of appearing for the People of the
Philippines even under such circumstances much less should he [or she] abandon
the prosecution of the case leaving it to the hands of a private prosecutor for then
the entire proceedings will be null and void. The least that the fiscal should do is to
continue to appear for the prosecution although he [or she] may turn over the
presentation of the evidence to the private prosecutor but still under his direction
and control.
The rule therefore in this jurisdiction is that once a complaint or information is filed
in Court, any disposition of the case as to its dismissal or the conviction or acquittal
of the accused rests in the sound discretion of the Court. Although the fiscal retains
the direction and control of the prosecution of criminal cases even while the case is
already in Court he [or she] cannot impose his [or her] opinion on the trial court.
The Court is the best and sole judge on what to do with the case before it. The
determination of the case is within its exclusive jurisdiction and competence. A
motion to dismiss the case filed by the fiscal should be addressed to the Court who
has the option to grant or deny the same. It does not matter if this is done before
or after the arraignment of the accused or that the motion was filed after a
reinvestigation or upon instructions of the Secretary of Justice who reviewed the
records of the investigation.
Thus, it would be ill-advised for the Secretary of Justice to proceed with resolving
respondent's Petition for Review pending before her. It would be more prudent to
refrain from entertaining the Petition considering that the trial court already issued
a warrant of arrest against respondent. The issuance of the warrant signifies that
the trial court has made an independent determination of the existence of probable
cause . . . .
....
Here, the trial court has already determined, independently of any finding or
recommendation by the First Panel or the Second Panel, that probable cause exists
for the issuance of the warrant of arrest against respondent. Probable cause has
been judicially determined. Jurisdiction over the case, therefore, has transferred to
the trial court. A petition for certiorari questioning the validity of the preliminary
investigation in any other venue has been rendered moot by the issuance of the
warrant of arrest and the conduct of arraignment.[55] (Emphasis in the original)
Respondent De Lima's manifestation regarding the conviction of petitioner of the
crime of homicide[56] is well-taken. However, even without the conviction, this
Petition has already been rendered moot and academic by virtue of the judicial
finding of probable cause in the form of the Regional Trial Court's issuance of an
arrest warrant against petitioner.
WHEREFORE, the Petition for Certiorari is DISMISSED. The January 27, 2015
Resolution and the February 20, 2015 Resolution of respondent Secretary of Justice
Leila M. De Lima in I.S. No. III-10-INV-14J-01102 are AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
Rollo, pp. 3-71. The Petition is filed under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure.
[1]
Id. at 75-87. The Resolution was penned by Undersecretary Jose Vicente B.

Salazar for the Secretary of Justice.
[2]
Id. at 88-96. The Resolution was penned by Secretary of Justice Leila M. De

Lima.
[3]
The case was entitled "Philippine National Police-Olongapo City; Marilou Laude y
Serdoncillo v. L/CPL Joseph Scott Pemberton."
[4]
[5]
Rollo, p. 67, Petition for Certiorari.
[6]
Id. at 81, Department of Justice Resolution dated January 27, 2015.
[7]
Id. at 164-165.
[8]
Id. at 15, Petition for Certiorari.
[9]
Id. at 171-179.
[10]
[11]
Id.
[12]
Id. at 180-190.
[13]
Id. at 16-17, Petition for Certiorari.
[14]
Id. at 191-203.
[15]
Id. at 204, Minutes of the preliminary investigation hearing on October 27,

2014.
[16]
[17]
[18]
Id. at 212-223.
[19]
[20]
Id. at 18-19.
[21]
Id. at 20.
[22]
Id. at 271-273.
[23]
[24]
Id.
[25]
Id.
[26]
Id. at 21.
[27]
Id. at 406-409.
[28]
[29]
Id. at 87, Department of Justice Resolution dated January 27, 2015.
[30]
Id. at 81.
[31]
Id. at 96.
[32]
Id. at 3, Petition for Review.
[33]
Id. at 24.
[34]
Id.
[35]
Id.
[36]
Id. at 566, Office of the Solicitor General's Comment.
[37]
Id. at 566-567.
[38]
Id. at 573-574.
[39]
72 Phil. 278 (1941) [Per J. Moran, En Banc].
[40]
Id. at 280.
[41]
517 Phil. 151 (2006) [Per J. Callejo, St., First Division].
Id. at 171, citing Nova v. Commission on Audit, 419 Phil. 544, 554 (2001) [Per
J. Buena, En Banc].
[42]
[43]
Chan v. Formaran III, et al., 572 Phil. 118 (2008) [Per J. Nachura, Third
Division].
[44]
Id. at 132.
[45]
Rollo, pp. 82-85, Department of Justice Resolution dated January 27, 2015.
Suyan v. People, G.R. No. 189644, July 2, 2014, 729 SCRA 1, 9-10 [Per C.J.
Sereno, First Division].
[46]
G.R. No. 205728, January 21, 2015

file=/jurisprudence/2015/january2015/205728.pdf> [Per J. Leonen, En Banc].
[47]
Id. at 12-14, citing Heirs of Bertuldo Hinog v. Melicor, 495 Phil. 422, 432 (2005)
[Per J. Austria-Martinez, Second Division]; Fortich v. Corona, 352 Phil. 461, 480
(1998) [Per J. Martinez, Second Division]; Baez, Jr. v. Conception, 693 Phil. 399,
412 (2012) [Per J. Bersamin, First Division], in turn citing Vergara v. Suelto, 240
Phil. 719, 732-733 (1987) [Per J. Narvasa, First Division]; Ynot v. Intermediate
Appellate Court, 232 Phil. 615, 621 (1987) [Per J. Cruz, En Banc]. See J.M. Tuason
& Co., Inc. et al. v. Court of Appeals, et al., 113 Phil. 673, 681 (1961) [Per J. J.B.L.
Reyes, En Banc]; Espiritu v. Fugoso, 81 Phil. 637, 639 (1948) [Per J. Perfecto, En
Banc].
[48]
Id. at 15-18, citing Aquino III v. COMELEC, 631 Phil. 595, 612-613 (2010) [Per
J. Perez, En Banc]; Magallona v. Ermita, 671 Phil. 243, 256-257 (2011) [Per J.
Carpio, En Banc]; Thomas I. Emerson, TOWARD A GENERAL THEORY OF THE FIRST
AMENDMENT, Faculty Scholarship Series, Paper 2796 (1963), as cited in Gonzales,
et al. v. COMELEC,137 Phil. 471, 493-494 (1969) [Per J. Fernando, En
Banc]; Initiatives for Dialogue and Empowerment through Alternative Legal
Services, Inc. (IDEALS, INC.) v. Power Sector Assets and Liabilities Management
Corporation (PSALM), 696 Phil. 486, 519 (2012) [Per J. Villarama, Jr., En
Banc]; Agan, Jr. v. PIATCO, 450 Phil. 744, 805 (2003) [Per J. Puno, En
Banc]; Soriano v. Laguardia, 605 Phil. 43, 99 (2009) [Per J. Velasco, Jr., En
Banc]; Mallion v. Alcantara, 536 Phil. 1049, 1053 (2006) [Per J. Azcuna, Second
Division]; Government of the United States v. Purganan, 438 Phil. 417, 439 (2002)
[Per J. Panganiban, En Banc]; Drilon v. Lim, G.R. No. 112497, August 4, 1994, 235
SCRA 135, 140 [Per J. Cruz, En Banc]; Albano v. Arranz, 114 Phil. 318, 322 (1962)
[Per J. J.B.L. Reyes, En Banc]; Chong v. Dela Cruz, 610 Phil. 725, 728 (2009) [Per
J. Nachura, Third Division], in turn citing Gelindon v. De la Rama, G.R. No. 105072,
December 9, 1993, 228 SCRA 322, 326-327 [Per J. Vitug, Third Division]; Chavez
v. Romulo, G.R. No. 157036, June 9, 2004, 431 SCRA 534 [Per J. SandovalGutierrez, En Banc]; COMELEC v. Quijano-Padilla, 438 Phil. 72 (2002) [Per J.
Sandoval-Gutierrez, En Banc]; Buklod ng Kawaning EIIB v. Zamora, 413 Phil. 281
[49]
(2001) [Per J. Sandoval-Gutierrez, En Banc].

Tolentino v. People, 532 Phil 429, 433 (2006) [Per J. Sandoval-Gutierrez,
Second Division].
[50]
[51]
Rollo, pp. 11-12, Petition for Certiorari.
[52]
Id. at 12.
[53]
Id.
G.R. No. 209330, January 11,

2016 <http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?
file=/jurisprudence/2016/january2016/209330.pdf> [Per J. Leonen, Second
Division].
[54]
Id. at 16-20, citing People v. Castillo and Mejia, 607 Phil. 754, 764-765 (2009)
[Per J. Quisumbing, Second Division], in turn citing Paderanga v. Drilon, 273 Phil.
290, 296 (1991) [Per J. Regalado, En Banc], Roberts, Jr. v. Court of Appeals, 324
Phil. 568, 620-621 (1996) [Per J. Davide, Jr., En Banc], Ho v. People, 345 Phil. 597,
611 (1997) [Per J. Panganiban, En Banc]; Pilapil v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No.
101978, April 7, 1993, 221 SCRA 349, 357 [Per J. Nocon, En Banc]; and Crespo v.
Mogul, 235 Phil. 465, 474-476 (1987) [Per J. Gancayco, En Banc], in turn citing
Herrera v. Barretto, 25 Phil. 245 (1913) [Per J. Moreland, En Banc], U.S. v.
Limsiongco, 41 Phil. 94 (1920) [Per J. Malcolm, En Banc], De la Cruz v. Moir, 36
Phil. 213 (1917) [Per J. Moreland, En Banc], RULES OF COURT, Rule 110, sec. 1,
RULES OF CRIM. PROC. (1985), sec. 1, 21 C.J.S. 123; Carrington, U.S. v. Barreto,
32 Phil. 444 (1917) [Per Curiam, En Banc], Asst. Provincial Fiscal of Bataan v.
Dollete, 103 Phil. 914 (1958) [Per J. Montemayor, En Banc], People v. Zabala, 58 O.
G. 5028, Galman v. Sandiganbayan, 228 Phil. 42 (1986) [Per C.J. Teehankee, En
Banc], People v. Beriales, 162 Phil. 478 (1976) [Per J. Concepcion, Jr., Second
Division], U.S. v. Despabiladeras, 32 Phil. 442 (1915) [Per J. Carson, En
Banc], U.S. v. Gallegos, 37 Phil. 289 (1917) [Per J. Johnson, En Banc], People v.
Hernandez, 69 Phil. 672 (1964) [Per J. Labrador, En Banc], U.S. v. Labial, 27 Phil.
82 (1914) [Per J. Carson, En Banc], U.S. v. Fernandez, 17 Phil. 539 (1910) [Per J.
Torres, En Banc], People v. Velez, 11 Phil. 1026 (1947) [Per J. Feria, En Banc].
[55]
[56]
Rollo, pp. 573-574, Office of the Solicitor General's Comment.

G.R.
No.
204325
LYNMAN BACOLOR, JEFFREY R. GALURA, HELEN B. TORRES, FRITZIE C. VELLEGAS, RAYMOND CANLAS AND ZHEILA C.
TORRES,* PETITIONERS, VS. VL MAKABALI MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, INC., ALEJANDRO S. MAKABALI, MELCHOR
CATAMBING
AND
DAX
M.
TIDULA,
RESPONDENTS.
April 18, 2016
SECOND DIVISION
[ G.R. No. 204325, April 18, 2016 ]
LYNMAN BACOLOR, JEFFREY R. GALURA, HELEN B. TORRES,
FRITZIE C. VELLEGAS, RAYMOND CANLAS AND ZHEILA C.
TORRES,*PETITIONERS, VS. VL MAKABALI MEMORIAL
HOSPITAL, INC., ALEJANDRO S. MAKABALI, MELCHOR
CATAMBING AND DAX M. TIDULA, RESPONDENTS.
DECISION
DEL CASTILLO, J.:
Rules of procedure must be used to achieve speedy and efficient administration of
justice and not derail it. When strict application of the rules on verification and nonforum shopping will result in patent denial of substantial justice, these rules may be
construed liberally. After all, the ends of justice are better served when cases are
determined on the merits, not on mere technicality.[1]
This Petition for Review on Certiorari assails the Resolution[2] dated July 12, 2012 of
the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 125333. The CA dismissed the Petition
for Certiorari filed therewith because of the purported defective
Verification/Certificate of Non-Forum Shopping with Undertaking appended to the

Petition; and of petitioners' violation of Section 3, Rule 46 of the Rules of Court.
Also challenged is, the CA Resolution[3] dated October 22, 2012 which denied the
Motion for Reconsideration for lack of merit.
Factual Antecedents
The case stemmed from an amended Complaint[4] for illegal dismissal and money
claims filed by Drs. Lynman Bacolor (Dr. Bacolor), Jeffrey R. Galura (Dr. Galura),
Helen B. Torres (Dr. Helen), Fritzie C. Villegas (Dr. Villegas), Raymond Canlas (Dr.
Canlas), Zheila C. Torres (Dr. Zheila) and Dax Tidula (Dr. Tidula) against VL
Makabali Hospital Inc. (the Hospital), Alejandro S. Makabali, its owner and
President, and Melchor Catambing (Catambing), its Emergency Room (ER) Manager.
[5]
Allegedly, the Hospital engaged Drs. Bacolor, Galura, Villegas and Canlas as resident
physicians assigned in its ER for one year, commencing October 2000 until October
2001. It engaged Drs. Helen and Zheila, also as ER resident physicians, starting
March 2001 until March 2002, and January 2002 until January 2003, respectively.
Despite the expiration of their contracts, the Hospital continued to employ Drs.
Bacolor, Galura, Villegas, Canlas, Helen and Zheila (petitioners).[6]
Petitioners stated that on May 3, 2006, Catambing and one Dr. Lopez instructed
them to resign, and re-apply to the Hospital as resident physicians under a oneyear fixed term contract. They further alleged that Catambing and Dr. Lopez later
directed them to sign a. waiver and offered them "gratitude" pay of P27,000.00 but
they refused to resign; and because of their refusal, respondents demoted them as
assistant physicians in the Operating-Room (OR) of the Hospital.[7]
Additionally, petitioners insisted that to compel them to resign, respondents issued
notices to explain to Drs. Bacolor, Galura, Helen, Villegas and Canlas. In particular,
Drs. Bacolor, Galura and Helen were charged with dishonesty for allegedly directing
patients to secure laboratory examinations outside the Hospital; while Drs. Villegas
and Canlas were charged with violation of timekeeping procedure and habitual
violation of rules and regulations.[8]
Consequently, petitioners filed a case for constructive illegal dismissal against
respondents. They argued that despite their complaint, respondents still conducted
an administrative investigation against them.[9] On June 30, 2006, Drs. Bacolor and
Galura received notices of termination from the Hospital. [10]
Petitioners contended that they were constructively dismissed when respondents
demoted them as assistant physicians in the OR of the Hospital.[11] They stated that
such demotion was neither necessary nor temporary, and was arbitrarily done to
force them to resign. They further averred that Drs. Bacolor and Galura were
actually illegally dismissed after they were given respective notices of termination.
[12]
On the other hand, Dr. Tidula stated that the Hospital engaged him as resident
physician for a year commencing on January 1, 2001 to December 31, 2001; the
Hospital renewed his contract for the year 2002 to 2003; and after his contract
expired, the Hospital continued to engage his services. [13]
Dr. Tidula likewise alleged that in 2005, several resident physicians in the Hospital
resigned. As a result, the remaining resident physicians were made to fill in their
duties. Allegedly, it was agreed upon that when a resident doctor was absent, a
reliever would take his place; and the reliever's fee would be charged against the
salary of the absent doctor. Dr. Tidula claimed that the reliever shall punch in the
time card of the absent doctor for t recording, accounting and expediency purposes.
[14]
Furthermore, Dr. Tidula asserted that in February 2006, Dr. Amelita Lising (Dr.
Lising), who was a resident physician, went on leave. He averred that being the
acting Chief Resident, he implemented the agreement regarding the designation of
reliever. He stated that the relievers of Dr. Lising were made to punch in and out
her time card to prove that they had taken her place; and they received salary from
that intended for Dr. Lising.[15]
Dr. Tidula narrated that on May 3, 2006, he and his fellow residents were directed
to resign with the promise that they would be re-engaged under a fixed term of one
year. He averred that Catambing and Dr. Lopez also instructed him and the other
resident physicians to tender their resignation and sign a waiver in favor of the
Hospital. He alleged that they were also offered P27,000.00 as financial assistance;
however, he and the other resident physicians refused to resign. [16]
Additionally, Dr. Tidula alleged that on May 16, 2006, he was ordered to report
exclusively at the OR of the Hospital as assistant physician; and this demotion was
a result of his refusal to resign. Consequently, he filed a complaint for constructive
dismissal against the Hospital.[17]
Later, Catambing gave Dr. Tidula a Notice[18] of dismissal for violation of
timekeeping procedure. Dr. Tidula stated that he inquired from Catambing why he
was not given any notice to explain. Purportedly, Catambing informed him that a
notice to explain was sent through a private courier. Upon verification, Dr. Tidula
discovered that the notice was delivered to a person unknown to him. He informed
the Hospital about the matter but the Hospital insisted that he was given the
opportunity to explain and was invited to an investigation, as such, the sanction

against him remains.[19]
Dr. Tidula argued that he was illegally dismissed since he did not receive a notice to
explain; and he did not violate any of the company rules. [20]
For their part, respondents asserted that Drs. Tidula, Bacolor and Galura were
validly dismissed. In particular, they alleged that Dr. Tidula violated timekeeping
procedure of the Hospital when he punched in Dr. Lising's time card on February 2,
6, 10 and 12, 2006.[21] On the other hand Drs. Bacolor and Galura were found guilty
of referring patients to other clinics for laboratory examination in February 2006. [22]
Moreover, respondents claimed that the Hospital did not dismiss Drs. Helen, Villegas
and Canlas; thus, they should be dropped from the complaint. They added that Dr.
Zheila was never cited for any infraction but she abandoned her work as she had
been absent since July 2006.[23]
On July 23, 2010, the LA rendered a Decision [24] finding respondents guilty of
illegally dismissing petitioners and Dr. Tidula, as well as ordering respondents to
pay them backwages from the time of their dismissal until finality of the Decision,
and separation pay. The LA also ordered the Hospital to pay petitioners and Dr.
Tidula moral damages of P100,000.00 each and exemplary damages of
P100,000.00 each, and attorney's fees.
The Hospital appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). [25]
Ruling of the National Labor Relations Commission
On November 11, 2011, the NLRC reversed and set aside the LA Decision and
dismissed the complaints.[26] It held that there was no showing that petitioners and
Dr. Tidula were demoted, and that such demotion amounted to constructive
dismissal. It ruled that "it would be difficult to discern the differences between the
duties of a resident and assistant physician, as both indubitably perform doctor's
duties."[27] Also, the NLRC decreed that Dr. Zheila did not even sign the verification
and certificate of non-forum shopping in this case.
Moreover, the NLRC gave credence to respondents' position that Drs. Bacolor and
Galura were validly dismissed because they repeatedly referred patients to another
clinic for laboratory examinations. It ruled that such was an act of deceit because
the Hospital offered the same services.
On April 18, 2012, the NLRC denied petitioners and Dr. Tidula's motion for
reconsideration.[28]
Aggrieved, petitioners filed a Petition for Certiorari with the CA ascribing grave
abuse of discretion on the part of the NLRC in giving due course to the appeal
despite its alleged lack of appeal bond; and in reversing the LA Decision.
The Petition was accompanied by three separate Verifications/Certificates of NonForum Shopping signed by Drs. Galura, Bacolor and Helen.[29] Atty. Carlos Raphael
N. Francisco executed and signed a Verification/Certificate of Non-Forum Shopping
with Undertaking in behalf of Drs. Villegas, Canlas and Zheila. [30]
On July 12, 2012, the CA issued the assailed Resolution, the pertinent portions of
which read:
The Petition for Certiorari contains the following infirmities, hence is DISMISSED:
1. The Verification/Certification of Non-Forum Shopping With Undertaking attached
to the Petition is executed by Atty. Carlos Raphael N. Francisco, allegedly [sic]
counsel of record of petitioners Fritzie C. Villegas, Raymond Canlas and Zeila C.
Torres, not by the three petitioners themselves, in violation of Rule 7, Section 5 of
the Rules of Court, and the ruling in Far Eastern Shipping Company v. Court of
Appeals et al.
2. The Petition does not indicate in its title that Dax Tidula is a party respondent,
although in the portion entitled 'Parties' he is so named, and does not indicate the
address of Dax Tidula, all in violation of Rule 46, Section 3 of the Rules of Court, in
relation to Rule 65 of the same Rules.
SO ORDERED.[31]
On October 22, 2012, the CA denied petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration. [32]
Aggrieved, petitioners filed this Petition raising the following assignment of errors:
[1]
THE COURT OF APPEALS HAS DECIDED A QUESTION OF SUBSTANCE IN A WAY

NOT PROBABLY IN ACCORD WITH LAW OR WITH THE APPLICABLE DECISIONS
OF THE HONORABLE COURT WHEN THE COURT OF APPEALS DISMISSED THE
PETITION FOR CERTIORARI OF THE PETITIONERS DESPITE THE FACT THAT
SEVERAL OF THE PETITIONERS HAD VALIDLY EXECUTED VERIFICATIONS
AND CERTIFICATES OF NON-FORUM SHOPPING WHICH WERE ATTACHED TO
SAID PETITION FOR CERTIORARI;
[2]

OF THE HONORABLE COURT WHEN THE COURT OF APPEALS DISMISSED THE

THE PETITIONERS HAD SUBSTANTIALLY COMPLIED WITH THE RULES ON THE
EXECUTION OF A VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATE OF NON-FORUM
SHOPPING;
[3]

OF THE-HONORABLE COURT WHEN THE COURT OF APPEALS. DISMISSED THE
THE ONLY KNOWN ADDRESS OF RESPONDENT TIDULA WAS INCLUDED IN THE
PETITION FOR CERTIORARI AND THAT RESPONDENT TIDULA, THROUGH HIS
COUNSEL, WAS SERVED WITH A COPY OF SUCH PETITION FOR CERTIORARI;
[4]
THE COURT OF APPEALS SANCTIONED A DEPARTURE BY THE NLRC IN NLRC

CASE NO[.] RAB. III-06-10180-06 FROM THE ACCEPTED OR USUAL COURSE OF
JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS AS THE COURT OF APPEALS ALLOWED THE NLRC TO
VIRTUALLY EXTEND THE PERIOD OF THE RESPONDENT HOSPITAL TO FILE AN
APPEAL FOR ALMOST FOUR MONTHS FROM THE EXPIRATION OF THE PERIOD
TO FILE SUCH APPEAL;
[5]

CASE NO[.] RAB. 111-06-10180-06 FROM THE ACCEPTED OR USUAL COURSE OF
JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS AS THE COURT OF APPEALS ALLOWED THE NLRC TO
GIVE DUE COURSE TO AN APPEAL THAT WAS CLEARLY FILED OUT OF TIME
AND TO MODIFY THE DECISION OF THE LABOR ARBITER THAT WAS ALREADY
FINAL AND EXECUTORY; and
[6]

CASE NO[.] RAB. III-06-10180-06 FROM THE ACCEPTED OR USUAL COURSE OF
JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS AS THE COURT OF APPEALS TOLERATED THE GRAVE
ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION
COMMITTED BY THE NLRC IN REVERSING IN TOTO THE DECISION OF THE
LABOR ARBITER DESPITE THE FACT THAT SUCH REVERSAL IS NOT
SUPPORTED BY ANY EVIDENCE ON RECORD AND BY THE APPLICABLE LAWS.
[33]
Petitioners argue that the verifications executed by three of the six petitioners and
the verification executed by their counsel constituted full compliance with the
required verification. They contended that the three petitioners who made their
verification are real parties-in-interest, and their counsel who also verified the
Petition had been in possession of authentic and relevant records of the case.
Also, petitioners posit that the failure of Drs. Villegas, Canlas and Zheila to execute
a certificate of non-forum shopping should not have caused the dismissal of the
Petition for Certorari. They insist that under justifiable circumstances, the signature
of one of the petitioners in the certificate against forum shopping substantially
complies with the rules. They further point out that all of them share a common
interest and invoke a common cause of action under the same set of facts.
Moreover, petitioners submit that they complied with Section 3, Rule 46 of the Rules
of Court. They contend that they included Dr. Tidula in the Petition for Certiorari as
respondent because he remains interested in the reversal of the NLRC Decision and
Resolution. They add that from the inception of the case, all pleadings had been
coursed through Dr. Tidula's counsel; and they are unaware of the address of Dr.
Tidula as he never indicated it in his position paper. Hence, they maintain that it is
fair that in the present proceeding, any pleading intended for Dr. Tidula be sent to
his counsel.
In addition, petitioners state that the non-inclusion of Dr. Tidula is not a fatal defect
but a mere typographical error which does not prejudice the rights of any party.
Finally, petitioners fault the CA in not finding that the NLRC committed grave abuse
of discretion in giving due course to the Hospital's appeal despite its failure to post
appeal bond within the period to perfect an appeal. They also maintain that the
NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in holding that they were not illegally
dismissed by respondents.
The Hospital, on the other hand, asserts that the CA correctly dismissed the Petition
because it was filed by a counsel who had no authority from petitioners; and that
the Certificate against Forum Shopping attached thereto was fatally defective. It
also declares that the Petition for Certiorari improperly impleaded Dr. Tidula as
respondent. Lastly, it contends that petitioners are not entitled to money claims.
Our Ruling
The Petition is meritorious.
In Altres v. Empleo,[34] the Court summarized the basic tenets involving noncompliance with the requirements on, or filing of defective verification and
certificate against forum shopping, to wit:
1) A distinction must be made between non-compliance with the requirement on or
submission of defective verification, and non-compliance with the requirement on or
submission of defective certification against forum shopping.
2) As to verification, non-compliance therewith or a defect therein does not
necessarily render the pleading fatally defective. The court may order its
submission or correction or act on the pleading if the attending circumstances are
such that strict compliance with the Rule may be dispensed with in order that the
ends of justice may be served thereby.
3) Verification is deemed substantially complied with when one who has ample
knowledge to swear to the truth of the allegations in the complaint or petition signs
the verification, and when matters alleged in the petition have been made in good
faith or are true and correct.
4) As to certification against forum shopping, non-compliance therewith or a defect
therein, unlike in verification, is generally not curable by its subsequent submission
or correction thereof, unless there is a need to relax the Rule on the ground of
"substantial compliance" or presence of "special circumstances or compelling
reasons".
5) The certification against forum shopping must be signed by all the plaintiffs or
petitioners in a case; otherwise, those who did not sign will be dropped as parties
to the case. Under reasonable or justifiable circumstances, however, as when all the
plaintiffs or petitioners share a common interest and invoke a common cause of
action or defense, the signature of only one of them in the certification against
forum shopping substantially complies with the Rule.
6) Finally, the certification against forum shopping must be executed by the partypleader, not by his counsel. If, however, for reasonable or justifiable reasons, the
party-pleader is unable to sign, he must execute a Special Power of Attorney
designating his counsel of record to sign on his behalf.
The CA dismissed the Petition for Certiorari on the ground that the
Verification/Certificate of Non-Forum Shopping executed by petitioners' counsel on
behalf of Drs. Villegas, Canlas and Zheila violated Section 5, Rule 7 of the Rules of
Court.[35]
As properly pointed out by the CA, the Verification/Certificate of Non-Forum
Shopping with Undertaking executed by petitioners' counsel is not valid. As stated
inAltres, a certificate against forum shopping must be signed by the party and in
case his counsel signs the same on his behalf, the counsel must be armed with a
special power of attorney. Since petitioners' counsel is not shown to have been
authorized by Drs. Villegas, Canlas and Zheila to sign a certificate of non-forum
shopping on their behalf, the execution of said certificate by counsel violates the
foregoing rules.
Nonetheless, the CA failed to consider the concept of "substantial compliance" to
the requirements of verification and certificate of non-forum shopping, as it has
been shown that three of the six petitioners executed their own verification and
certificate against forum shopping.
The verification of a pleading is a formal and not a jurisdictional requirement. It is
intended to assure that the allegations in a pleading are true and correct. As such,
the court may order the correction of unverified pleadings, or it may act on them
and waive strict compliance with the rules.[36]
The verification requirement is deemed substantially complied with when a person
who has sufficient knowledge to swear to the truth of the allegations in the
complaint or petition signs the verification; and matters alleged therein have been
made in good faith or are true and correct. Thus, there is substantial compliance if
at least one of the petitioners makes a proper verification.[37]
In Ateneo de Naga University v. Manalo,[38] the signature of one of three petitioners
therein was considered substantial compliance with the verification requirement.
The Court held that Fr. Tabora, the petitioner who signed the verification, has
sufficient knowledge to swear to the truth of the allegations in the petition filed with
the CA; and his signature was ample assurance that the allegations have been
made in good faith or are true and correct.
In SKM Art Craft Corporation v. Bauca,[39] the Court held that the verification and
certificate against forum shopping signed by nine out of 23 respondents
substantially complied with the verification requirement since they have common
interest and cause of action. The Court likewise stated that the apparent merit of
the petition and the conflicting findings, of the LA and the NLRC also justified the
decision of the CA to resolve the case on the merits.
In this case, three out of six petitioners signed three separate verifications
appended to the Petition for Certiorari. Their signatures are sufficient assurance
that the allegations in the Petition were made in good faith, or are true and correct.
Thus, there is substantial compliance with the verification requirement.
On the other hand, as a rule, the certificate against forum shopping must be signed
by all plaintiffs or petitioners; otherwise, those who did not sign will be dropped as
parties to the case. Under reasonable or justifiable situations, such as when the
plaintiffs or petitioners share a common interest and invoke a common cause of
action or defense, the signature of one of them in the certificate against forum
shopping is considered substantial compliance with the rules. [40]
In Abaria v. National Labor Relations Commission,[41] 47 out of 88 petitioners signed
the certificate against forum shopping. The Court ruled that the petitioning
employees shared a common interest and cause of action when they filed the case
for illegal dismissal. The Court decreed ,that when petitioners therein appealed to
the CA, they pursued the case as a collective body, invoking one argument in
support of their cause of action, which is, the illegal dismissal purportedly
committed by their employer when union members resorted to strike due to the
employer's refusal to bargain with officers of the local chapter.

Furthermore, in Torres v. Specialized Packaging Development Corp.,[42] the Court
allowed the relaxation of the rules on submission. of certificate against forum
shopping. One of the compelling grounds for the allowance of said certificate
therein where only two of 25 petitioners signed the same was the "apparent merits
of the substantive aspects of the case." It noted that the varying views of the LA
and the NLRC give ample basis for the necessity of a review on the merits and the
outright dismissal of the petition was prejudicial to the substantive rights.
Here, three of six petitioners signed the certificate of non-forum shopping. At the
least, the CA could have ordered that those who did not sign it be dropped as
parties, but not the outright dismissal of the Petition.
The Court, nevertheless, holds that there are justifiable reasons for the relaxation
of the rules on the filing of a certificate of non-forum shopping and that the
certificate against forum shopping signed by three out of six petitioners suffices.
Specifically, petitioners' cause of action revolves on the same issue, that is,
respondents illegally dismissed them under similar circumstances. They were all
resident physicians who were purportedly 1) re-employed by the Hospital even after
the expiration of their respective one year contracts; 2) forced to resign and offered
to be re-engaged as fixed term employees but declined; 3) demoted; 4) accused of
violations of the Hospital rules and regulations; and, 5) dismissed.
Moreover, substantial justice dictates that the Petition for Certiorari be given due
course and be resolved on the merits. This is especially so since the findings of the
LA are contrary to those of the NLRC,[43] particularly on the issues of whether
respondents illegally dismissed petitioners and of whether they were afforded due
process of law.
The requirement of strict compliance with the rules on filing of certificate against
forum shopping highlights the mandatory character of the submission of such
certificate. However, this mandatory requirement allows substantial compliance
provided that there are justifiable circumstances for the relaxation of the rules. [44]
Furthermore, the CA dismissed the Petition for Certiorari because it did not indicate
in its title that Dr. Tidula is a party respondent and the Petition did not state Dr.
Tidula's actual address. The CA held that these omissions violate Section 3, [45] Rule
46 of the Rules of Court, in relation to Rule 65 thereof.
We do not agree.
Since Dr. Tidula was included as one of the respondents in the body of the Petition,
then the CA could have clarified with petitioners the non-inclusion of Dr. Tidula in
the title and could have ordered the title rectified.
Likewise, the Court finds that the failure to state the address of Dr. Tidula is
insufficient to cause the dismissal of the Petition. The lack of address of Dr. Tidula is
not a fatal defect as he had been represented by his counsel in the case. The
indication that the party "could be served with process care of his counsel was
substantial compliance with the Rules." And, when a party has appeared through
counsel, service is to be made upon the counsel, unless the court expressly orders
that it be made upon the party.[46]
In view of the foregoing, a remand of the case to the CA for proper disposition on
the merits is deemed proper.
WHEREFORE, the Petition is GRANTED. The July 42, 2012 and October 22, 2012
Resolutions of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 125333
are REVERSED andSET ASIDE. The case is REMANDED to the Court of Appeals
for appropriate disposition.
SO ORDERED.
Referred to as Cortez in some parts of the records.
[1]
Ateneo de Naga University v. Manalo, 497 Phil. 635, 645 (2005).
CA rollo, Vol. II, pp. 860-861; penned by Associate Justice Nina G. AntonioValenzuela and concurred in by Associate Justices Isaias P. Dicdican and Michael P.
Elbinias.
[2]
[3]
Rollo, pp. 82-83.
[4]
CA rollo, Vol. I, pp. 159-162.
[5]
Id. at 165.
[6]
Id. at 166-167.
[7]
Id. at 167-168.
[8]
Id. at 169-170.
[9]
Id. at 171.
[10]
Id. at 172-173.
[11]
Id. at 174.
[12]
Id. 177-178.
[13]
Id. at 400.
[14]
Id. at 400-401.
[15]
Id. at 402.
[16]
Id. at 403-404.
[17]
Id. at 404.
[18]
Id. at 428-432.
[19]
Id. at 408.
[20]
Id. 410-412.
[21]
Id. at 252, 254.
[22]
Id. at 258.
[23]
Id. at 253.
[24]
Id. at 493-525; penned by Labor Arbiter Reynaldo V. Abdon.
[25]
CA rollo, Vol. II, pp. 528-551.
CA rollo, Vol. I, pp. 64-76; penned by Commissioner Dolores M. Peralta-Beley

and concurred in by Presiding Commissioner Leonardo L. Leonida and
Commissioner Mercedes R. Posada-Lacap.
[26]
[27]
Id. at 73.
[28]
Id. at 77-80.
[29]
Id. at 56-59.
[30]
Id. at 60-61.
[31]
CA rollo, Vol. II, pp. 860-861.
[32]
Rollo, pp. 82-83.
[33]
Id. at 23-24.
[34]
594 Phil. 246, 261-262 (2008).
SECTION 5. Certification Against Forum Shopping. The plaintiff or principal

party shall certify under oath in the complaint or other initiatory pleading asserting
a claim for relief, or in a sworn certification annexed thereto and simultaneously
filed therewith: (a) that he has not theretofore commenced any action or filed any
claim involving the same issues in any court, tribunal or quasi-judicial agency and,
to the best of his knowledge, no such other action or claim is pending therein; (b) if
there is such other pending action or claim, a complete statement of the present
status thereof; and (c) if he should thereafter learn that the same or similar action
or claim has been filed or is pending, he shall report that fact within five (5) days
therefrom to the court wherein his aforesaid complaint or initiatory pleading has
been filed. Failure to comply with the foregoing requirements shall not be curable
by mere amendment of the complaint or other initiatory pleading but shall be cause
for the dismissal of the case without prejudice, unless otherwise provided, upon
motion and after hearing. The submission of a false certification or non-compliance
with any of the undertakings therein shall constitute indirect contempt of court,
without prejudice to the corresponding administrative and criminal actions. If the
acts of the party or his counsel clearly constitute willful and deliberate forum
shopping, the same shall be ground for summary dismissal with prejudice and shall
constitute direct contempt, as well as a cause for administrative sanctions. (n)
[35]
[36]
Bello v. Bonifacio Security Services, Inc., 670 Phil. 563, 568 (2011).
[37]
Altres v. Empleo, supra note 34 at 261.
[38]
Supra note 1 at 643.
[39]
G.R. Nos. 171282 & 183484, November 27, 2013, 710 SCRA 652, 660-662.
[40]
Altres v. Empleo, supra note 34 at 262.
[41]
678 Phil. 64, 87-88 (2011).
[42]
477 Phil. 540, 554 (2004).
Heirs of Amada A. Zaulda v. Zaulda, G.R. No. 201234, March 17, 2014, 719
SCRA 308, 320.
[43]
[44]
Fernandez v. Villegas, G.R. No. 200191, August 20, 2014, 733 SCRA 548, 560.
SECTION 3. Contents and Filing of Petition; Effect of Non-Compliance with

Requirements. The petition shall contain the full names and actual addresses of
all the petitioners and respondents, a concise statement of the matters involved,
the factual background of the case, and the grounds relied upon for the relief
prayed for.
[45]
OSM Shipping Phil., Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission, 446 Phil. 793,
803-804 (2003).
[46]

G.R.
No.
175869
ROBINA FARMS CEBU/UNIVERSAL ROBINA CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. ELIZABETH VILLA, RESPONDENT.
April 18, 2016
FIRST DIVISION
[ G.R. No. 175869, April 18, 2016 ]
ROBINA FARMS CEBU/UNIVERSAL ROBINA CORPORATION,
PETITIONER, VS. ELIZABETH VILLA, RESPONDENT.
DECISION
BERSAMIN, J.:
The employer appeals the decision promulgated on September 27, 2006, [1] whereby
the Court of Appeals (CA) dismissed its petition for certiorari and affirmed with
modification the adverse decision of the National Labor Relations Commission
(NLRC) declaring it liable for the illegal dismissal of respondent employee.
Antecedents
Respondent Elizabeth Villa brought against the petitioner her complaint for illegal
suspension, illegal dismissal, nonpayment of overtime pay, and nonpayment of
service incentive leave pay in the Regional Arbitration Branch No. VII of the NLRC in
Cebu City.
In her verified position paper,[2] Villa averred that she had been employed by
petitioner Robina Farms as sales clerk since August 1981; that in the later part of
2001, the petitioner had enticed her to avail herself of the company's special
retirement program; that on March 2, 2002, she had received a memorandum from
Lily Ngochua requiring her to explain her failure to issue invoices for unhatched
eggs in the months of January to February 2002; that she had explained that the
invoices were not delivered on time because the delivery receipts were delayed and
overlooked; that despite her explanation, she had been suspended for 10 days from
March 8, 2012 until March 19, 2002; that upon reporting back to work, she had
been advised to cease working because her application for retirement had already
been approved; that she had been subsequently informed that her application had
been disapproved, and had then been advised to tender her resignation with a
request for financial assistance; that she had manifested her intention to return to
work but the petitioner had confiscated her gate pass; and that she had since then
been prevented from entering the company premises and had been replaced by
another employee.
The petitioner admitted that Villa had been its sales clerk at Robina Farms. It stated
that on December 12, 2001, she had applied for retirement under the special
privilege program offered to its employees in Bulacan and Antipolo who had served
for at least 10 years; that in February 2002, her attention had been called by Anita
Gabatan of the accounting department to explain her failure to issue invoices for
the unhatched eggs for the month of February; that she had explained that she had
been busy; that Gabatan had referred the matter to Florabeth Zanoria who had in
turn relayed the matter to Ngochua; and that the latter had then given Villa the
chance to explain, which she did.
The petitioner added that after the administrative hearing Villa was found to have
violated the company rule on the timely issuance of the invoices that had resulted
in delay in the payment of buyers considering that the payment had depended upon
the receipt of the invoices; that she had been suspended from her employment as a
consequence; that after serving the suspension, she had returned to work and had
followed up her application for retirement with Lucina de Guzman, who had then
informed her that the management did not approve the benefits equivalent to 86%
of her salary rate applied for, but only 1/2 month for every year of service; and that
disappointed with the outcome, she had then brought her complaint against the
petitioners.[3]
On April 21, 2003, Labor Arbiter Violeta Ortiz-Bantug rendered her
decision[4] finding that Villa had not been dismissed from employment, holding
thusly:
Complainant's application, insofar the benefits are concerned, was not approved
which means that while her application for retirement was considered, management
was willing to give her retirement benefits equivalent only to half-month pay for
every year of service and not 86% of her salary for every year of service as
mentioned in her application. Mrs. De Guzman suggested that if she wanted to
pursue her supposed retirement despite thereof, she should submit a resignation
letter and include therein a request for financial assistance. We do not find anything
illegal or violative in the suggestion made by Mrs. De Guzman. There was no
compulsion since the choice was left entirely to the complainant whether to pursue
it or not.[5]
Although ordering Villa's reinstatement, the Labor Arbiter denied her claim for
backwages and overtime pay because she had not adduced evidence of the
overtime work actually performed. The Labor Arbiter declared that Villa was entitled
to service incentive leave pay for the period of the last three years counted from
the filing of her complaint because the petitioner did not refute her claim thereon.
Thus, the Labor Arbiter disposed as follows:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered ordering
respondents ROBINA FARMS CEBU (a Division of UNIVERSAL ROBINA
CORPORATION) and LILY NGOCHUA to REINSTATE complainant to her former
position without loss of seniority rights and privileges within ten (10) days from
receipt of this decision but without payment of backwages. Respondents are also
ordered to pay complainant SEVEN THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED NINETY FOUR
PESOS (P7,194.00) as service incentive leave pay benefits.
The other claims are dismissed for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.[6]
The parties respectively appealed to the NLRC.
Judgment of the NLRC
On February 23, 2005, the NLRC rendered its judgment dismissing the appeal by
the petitioner but granting that of Villa,[7] to wit:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal of respondents is
hereby DISMISSED for non-perfection while the appeal of complainant is
herebyGRANTED. The decision of the Labor Arbiter is REVERSED and SET
ASIDE and a new one ENTERED declaring complainant to have been illegally
dismissed. Consequently, respondents are hereby directed to immediately reinstate
complainant to her former position without loss of seniority rights and other
privileges within ten (10) days from receipt of this decision and to pay complainant
the following sums, to wit:
1.
P
Backwages 119,900.00
2. SILP
P 7,194.00
3. Overtime
P 3,445.00
Pay
P
Total
130,539.01
4. Attorney's
13,053.90
fees (10%)
P
Grand Total
143,592.91
SO ORDERED.[8]
According to the NLRC, the petitioner's appeal was fatally defective and was being
dismissed outright because it lacked the proper verification and certificate of nonforum shopping. The NLRC held the petitioner liable for the illegal dismissal of Villa,
observing that because Villa's retirement application had been subject to the
approval of the management, her act of applying therefor did not indicate her
voluntary intention to sever her employment relationship but only her opting to
retire by virtue of her having qualified under the plan; that upon informing her
about the denial of her application, the petitioner had advised her to tender her
resignation and to request for financial assistance; that although she had signified
her intention to return to work, the petitioner had prevented her from doing so by
confiscating her gate pass and informing her that she had already bee n replaced
by another employee; and that the petitioner neither disputed her allegations
thereon, nor adduced evidence to controvert the same.[9]
After the denial of its motion for reconsideration,[10] the petitioner filed a petition
for certiorari in the CA.
Decision of the CA
The petitioner alleged in its petition for certiorari the following jurisdictional errors
of the NLRC, to wit:
I
PUBLIC RESPONDENT NLRC COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION
AMOUNTING TO LACK OF OR IN EXCESS OF JURISDICTION WHEN IT DISMISSED
PETITIONERS APPEAL MEMORANDUM ON A MERE TECHNICALITY AND NOT
RESOLVE IT ON THE MERITS.
II.
AMOUNTING TO LACK OF OR IN EXCESS OF JURISDICTION WHEN IT DID NOT
DISMISS PRIVATE RESPONDENT'S MEMORANDUM ON APPEAL EVEN THOUGH IT
LACKED THE PROPER VERIFICATION AND PROCEEDED TO RESOLVE HER APPEAL
ON THE MERITS.
III.
AMOUNTING TO LACK OF OR IN EXCESS OF JURISDICTION WHEN IT RULED THAT
THERE WAS ILLEGAL DISMISSAL AND THAT PRIVATE RESPONDENT BE
IMMEDIATELY REINSTATED WITHOUT LOSS OF SENIORITY RIGHTS.
IV.
AMOUNTING TO LACK OF OR IN EXCESS OF JURISDICTION WHEN IT DIRECTED
PETITIONERS INCLUDING PETITIONER LILY NGOCHUA TO PAY PRIVATE
RESPONDENT BACKWAGES, SERVICE INCENTIVE LEAVE PAY, OVERTIME PAY AND
ATTORNEY'S FEES.[11]
On September 27, 2006, the CA promulgated its assailed decision dismissing the
petition for certiorari,[12] decreeing as follows:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition is hereby
ordered DISMISSED for lack of merit. The assailed decision
is AFFIRMED withMODIFICATION, in that petitioner Lily Ngochua should not be
held liable with petitioner corporation. The other aspects of the assailed decision
remains. Consequently, the prayer for a temporary restraining order and/or
preliminary injunction is NOTED.

SO ORDERED.[13]
The CA treated the petitioner's appeal as an unsigned pleading because the
petitioner did not present proof showing that Florabeth P. Zanoria, its Administrative
Officer and Chief Accountant who had signed the verification, had been authorized
to sign and file the appeal. It opined that the belated submission of the secretary's
certificate showing the authority of Bienvenido S. Bautista to represent the
petitioner, and the special power of attorney executed by Bautista to authorize
Zanoria to represent the petitioner did not cure the defect. It upheld the finding of
the NLRC that the petitioner had illegally dismissed Villa. It deemed the advice by
Ngochua and de Guzman for Villa to resign and to request instead for financial
assistance was a strong and unequivocal indication of the petitioner's desire to
sever the employer-employee relationship with Villa.
The CA later denied the motion for reconsideration.[14]
Issues
Hence, this appeal in which the petitioner submits that:
I
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS GRIEVOUSLY ERRED WHEN IT DID NOT RULE
THAT THERE WAS NO VERIFICATION All ACHED TO RESPONDENT VILLA'S NOTICE
OF APPEAL AND MEMORANDUM ON APPEAL DATED MAY 29, 2003 AND THAT IT
WAS AN UNSIGNED PLEADING AND WITHOUT LEGAL EFFECT, MOREOVER, IT
COMMITTED UNFAIR TREATMENT
II
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS GRIEVOUSLY ERRED WHEN IT DID NOT RULE
THAT THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION FOURTH DIVISION HAD NO
JURISDICTION TO REVERESE AND SET ASIDE THE DECISION OF THE LABOR
ARBITER DATED APRIL 21, 2003 WHICH HAD ALREA[D]Y BECOME FINAL AND
IMMUTABLE AS FAR AS RESPONDENT IS CONCERNED
III
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS GRIEVOUSLY ERRED WHEN IT COMMITTED
MISAPPREHENSION OF THE FACTS AND ISSUED ITS DECISION AND RESOLUTION
CONTRARY TO THE EVIDENCE ON RECORD AND FINDINGS OF THE LABOR
ARBITER.[15]
Ruling of the Court
The appeal lacks merit.

The petitioner prays that Villa's appeal should be treated as an unsigned pleading
because she had accompanied her appeal with the same verification attached to her
position paper.
The petitioner cannot be sustained. The NLRC justifiably gave due course to Villa's
appeal.
Section 4(a), Rule VI of the Amended NLRC Rules of Procedure requires an appeal
to be verified by the appellant herself. The verification is a mere formal requirement
intended to secure and to give assurance that the matters alleged in the pleading
are true and correct. The requirement is complied with when one who has the
ample knowledge to swear to the truth of the allegations in the complaint or
petition signs the verification, or when the matters contained in the petition have
been alleged in good faith or are true and correct. [16] Being a mere formal
requirement, the courts may even simply order the correction of improperly verified
pleadings, or act on the same upon waiving the strict compliance with the rules of
procedure.[17] It is the essence of the NLRC Rules of Procedure to extend to every
party-litigant the amplest opportunity for the proper and just determination of his
cause, free from the constraints of technicalities. [18] Accordingly, the substantial
compliance with the procedural rules is appreciated in favor of Villa.
We cannot rule in the same way for the petitioner. For one, it belatedly submitted
proof of Zanoria's authority to verify the pleading for the petitioner. Also, it did not
submit the certification of non-forum shopping at the time of the filing of the
appeal. The filing of the certification with the initiatory pleading was mandatory,
and the failure to do so could not be cured by a later submission. [19] The nonsubmission of the certification, being a ground for dismissal, was fatal to the
petition. There is no question that the non-compliance with the requirement for the
certification, or a defect in the certification, would not be cured by the subsequent
submission or the correction of the certification, except in cases of substantial
compliance or upon compelling reasons.[20] Accordingly, the dismissal of the
petitioner's appeal cannot be reversed or undone.
The petitioner next submits that the CA erred in holding that Villa had been illegally
dismissed; that it had no intention to terminate her; that de Guzman had merely
suggested to her that she should be filing the letter of resignation with the request
for financial assistance because the management had disapproved her application
for the 86% salary rate as basis for her retirement benefits; that it was Villa who
had the intention to sever the employer-employee relationship because she had
kept on following up her application for retirement; that she had prematurely filed
the complaint for illegal dismissal; that she had voluntarily opted not to report to
her work; and that she had not presented proof showing that it had prevented her
from working and entering its premises. [21]
The petitioner's submissions are bereft of merit.
We note that the CA and the NLRC agreed on their finding that the petitioner did
not admit Villa back to work after the completion of her 10-day suspension. In that
regard, the CA observed:
It is undeniable that private respondent was suspended for ten (10) days beginning
March 8, 2002 to March 19, 2002. Ordinarily, after an employee [has] served her
suspension, she should be admitted back to work and to continue to receive
compensation for her services. In the case at bar, it is clear that private
respondent was not admitted immediately after her suspension. Records
show that when private respondent reported back after her suspension, she was
advised by Lucy de Guzman not to report back anymore as her application was
approved, which was latter [sic] on disapproved. It is at this point that, said Lucy
de Guzman had advised private respondent to tender a resignation letter with
request for financial assistance. Not only Lucy De Guzman has advised her to
tender her resignation letter. The letter of petitioner Lily Ngochua dated April 11,
2002 to private respondent which reads:
"As explained by Lucy de Guzman xxx your request for special retirement with
financial assistance of 86% year of service has not been approved. Because this
offer was for employees working in operations department and not in Adm. & Sales.
"However, as per Manila Office, you can be given financial assistance of 1/2 per
year of service if you tender letter of resignation with request for financial
assistance."
shows that petitioner Lily Ngochua has also advised private respondent to the
same. These acts are strong indication that petitioners wanted to severe [sic] the
employer-employee relationship between them and that of private respondent. This
is buttressed by the fact that when private respondent signified her intention to
return back to work after learning of the disapproval of her application, she was
prevented to enter the petitioner's premises by confiscating her ID and informing
her that a new employee has already replaced her.
It should be noted that when private respondent averred this statement in her
position paper submitted before the Labor Arbiter petitioners did not refute the
same. Neither did they contest this allegation in their supposed Appeal
Memorandum nor in their Motion for Reconsideration of the assailed decision of
public respondent. Basic is the rule that matters not controverted are deemed
admitted. To contest this allegation at this point of proceeding is not allowed for it is
a settled rule that matters, theories or arguments not brought out in the original
proceedings cannot be considered on review or appeal where they are raised for the
first time. To consider the alleged facts and arguments raised belatedly would
amount to trampling on the basic principles of fair play, justice and due process. [22]
Neither did Villa's application for early retirement manifest her intention to sever
the employer-employee relationship. Although she applied for early retirement, she
did so upon the belief that she would receive a higher benefit based on the
petitioner's offer. As such, her consent to be retired could not be fairly deemed to
have been knowingly and freely given.
Retirement is the result of a bilateral act of both the employer and the employee
based on their voluntary agreement that upon reaching a certain age, the employee
agrees to sever his employment.[23] The difficulty in the case of Villa arises from
determining whether the retirement was voluntary or involuntary. The line between
the two is thin but it is one that the Court has drawn. On one hand, voluntary
retirement cuts the employment ties leaving no residual employer liability; on the
other, involuntary retirement amounts to a discharge, rendering the employer liable
for termination without cause. The employee's intent is decisive. In determining
such intent, the relevant parameters to consider are the fairness of the process
governing the retirement decision, the payment of stipulated benefits, and the
absence of badges of intimidation or coercion.[24]
In case of early retirement programs, the offer of benefits must be certain while the
acceptance to be retired should be absolute.[25] The acceptance by the employees
contemplated herein must be explicit, voluntary, free and uncompelled.
[26]
In Jaculbe v. Silliman University,[27] we elucidated that:
[A]n employer is free to impose a retirement age less than 65 for as long as it has
the employees' consent. Stated conversely, employees are free to accept the
employer's offer to lower the retirement age if they feel they can get a
better deal with the retirement plan presented by the employer. Thus,
having terminated petitioner solely on the basis of a provision of a
retirement plan which was not freely assented to by her, respondent was
guilty of illegal dismissal.[28] (bold emphasis supplied)
Under the circumstances, the CA did not err in declaring the petitioner guilty of
illegal dismissal for violating Article 282[29] of the Labor Code and the twin notice
rule.[30]
The petitioner posits that the CA erroneously affirmed the giving of overtime pay
and service incentive leave pay to Villa; that she did not adduce proof of her having
rendered actual overtime work; that she had not been authorized to render
overtime work; and that her availment of vacation and sick leaves that had been
paid precluded her claiming the service incentive leave pay.
We partly agree with the petitioner's position.
Firstly, entitlement to overtime pay must first be established by proof that the
overtime work was actually performed before the employee may properly claim the
benefit.[31] The burden of proving entitlement to overtime pay rests on the
employee because the benefit is not incurred in the normal course of business.
[32]
Failure to prove such actual performance transgresses the principles of fair play
and equity.
And, secondly, the NLRC's reliance on the daily time records (DTRs) showing that
Villa had stayed in the company's premises beyond eight hours was misplaced. The
DTRs did not substantially prove the actual performance of overtime work. The
petitioner correctly points out that any employee could render overtime work only
when there was a prior authorization therefor by the management. [33] Without the
prior authorization, therefore, Villa could not validly claim having performed work
beyond the normal hours of work. Moreover, Section 4(c), Rule I, Book III of
the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code relevantly states as follows:
(a) x x x.
(b) x x x.
(c) If the work performed was necessary, or it benefited the employer, or the employee could
not abandon his work at the end of his normal working hours because he had no
replacement, all time spent for such work shall be considered as hours worked, if the
work was with the knowledge of his employer or immediate supervisor. (bold emphasis
supplied)
(d) x x x.
We uphold the grant of service incentive leave pay.
Although the grant of vacation or sick leave with pay of at least five days could be
credited as compliance with the duty to pay service incentive leave, [34] the employer
is still obliged to prove that it fully paid the accrued service incentive leave pay to
the employee.
The Labor Arbiter originally awarded the service incentive leave pay because the
petitioner did not present proof showing that Villa had been justly paid. [35] The
petitioner submitted the affidavits of Zanoria explaining the payment of service
incentive leave after the Labor Arbiter had rendered her decision. [36] But that was
not enough, for evidence should be presented in the proceedings before the Labor
Arbiter, not after the rendition of the adverse decision by the Labor Arbiter or during
appeal. Such a practice of belated presentation cannot be tolerated because it
defeats the speedy administration of justice in matters concerning the poor
workers.[37]
WHEREFORE, the Court DENIES the petition for review on certiorari for lack of
merit; AFFIRMS the decision promulgated on September 27, 2006 by the Court of
Appeals, with the MODIFICATION that the award of overtime pay in favor of
respondent Elizabeth Villa is DELETED; and ORDERS the petitioner to pay the
costs of suit.
SO ORDERED.
Sereno, C. J., Leonardo-De Castro, Perlas-Bernabe, and Caguioa, JJ., concur.
Rollo, pp. 48-60; penned by Associate Justice Marlene Gonzales-Sison, with the
concurrence of Associate Justice Arsenio J. Magpale (retired/deceased) and
Associate Justice Antonio L. Villamor (retired).
[1]
[2]
Id. at 103-109.
[3]
Id. at 86-87.
[4]
Id. at 85-93.
[5]
Id. at 89-90.
[6]
Id. at 92.
[7]
Id. at 117-130.
[8]
Id. at 130.
[9]
Id. at 117-130.
[10]
Id at 137-141.
[11]
Id. at 52-53.
[12]
Supra note 1.
[13]
Id. at 59-60.
[14]
Id. at 62-63.
[15]
Id. at 27.
[16]
Jacinto v. Gumaru, Jr., G.R. No. 191906, June 2, 2014, 724 SCRA 343,
356; Altres v. Empleo, G.R. No. 180986, December 10, 2008, 573 SCRA 583, 597.
Panaguiton, Jr. v. Department of Justice, G.R. No. 167571, November 25, 2008,
571 SCRA 549, 557.
[17]
[18]
Mangali v. Court of Appeals, August 21, 1980, 99 SCRA 236, 247.
Section 5, Rule 7, 1997 Rules of Procedure; See Fuji Television Network, Inc. v.
Espiritu v. G.R. No. 204944-45, December 3, 2014, 744 SCRA 31, 52.
[19]
[20]
Jacinto v. Gumaru, Jr., supra note 16, at 344.
[21]
Rollo, pp. 31-33.
[22]
Id. at 55-56.
Universal Robina Sugar Milling Corporation (URSUMCO) v. Caballeda, G.R. No.

156644 July 28 2008, 560 SCRA 115, 132.
[23]
Quevedo v. Benguet Electric Cooperative, Incorporated, G.R. No 168927,

September 11, 2001, 599 SCRA 438, 446.
[24]
Korean Air Co., Ltd. v. Yuson, G.R. No. 170369, June 16, 2010, 621 SCRA 53,
69.
[25]
Cercado v. Uniprom, Inc., G.R. No. 188154, October 13, 2010, 633 SCRA 281,
290.
[26]
[27]
G.R. No. 156934, March 16, 2007, 518 SCRA 445.
[28]
Id. at 452.
[29]
Now Article 297 pursuant to DOLE Advisory Order No. 1, series of 2015.
[30]
Rollo, p. 58.
Lagatic v. Notional Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 121004, January 28,
1998, 285 SCRA 251, 262.
[31]
Loon v. Power Master, Inc., G.R. No. 189404, December 11, 2013, 712 SCRA
441, 457.
[32]
[33]
Rollo, p. 36.
[34]
Article 95, Labor Code.
[35]
Rollo, p. 91.
[36]
Id. at 148-149.
Filipinas (Prefabricated Bldg.) Systems "FILSYSTEMS," Inc. v. National Labor

Relations Commission, G.R. No. 153859, December 11, 2003, 418 SCRA 404, 408.
[37]

G.R.
No.
199464
ROGELIO ROSARIO, RUDY ROSARIO, MARY ANN GUTIERREZ, SYLVIA CASTILLO, LOURDES JOSE, LORENA ESTEPA,
VIRGINIA
ESTEPA
AND
REMEDIOS
SABADO,
PETITIONERS,
VS.
RIZALITO
F.
ALBA,
RESPONDENT.
April 18, 2016
THIRD DIVISION
[ G.R. No. 199464, April 18, 2016 ]
ROGELIO ROSARIO, RUDY ROSARIO, MARY ANN GUTIERREZ,
SYLVIA CASTILLO, LOURDES JOSE, LORENA ESTEPA,
VIRGINIA ESTEPA AND REMEDIOS SABADO, PETITIONERS,
VS. RIZALITO F. ALBA, RESPONDENT.
DECISION
REYES, J.:
This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari[1] under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court filed
by Rogelio Rosario (Rogelio), Rudy Rosario, Mary Ann Gutierrez, Sylvia Castillo,
Lourdes Jose, Lorena Estepa, Virginia Estepa and Remedios Sabado (petitioners)
against Rizalito F. Alba (respondent) assailing the Decision[2] dated August 5, 2011
of the Court of Appeals (CA), and the Resolution[3] dated November 10, 2011
denying the motion for reconsideration thereof in CA-G.R. SP No. 110189. The CA
reversed the Decision[4] dated June 30, 2009 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
Bauang, La Union, Branch 33, in Civil Case No. 1876-Bg, and reinstated the
Decision[5] dated January 10, 2009 of the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Bauang, La
Union, in Civil Case No. 1074.
The Facts
The instant petition stemmed from a complaint for ejectment[6] filed by the
respondent against the petitioners before the MTC.
The subject properties originally formed part of a parcel of land belonging to the
estate of the late Urbano Rosario (Urbano) and Vicenta Zarate (Vicenta). By virtue
of a Decision[7] dated August 23, 2001 of the RTC of Bauang, La Union, Branch 67,
in Civil Case No. 1151-Bg (for Revival of Judgment), which was rendered pursuant
to a Compromise Agreement[8] executed among the heirs to the said estate,
namely, Jovencio Rosario, et al., Luzviminda Romero and Luz Florendo-Alba (Luz),
the subject properties were adjudged as shares of Luz. [9]
The respondent is the son and only surviving legal heir of Luz while the petitioners
are fellow heirs to the estate of Urbano and Vicenta. As found by the courts below,
the petitioners introduced residential dwellings and other improvements on the
subject properties even before the death of Luz. After Luz died, the respondent sent
out written notices to vacate upon the petitioners; the last one was sent as a
registered mail on November 9, 2007, and was duly received by the petitioners on
November 12 and 14, 2007.[10] Because of the petitioners' refusal to leave, the
respondent instituted the action for ejectment on June 10, 2008. [11]
In their Answer,[12] the petitioners claimed that the subject properties were already
sold by Luz to Rogelio, and to Pablo Rosario, the latter being the predecessor-ininterest of the other petitioners even before the execution of the Compromise
Agreement in Civil Case No. 1151-Bg. This was allegedly proved by duly notarized
deeds of sale.[13]
Ruling of the MTC
On January 10, 2009, the MTC rendered its Decision. It found that the petitioners'
possession was merely tolerated, which became unlawful after the respondent
demanded them to vacate the subject properties. Anent the petitioners' claim that
the subject properties were already sold to their predecessors-in-interest, the MTC
ruled that said assertion cannot hold water as the parcels of land subject matter of
the deeds of sale presented by the petitioners were found to be different from the
purported inheritance of the respondent. On top of the money judgment and the
award of attorney's fees in favor of the respondent, the MTC ordered the petitioners
to remove the improvements they introduced in the subject properties and to
vacate the same.[14]
Ruling of the RTC
The petitioners appealed to the RTC.[15] On June 30, 2009, the RTC rendered its
Decision[16] setting aside the decision of the MTC. The RTC ordered the dismissal of
the respondent's complaint on the following grounds: a) the complaint cannot give
rise to an unlawful detainer action. The MTC ruling that the petitioners' possession
of the properties was merely tolerated was misplaced as there was neither an
express or implied contract among the parties;[17] b) the case could not likewise be
one for forcible entry since there was no allegation that entry was committed by
means of force, intimidation, strategy or stealth;[18] and c) since no date of entry
was alleged by the respondent, the petitioners' contention that they have been in
possession of the properties since 1989 to 1994 (the period when the subject
properties were allegedly conveyed to them by deeds of sale), or for more than one
year, was worthy of credence.[19] Even if the respondent was the true owner of the
subject properties, he cannot avail of the summary action of ejectment considering
that the possession thereof cannot be wrested from another who had been in the
physical or material possession of the same for more than one year.[20] Thus, the
MTC should have dismissed the action for want of jurisdiction. [21]
Ruling of the CA
The respondent elevated his case to the CA. On August 5, 2011, the CA rendered
the assailed Decision[22] reversing and setting aside the decision of the RTC and
reinstated the MTC judgment. Undaunted, the petitioners sought reconsideration
which was denied by the CA in the Resolution[23] dated November 10, 2011.
Hence this petition.
According to the petitioners, the CA erred:
a)
in failing to consider the deeds of sale, project of partition and deed of waiver of rights
which supports their claim of ownership and possession;
b)
in re-stating the respondent's allegation and concluding that their possession was by mere
tolerance which is not based on the findings of facts and law; and
c)
in reinstating the findings of the MTC that there is no identity of the properties they are
claiming and those alleged to be inherited by the respondent.[24]
Ruling of the Court
The Court finds merit in the petition.

Plainly dubbed as one for ejectment, the respondent's complaint materially alleges
the following:
3. [The respondent] is the son and only surviving legal heir of the late [Luz] who at
the time of her death left two parcels of land located at Central West, Bauang, La
Union which are particularly described as follows:
1. An orchard with an area of 179.67 sq.[m.], a residential lot with an area of 100
sq.m. and a commercial lot with an area of 166.67 sq.m., declared under ARP No.
001-01570;
2. An orchard with an area of 4,000 sq. m. and a residential lot with an area of 778
sq.m. declared under ARP No. 001-01574.
xxxx
4. The above described properties are the shares of [the respondent's] mother
[Luz] in the estate of the late [Urbano] and [Vicenta]. [Luz's] shares were duly
adjudicated to her as per Decision in Civil Case No. 1151-Bg[,] entitled Beatriz R.
Gapasin and Luz Florendo versus Jovencio Rosario, et al. for Revival of Judgment,
copy of the said Decision is hereto attached as Annex "C". [The respondent] is
now the owner of the said properties having inherited the same from his mother
[Luz];
5. That [Rogelio,] without the knowledge and consent of [the respondent]
and his late mother[,] had built a house and commercial stalls on the land
covered by ARP No. 001-01570 (No. 1 above) and had the stalls leased to
the damage and prejudice of the [respondent]. The other [petitioners]
built their houses on the property covered by ARP No. 001-01574 (No. 2
above) without the knowledge and consent of the [respondent] and his
late mother; [and]
6. After the partition of the estate of Urbano and [Vicenta] and the foregoing shares
were inherited by the [respondent], he demanded [the petitioners] to vacate his
properties since he already needs the same for his personal use. [The petitioners]
however unjustifiably refused and still refuse to leave the premises. Copies of
demand letters sent to the [petitioners] are hereto attached as Annex "D" and
series[.][25] (Emphasis ours)
It is ruled that jurisdiction in ejectment cases is determined by the allegations of

the complaint and the character of the relief sought. The complaint should embody
such statement of facts as to bring the party clearly within the class of cases under
Section 1, Rule 70 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, [26] which
states:
SECTION 1. Who may institute proceedings, and when. - Subject to the provisions
of the next succeeding section, a person deprived of the possession of any land or
building by force, intimidation, threat, strategy, or stealth, or a lessor, vendor,
vendee, or other person against whom the possession of any land or building is
unlawfully withheld after the expiration or termination of the right to hold
possession, by virtue of any contract, express or implied, or the legal
representatives or assigns of any such lessor, vendor, vendee, or other person, may,
at any time within one (1) year after such unlawful deprivation or withholding of
possession, bring an action in the proper Municipal Trial Court against the person or
persons unlawfully withholding or depriving of possession, or any person or persons
claiming under them, for the restitution of such possession, together with damages
and costs.
Ejectment or accion interdictal takes on two forms: forcible entry and unlawful
detainer. In Spouses Del Rosario v. Gerry Roxas Foundation, Inc.,[27] the Court
explained:
Forcible entry and unlawful detainer are two distinct causes of action defined in
Section 1, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court. In forcible entry, one is deprived of
physical possession of any land or building by means of force, intimidation, threat,
strategy, or stealth. In unlawful detainer, one unlawfully withholds possession
thereof after the expiration or termination of his right to hold possession under any
contract, express or implied. In forcible entry, the possession is illegal from the
beginning and the only issue is who has the prior possession de facto. In unlawful
detainer, possession was originally lawful but became unlawful by the expiration or
termination of the right to possess and the issue of rightful possession is the one
decisive, for in such action, the defendant is the party in actual possession and the
plaintiffs cause of action is the termination of the defendant's right to continue in
possession.[28] (Emphasis and italics ours and underscoring in the original)
After a careful perusal of the complaint, the Court agrees with the RTC that the
respondent's complaint is not constitutive of any of the forms of cases for
ejectment.
The complaint cannot be considered as one for forcible entry. While the respondent
averred that the petitioners' entry in the subject properties was made without the
knowledge and consent of the respondent or his predecessor-in-interest which said
allegation may amount to an averment of the employment of stealth,[29] there is,
however, no showing that the action was filed within one year from the questioned
entry. The complaint does not even state when the alleged dispossession began.
The respondent asserted that the petitioners entered the disputed properties even
before said properties were adjudged as the share of the respondent's mother in
the estate of the late Urbano and Vicenta. This was, in fact, admitted by the
respondent in his Memorandum filed before the CA where he stated:
Even before actual partition, [Rogelio] had built a house and commercial stalls on
the land covered by ARP No. 001-01570 (No. 1 above) and had the stalls leased.
The other [petitioners] built their houses on the property covered by ARP No. 00101574 (No. 2 above).
It was only after a Decision was rendered in Civil Case No. 1151-Bg for Revival of
Judgment that there was actual partition of the estate x x x.[30]
Considering that the judgment in Civil Case No. 1151-Bg was rendered on August
23, 2001, and the instant case was instituted only on June 10, 2008, it clearly
appears that the instant case was instituted long after the one year period for the
institution of a case for forcible entry has lapsed.
Neither can the Court consider the complaint as one for unlawful detainer.
It has been held in a catena of cases[31] that in actions for unlawful detainer, a
complaint sufficiently alleges said cause of action if it states the following elements,
to wit: (1) initially, the possession of the property by the defendant was by contract
with or by tolerance of the plaintiff; (2) eventually, such possession became illegal
upon notice by the plaintiff to the defendant of the termination of the latter's right
of possession; (3) thereafter, the defendant remained in possession of the property
and deprived the plaintiff of its enjoyment; and (4) within one year from the
making of the last demand to vacate the property, the plaintiff instituted the
complaint for ejectment.
Quite obviously, the first element is meant to present the basis of the lawful
possession in the beginning which is either by virtue of a contract or by tolerance.
In the instant case, it is undisputed that no contract, express or implied existed
between the parties. Apart from the MTC's conclusion that the petitioners'
possession was by the mere tolerance of Luz and the respondent, there was
however no evidence presented by the respondent to show such.
In the complaint, the respondent merely alleged that the petitioners, "without the
knowledge and consent of [the respondent] and his late mother," occup[ied] the
subject property by building their respective houses and other improvements
thereon.[32] Yet, the respondent failed to show how or why the petitioners'
possession can be considered as lawful at its inception (but became illegal due to
the expiration or termination of the right to possess) to sufficiently establish an
unlawful detainer case.
Reference to the notices/demands to vacate sent to the petitioners is also

unavailing since there is nothing in the notices which shows that the petitioners'
possession was initially lawful. The notices to vacate only resonate the allegations
made by the respondent in his complaint which commonly state as follows:
I am writing at the instance of my client Rizalito F. Alba who is the owner of the
parcel of land where you had built your house at Central West, Bauang, La Union as
per decision of the [RTC], Branch 67, Bauang, La Union in Civil Case 1151. The said
decision had already become final and executory. My client now needs her [sic] lot
which had deprived from her [sic] mother for so many years.
Demand is therefore made upon you to vacate the land within the period of thirty
(30) days from receipt hereof. Your failure to do so shall constrain us to file the
appropriate charges against you in court.
Please be guided accordingly.[33]
However, in spite of the respondent's failure to cite and substantiate how the
petitioners' possession could be considered as lawful at its inception, the MTC ruled
that the petitioners' possession was by mere tolerance of Luz and the respondent,
citing Arcal v. CA.[34] Thus:
From the time that the [respondent] made demands to the [petitioners] to
vacate the properties subject of this case and they refused to do so, their
possession has already become unlawful. The Supreme Court held in the case
of Arcal vs. Court of Appeals (28 SCRA 34): "The possession by the defendants over
the land has already become unlawful from the time that a demand to vacate was
sent to them. Possession by tolerance is lawful, but such possession becomes
unlawful upon demand to vacate made by the owner and the possessor by
tolerance refuses to comply with such demand." Such is the case at bar. x x x.
[35]
(Emphasis ours)
The Court does not agree.
As the petitioners pointed out, it was only in the respondent's petition for
review[36] filed before the CA where he asserted that the former's possession was by
mere tolerance, viz:
After the actual partition however, [the petitioners'] possession of the subject
properties was tolerated by the [respondent] for a while. [The respondent]
first endeavored to have the properties be declared in the name of her [sic] mother
and her siblings which was completed only sometime in the year 2006.
After the properties were finally declared in the name of [Luz], et. al., [the
respondent], being the sole heir of [Luz], demanded [the petitioners] to vacate
subject properties since he already needs the same for his personal use. x x x.
[37]
(Emphasis ours)
Unfortunately for the respondent, his statement only strengthens the contention
that this is not an unlawful detainer case. Forsooth, said statement is an open
admission that the alleged acts of tolerance by the respondent was exercised only
after the actual partition of the estate of the late Urbano and Vicenta, or long after
the petitioners have entered into their possession of the subject properties. The
respondent alleged that the petitioners entered into the questioned possession
without the knowledge and consent of Luz, and of himself; and that thereafter, he
opted to tolerate said possession. This is not the "tolerance" which justifies an
unlawful detainer case within the contemplation of the law.
The Court reiterates what has been held in Zacarias v. Anacay:[38]
In the instant case, the allegations in the complaint do not contain any averment of
fact that would substantiate petitioners' claim that they permitted or tolerated the
occupation of the property by respondents. The complaint contains only bare
allegations that "respondents without any color of title whatsoever
occupies the land in question by building their house in the said land
thereby depriving petitioners the possession thereof."Nothing has been said
on how respondents' entry was effected or how and when dispossession started.
Admittedly, no express contract existed between the parties. This failure of
petitioners to allege the key jurisdictional facts constitutive of unlawful detainer is
fatal. Since the complaint did not satisfy the jurisdictional requirement of a valid
cause for unlawful detainer, the [MTC] had no jurisdiction over the case. It is in this
light that this Court finds that the [CA] correctly found that the [MTC] had no
jurisdiction over the complaint. x x x[39] (Emphasis ours and some emphasis in the
original deleted)
Accordingly, the appellate court committed reversible error when it reinstated the
MTC decision which took cognizance of the case, dealt upon its merits, and
conducted summary proceedings as if the subject matter is, indeed, one of
ejectment.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated
August 5, 2011 and Resolution dated November 10, 2011 of the Court of Appeals in
CA-G.R. SP No. 110189 are hereby REVERSED AND SET ASIDE. The Decision
dated June 30, 2009 of the Regional Trial Court of Bauang, La Union, Branch 33, in
Civil Case No. 1876-Bg, is REINSTATED.
SO ORDERED.
June 13, 2016
NOTICE OF JUDGMENT
Sirs / Mesdames:
Very truly yours,

[1]
Rollo, pp. 9-37.
Penned by Associate Justice Sesinando E. Villon, with Associate Justices Rebecca

De Guia- Salvador and Amy C. Lazaro-Javier concurring; id. at 38-49.
[2]
[3]
Id. at 50.
[4]
Rendered by Judge Rose Mary R. Molina-Alim; records, pp. 145-153.
[5]
Rendered by Judge Romeo V. Perez; id. at 103-107.
[6]
Id. at 1-4.
[7]
Id. at 7-9.
[8]
Id. at 72-74.
[9]
Id. at 7, 103.
[10]
Id. at 10-17.
[11]
Id. at 1-4.
[12]
Id. at 21-24.
[13]
Id. at 22; 101-102.
[14]
Id. at 107.
[15]
Id. at 108-109.
[16]
Id. at 145-153.
[17]
Id. at 150.
[18]
Id.
[19]
Id.
[20]
Id. at 151.
[21]
Id.
[22]
Rollo , pp. 38-49.
[23]
Id. at 50.
[24]
Id. at 15.
[25]
Records, pp. 1-2.
Milagros Diaz, Eduardo Q. Catacutan, Dante Q. Catacutan, represented by their

common Attorney-in-fact, Fernando Q. Catacutan v. Spouses Gaudencio Punzalan
and Teresita Punzalan, G.R. No. 203075, March 16, 2016.
[26]
[27]
666 Phil. 410 (2011).
Id. at 422, citing Sumulong v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 108817, May 10,
1994, 232 SCRA 372 382-383.
[28]
[29]
See Zacarias v. Anacay, G.R. No. 202354, September 24, 2014, 736 SCRA 508.
[30]
CA rollo, p. 210.
Zacarias v. Anacay, supra note 29; Republic of the Philippines, et al. v. Sunvar
Really Development Corporation, 688 Phil. 616 (2012); Macaslang v. Spouses
Zamora, 664 Phil. 337 (2011).
[31]
[32]
Records, p. 2.
[33]
Id. at 10-17.
[34]
348 Phil. 813 (1998).
[35]
Records, p. 107.
[36]
Id. at 263-278.
[37]
Id. at 268.
[38]
Supra note 29.
[39]
Id. at 521, citing Spouses Valdez, Jr. v. CA, 523 Phil. 39, 50-51 (2006).

G.R.
No.
188145
SPOUSES PRIMO INALVEZ AND JULIANA INALVEZ, PETITIONERS, VS. BAYANG NOOL, ALLAN NOOL AND CELESTINO
NOOL,
RESPONDENTS.
April 18, 2016
THIRD DIVISION
[ G.R. No. 188145, April 18, 2016 ]
SPOUSES PRIMO INALVEZ AND JULIANA INALVEZ,
PETITIONERS, VS. BAYANG NOOL, ALLAN NOOL AND
CELESTINO NOOL, RESPONDENTS.
DECISION
REYES, J.:
Assailed in this petition for review on certiorari[1] under Rule 45 of the Rules of
Court are the Decision[2] dated June 19, 2008 and the Resolution[3] dated May 26,
2009 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 89378 which reversed and set
aside the Decision[4] dated April 3, 2007 in Civil Case No. 02-09 of the Regional Trial
Court (RTC) of Camiling, Tarlac, Branch 68.
The Facts
This petition stemmed from a complaint for recovery of possession over a parcel of
land covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 305862 [5] with an area of
10.2135 hectares situated at Villa Aglipay, San Jose, Tarlac, filed by Spouses Primo
and Juliana Inalvez (Juliana) (petitioners) against Bayang Nool (Bayang), Allan Nool
and Celestino Nool (respondents), with the Department of Agrarian Reform
Adjudication Board (DARAB).
The records showed that the subject property was originally covered by TCT No.
58398[6] originally registered in the names of Spouses Nicolas and Francisca Nool
and Spouses Comelio and Bayang, with an area of 15.1441 ha. On May 3, 1965,
Spouses Cornelio and Bayang sold a large portion of their one-half share of the
landholding to the petitioners and Maria Zamora (Zamora), which sale was inscribed
on the title as Entry No. 5-4972.[7] Consequently, TCT No. 58398 was cancelled and
in lieu thereof, TCT No. 58439[8] was issued in the names of the following coowners: Spouses Nicolas and Francisca (one-half share); Zamora (one-fourth
share); Spouses Cornelio and Bayang (one-eighth share); and the petitioners (oneeighth share).[9]
On June 4, 1979, Spouses Nicolas and Francisca sold their entire one-half share
over the property in favor of Spouses Abraham and Olivia Macayanan (Spouses
Macayanan), which sale was inscribed on the title as Entry No. E-19-7847. [10] Then,
on April 16, 1980, the new set of owners, namely, Spouses Macayanan, Zamora,
Spouses Cornelio and Bayang, and the petitioners executed a Real Estate
Mortgage[11] (REM) over the whole property in favor of Tarlac Development Bank
(TDB) to secure a loan of P10,000.00.[12]
Unfortunately, the mortgage was foreclosed, and the title to the subject property
was consolidated with TDB, together with the corresponding issuance of TCT No.
188251.[13] On April 17, 1985, TDB sold the parcel of land to the petitioners and
Spouses Jim and Liberty Baluyot (Spouses Baluyot).[14] Hence, TCT No. 188251 was
cancelled and TCT No. 188252[15] was issued in the names of the petitioners and
Spouses Baluyot.[16] Meanwhile, the respondents continued possession of the
subject lot.
On October 3, 1991, pursuant to an Agreement of Subdivision, [17] the property was
subdivided as follows: Lot 1 with 138,734 square meters to the petitioners, and
Lots 2 and 3 with 10,000 sq m and 2,707 sq m, respectively, to Spouses Baluyot.
The portion pertaining to the petitioners was separately titled under TCT No.
260916, and was later replaced by TCT No. 262142, [18] showing that the original
area of 138,734 sq m had been reduced to 133,809 sq m. [19]
On March 24, 1998, the petitioners caused their property to be subdivided into nine
sub-lots, by virtue of which subdivision, TCT No. 262142 was cancelled and new
titles were issued, namely, TCT Nos. 305854 to 305862. The petitioners also
declared the property for tax purposes.[20]
On June 16, 2000, the petitioners instituted a complaint for ejectment, collection of
shares and damages, against the respondents before the DARAB-Region III
docketed as DARAB Case No. III-T-1952-00. The petitioners alleged that since
Bayang is Juliana's sister, they allowed the respondents to cultivate 2-ha portion of
the subject property covered by TCT No. 305862, [21] with an area of 102,135 sq m,
with the obligation to share the landowners 25% of the harvest proceeds thereof.
The respondents' cultivation thereof was purportedly conditioned upon the payment
to the petitioners of a rightful share in the produce. Thus, when the respondents
failed to fulfil their undertaking, the petitioners instituted an ejectment complaint
against them.[22]
For her part, Bayang averred that she and her late husband were the actual and
registered co-owners of the subject property, which they inherited from her father,
together with the petitioners. Bayang denied having sold portions of their property
to the petitioners and Zamora. She also disclaimed knowledge as to how their
original title was replaced by TCT No. 58439 showing the acquisition by the
petitioners of one-eight portion of the property and the corresponding reduction of
their share. She further denied having signed any document consenting to the
mortgage of the subject property and refuted the genuineness of her husband's
signature as appearing on the REM executed with TDB. Lastly, the respondents
argued that they are deemed to have already acquired the subject property through
ordinary acquisitive prescription since they have been in open, continuous and
exclusive possession of the subject property for more than 30 years. [23]
On January 14, 2002, the DARAB dismissed the case upon finding that no tenancy
relationship exists between the parties.[24] Dissatisfied, the petitioners filed a
complaint for recovery of possession, damages with an application for preliminary
injunction[25] against the respondents before the RTC of Camiling, Tarlac docketed
as Civil Case No. 02-09. The case was raffled to Branch 68.
After trial, the court a quo rendered its judgment in favor of the petitioners. [26] The
trial court dismissed the respondents' claim of ownership over the subject property
taking note of the sale and transfer effected by Spouses Cornelio and Bayang over a
large portion of their inherited property in favor of Zamora and the petitioners.
Thus:
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the [petitioners], as follows:
1. Ordering [the respondents] and all persons allowed by them to vacate the
subject portion of the lot in suit presently covered by TCT No. 305862;
2. Ordering [the respondents], jointly and severally[,] to pay the [petitioners]
Ph[P]500.00 a month from each of them as reasonable compensation for the
use of the subject property from the time of the filing of this Complaint until
possession is fully restored to [the petitioners];
3. Ordering the [respondents], jointly and severally[,] to pay [the petitioners]
the sum of Ph[P]25,000.00 as attorney's fees; [and]
4. Cost of suit.
The award of other damages are [sic] not granted for not being prayed for and for
lack of adequate proofs.
SO ORDERED.[27]
On appeal,[28] the CA reversed and set aside the RTC decision and dismissed the
complaint for recovery of possession upon finding that a co-ownership existed
between the parties.[29] The CA faulted the trial court for relying on the fact that the
petitioners are the present registered owners of the property and in consequently
ruling that they can recover possession of the portion occupied by the respondents
ratiocinating that registration does not vest ownership but is intended to merely
confirm and register title which one may have on the land. The CA also gave
credence to the respondents' claim of forgery with respect to the signature of
Spouses Cornelio and Bayang on the REM. The CA then ruled that:
Since [the petitioners'] act of mortgaging the property without the consent of [the
respondents] did not terminate the existing co-ownership, [the respondents] cannot
be deemed to have lost their part ownership in the property even by reason of the
eventual foreclosure and consolidation of title in the name of [TDB]. x x x Similarly,
x x x, [TDB] never acquired registrable title over that portion pertaining to [the
respondents] but simply held the same in trust for the latter. Hence, when the
[petitioners] subsequently bought the property from [TDB] they are deemed to
have acquired no more than the rights and obligations that the bank had over the
property to begin with. Putting it lightly, [the petitioners] did not acquire title to the
subject property because they merely stepped into the shoes of [TDB] and acquired
no more than what the latter could transfer to them in the first place. Evidently,
[the petitioners] cannot be allowed to profit from their own illegal and fraudulent
act of mortgaging [the respondents'] share without the latter's knowledge and
consent.[30]
The petitioners moved for reconsideration[31] but it was denied,[32] hence, this
petition.
The Issue
The main issue before this Court is whether a co-ownership exists between the
petitioners and the respondents.
Ruling of the Court
The petition has no merit.
At the outset, it bears to emphasize that there is no dispute with respect to the fact
that no tenancy or agricultural leasehold relationship existed between the parties
whether express or implied since the petitioners have failed to overcome the burden
of proving their affirmative allegation of tenancy. The petitioners however argue
that they are the sole owners of the subject property since they have bought it from
TDB after it had been foreclosed. On the other hand, the respondents insist that
they are co-owners of the subject property which they inherited from their parents.
Essentially, the issues raised center on the core question of whether or not the
subject property pertains to the exclusive ownership of the petitioners. Hence, the
pertinent point of inquiry is whether co-ownership by the petitioners and the
respondents over the subject property continued even after the subject property
was purchased by TDB and title thereto transferred to its name, and even after it
was eventually bought back by the petitioners from TDB.
While the question raised is essentially one of fact, of which the Court normally
abstain from, yet, considering the divergent positions of the courts below, this
Court shall go by the exception to the general rule and proceed to review the facts
of this case and make its own assessment of the evidence and documents on
record. But even if the Court were to re-evaluate the evidence presented, there is
still no reason to depart from the CA's ruling that the property in dispute is owned
in common by the petitioners and the respondents.
In this case, the petitioners' cause of action for recovery of possession is grounded
on their alleged exclusive ownership of the subject property which they merely
purchased from TDB. They contend that TDB's consolidation of ownership over the
subject property effectively ended and terminated the co-ownership. The
respondents, however, counter that they are co-owners of the subject property and
their co-ownership was by virtue of their inheritance, which was registered in the
names of the petitioners by way of an agreement. Bayang also asserted that she
never sold her share to the petitioners and Zamora nor was she aware of any
mortgage over the subject property.
Here, records show that the subject property was originally owned by Juliana and
Bayang's father, Cleto Macayanan under Original Certificate of Title No. 1665.
"Pursuant to Article 1451 of the Civil Code, when land passes by succession to any
person and he causes the legal title to be put in the name of another, a trust is
established by implication of law for the benefit of the true owner." [33] Bayang, being
an heir and a co-owner, is thus entitled to the possession of the subject property.
This was confirmed by the issuance of TCT No. 58439 in the names of Spouses
Nicolas and Francisca for one-half share, Spouses Cornelio and Bayang for oneeighth share, Zamora for one-fourth share, and the petitioners for one-eighth
share. Evidently, a co-ownership existed between the parties prior to the
foreclosure and consolidation of title in favor of TDB and the subsequent reacquisition thereof by the petitioners.
"Co-ownership is a form of trust and every co-owner is a trustee for the
others."[34] "Before the partition of a land or thing held in common, no individual or
co-owner can claim title to any definite portion thereof. All that the co-owner has is
an ideal or abstract quota proportionate share in the entire land or
thing."[35] "Should a co-owner alienate or mortgage the co-owned property itself,
the alienation or mortgage shall remain valid but only to the extent of the portion
which may be allotted to him in the division upon the termination of the coownership."[36] "In case of foreclosure, a sale would result in the transmission only
of whatever rights the seller had over of the thing sold."[37]
Indeed, a co-owner does not lose his part ownership of a co-owned property when
his share is mortgaged by another co-owner without the former's knowledge and
consent as in the case at bar. The mortgage of the inherited property is not binding
against co-heirs who never benefited.38 As correctly emphasized by the CA, the
petitioners' right in the subject property is limited only to their share in the coowned property. When the subject property was sold to and consolidated in the
name of TDB, the latter merely held the subject property in trust for the
respondents. When the petitioners and Spouses Baluyot bought back the subject
property, they merely stepped into the shoes of TDB and acquired whatever
rights and obligations appertain thereto.
Be that as it may, the rights of the respondents as co-owners of the subject
property were never alienated despite TDB's consolidation of ownership over the
subject property. Neither does the fact that the petitioners succeeded in acquiring
back the property from TDB and having a new title issued in their name terminate
the existing co-ownership. Besides, it seems that petitioners knew of the fact that
they did not have a title to the entire lot and could not, therefore, have validly
mortgaged the same, because of the respondents' possession of the subject
portion.
The trial court's reliance on the doctrine that mere possession cannot defeat the
right of a holder of a registered Torrens title over property is misplaced, considering
that the respondents were almost deprived of their dominical rights over the said
lot through fraud and with evident bad faith on the part of the petitioners. Failure
and intentional omission to disclose the fact of actual physical possession by
another person during registration proceedings constitutes actual fraud. Likewise, it
is fraud to knowingly omit or conceal a fact, upon which benefit is obtained to the
prejudice of a third person.[39]
Contrary to the petitioners' argument that the respondents' claim is a collateral
attack upon their title which is impermissible, the Court had categorically ruled that
a resolution on the issue of ownership does not subject the Torrens title issued over
the disputed realties to a collateral attack. It must be borne in mind that what
cannot be collaterally attacked is the certificate of title and not the title
itself.[40] "Mere issuance of the certificate of title in the name of any person does
not foreclose the possibility that the real property may be under co-ownership with
persons not named in the certificate, or that the registrant may only be a trustee,
or that other parties may have acquired interest over the property subsequent to
the issuance of the certificate of title."[41] The alleged incontrovertibility of title
cannot be successfully invoked by the petitioners because certificates of title merely
confirm or record title already existing and cannot be used as a shield for the
commission of fraud.[42]
The CA was also on point when it upheld the respondents' claim of forgery with
respect to the signatures of Spouses Cornelio and Bayang as appearing in the REM.
The CA explained that:
The evidence on record tends to corroborate [the respondents'] claim that [the
petitioners] succeeded in mortgaging the co-owned property to [TDB] without their
consent. The signature on the [REM] Contract, which purports to be that of Cornelio
Nool, is undoubtedly a forgery considering that Cornelio Nool died on December 21,
1979 prior to the execution of said mortgage on April 16, 1980. Bayang's claim that
her signature in the mortgage was forged was never rebutted by [the petitioners].
Also, the manifest disparities between [Bayang's] purported signature on the [REM]
Contract and her signature as appearing on the Marriage Contract, which public
document was admitted as genuine writing, supports [sic] a finding that her
signature on the mortgage contract was also forged. The trial court failed to
consider the evidence and to make its own comparison of the disputed handwriting
with writings that are proved to be genuine as explicitly authorized by Section 22,
Rule 132 of the Rules of Court.[43]
The Court disbelieves the petitioners' argument that the respondents started
occupying the subject property only after the petitioners have bought back the
subject property from TDB. Obviously, the respondents have been the owners and
in possession of the subject property even before May 3, 1965 when they sold
portions of their original share to the petitioners. The subject property presently in
the respondents' possession covers an area of not more than 2 ha, [44] which
corresponds, more or less, to the one-eighth aliquot share (1.8930 ha) in the coowned property which the Spouses Cornelio and Bayang had retained for
themselves in the co-ownership. It must be noted that since the mortgage and sale
of the subject property to the petitioners, the latter had allowed the respondents to
occupy that portion allotted to them. Clearly, the petitioners were in possession of
the subject property for more than 35 years. However, at no instance during this
time did the petitioners, for that matter, question the respondents' right over the
subject property.
In Vda. de Cabrera v. CA,[45] the Court held that where the transferees of an
undivided portion of the land allowed a co-owner of the property to occupy a
definite portion thereof and had not disturbed the same for a period too long to be
ignored, the possessor is in a better condition or right than said transferees.
(Potior est conditio possidentis)[46] Such undisturbed possession had the effect of a
partial partition of the co-owned property which entitles the possessor to the
definite portion which he occupies.[47] Conformably, the respondents are entitled to
the subject property, having enjoyed uninterrupted possession thereof for more
than 35 years.
From the foregoing disquisitions, it is clear that the CA did not err in declaring that
the petitioners have no legal basis to recover possession of the subject property.
Except for their claim that they merely purchased the subject property from TDB,
the petitioners presented no other j ustification to disprove co-ownership. Since the
mortgage of the co-owned property was done without the respondents' consent,
they cannot be deemed to have lost their share as a consequence of the
subsequent foreclosure and sale of the co-owned property. In the same way, the
petitioners, as mere co-owners, had no right to mortgage the entire property for
their right to do so is limited only to that portion that may be allotted to them upon
termination of the co-ownership.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision dated June 19, 2008 and the
Resolution dated May 26, 2009 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 89378
are hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
June 15, 2016
Sirs/Mesdames:
which was received by this Office on June 15, 2016 at 10:55 a.m.
Very truly yours,

(SGD)
WILFREDO V. LAPITAN
[1]
Rollo, pp. 11-47.
Penned by Associate Justice Rosmari D. Carandang, with Associate Justices Portia

Alino-Hormachuelos and Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe (now a Member of this Court); id.
at 49-60.
[2]
[3]
Id. at 63-64.
[4]
Rendered by Presiding Judge Jose S. Vallo; id. at 176-188.
[5]
Records, p. 12.
[6]
Id. at 14.
[7]
Dorsal side of Exhibit "C", id.
[8]
Id. at 15-16.
[9]
Rollo, pp. 66-67.
[10]
Dorsal side of Exhibit "D", records, p. 15.
[11]
Exhibit "E", id. at 17-20.
[12]
Rollo, pp. 50-51.
[13]
Exhibit "G", records p. 22.
[14]
Id. at 23-24.
[15]
Id. at 25-26
[16]
Rollo, p. 51
[17]
Records, p. 27.
[18]
Exhibit "K", id. at 28-29.
[19]
Rollo, pp. 69-70.
[20]
Id. at 52
[21]
Records, p. 12.
[22]
Rollo, pp. 92-93.
[23]
Id. at 53.
[24]
Rendered by Regional Adjudicator Fe Arche Manalang; id at 92-101
[25]
Id. at 65-75.
[26]
Id. at 176-188.
[27]
Id. at 187-188.
[28]
Id. at 189-211.
[29]
Id. at 49-60.
[30]
Id. at 57-58.
[31]
Id. at 258-278.
[32]
Id. at 63-64.
[33]
Nufable v. Nufable, 369 Phil. 135, 147 (1999).
[34]
Sanchez v. CA, 452 Phil. 665, 676 (2003).
[35]
Id.
Philippine National Bank v. Garcia, G.R. No. 182839, June 2, 2014, 724 SCRA
280, 291.
[36]
[37]
Cruz v. Bancom Finance Corporation, 429 Phil. 225, 243 (2002).
[38]
Nufable v. Nufable, supra note 33, at 146.
Roberto Sta. Ana Dy, Jose Alaineo Dy, and Alteza A. Dy for themselves and as
heirs/substitutes of deceased-petitioner Chloe Alindogan Dy v. Bonifacio A. Yu,
Susana A. Tan, and Soledad Arquilla substituting deceased-respondent Rosario
Arquilla, G.R. No. 202632, July 8, 2015, citing Alba vda. de Raz v. CA, 372 Phil.
710, 738 (1999).
[39]
[40]
Lacbayan v. Samoy, Jr., 661 Phil. 306, 317 (2011).
[41]
Id.
Roberto Sta. Ana Dy, Jose Alaineo Dy, and Alteza A. Dy for themselves and as
heirs/ substitutes of deceased-petitioner Chloe Alindogan Dy v. Bonifacio A. Yu,
Susana A. Tan, and Soledad Arquilla substituting deceased-respondent Rosario
Arquilla, supra note 39, citing Spouses Lopez v. Spouses Lopez 620 Phil. 368, 376
(2009).
[42]
[43]
Rollo, pp. 55-56.
[44]
TSN, December 4, 2003, p. 7.
[45]
335 Phil. 19(1997).
[46]
Id. at 35.
[47]
Spouses Del Campo v. CA, 403 Phil. 706, 718 (2001).

A.C.
RENE
B.
No.
HERMANO,
COMPLAINANT,
VS.
ATTY.
7447
IGMEDIO
S.
PRADO
JR.,
RESPONDENT.
April 18, 2016
THIRD DIVISION
[ A.C. No. 7447, April 18, 2016 ]
RENE B. HERMANO, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. IGMEDIO S.
PRADO JR., RESPONDENT.
DECISION
REYES, J.:
This is an administrative complaint[1] filed by Rene B. Hermano (complainant)

against Atty. Igmedio S. Prado, Jr. (respondent) for violating the Code of
Professional Responsibility (CPR).
The Facts
The complainant engaged the services of the respondent as his defense counsel in
Criminal Case Nos. 97-493 and 97-494, both for Homicide, for the death of
Bonifacio Arante, Jr. and Dante Aguacito, respectively, on December 18, 1996, while
he was in the performance of his duty as a police officer. On February 5, 1998, he
was arraigned and pleaded not guilty of both charges before the Regional Trial
Court (RTC) of Barotac Viejo, Iloilo, Branch 66. Thereafter, the two cases were
jointly heard.[2]
In 2003, after the presentation of evidence, the RTC ordered the parties to submit
their respective memoranda. The respondent then charged the complainant the
amount of Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00) for the preparation and filing of the
memorandum, which the latter promptly paid.[3]
On April 5, 2005, the RTC promulgated its Decision [4] in Criminal Case Nos. 97-493
and 97-494, finding the complainant guilty of both charges. On the same day, the
complainant found out that the respondent did not file the required memorandum
despite receipt of the full payment for its preparation and filing. [5]
Thereafter, the complainant conferred with the respondent and he was told that
there is a good chance that the decision of the RTC will be reversed by the Court of
Appeals (CA) on appeal. For the preparation of the appellant's brief, the respondent
asked the complainant the amount of Fifteen Thousand Pesos (P15,000.00), way
ahead of the notice from the CA to file the same.[6]
Subsequently, the complainant received a notice dated August 8, 2005 from the CA,
pertaining to CA-G.R. CEB-CR No. 00206, entitled "People of the Philippines v.
SPO1 Rene Hermano" requiring the filing of appellant's brief within 30 days from
receipt thereof. He thus visited the respondent in his office to secure a copy of the
appellant's brief but was informed by the respondent's secretary that he had filed a
motion for an extension of time to file the said pleading. [7]
On October 13, 2005, barely two days before the lapse of the period to comply with
the order of the CA, the complainant went to Iloilo City to confer with the
respondent and to follow up on his request for a copy of the appellant's brief. The
complainant was informed, however, by the respondent's secretary that she did not
know the whereabouts of the respondent and had no idea whether the appellant's
brief for the case had already been filed. The complainant tried calling the
respondent through his cellular phone but he could not be reached. [8]
On the following day, the complainant went back to Iloilo City to see if he could
finally meet the respondent but to no avail. Aware that he only had two days left to
submit the appellant's brief, he went around the city to look for a lawyer who would
draft his appellant's brief so that it can be filed on time. However, no lawyer would
accept his case. Fortunately, one lawyer referred him to Atty. Cornelio Panes (Atty.
Panes). He went to the office of Atty. Panes and relayed to him his predicament. At
first, Atty. Panes was hesitant to accept his case because of the short period of time
remaining to file the appellant's brief and because the respondent was his good
friend. Atty. Panes tried contacting the respondent but he still could not be reached.
Ultimately, upon his persistent pleas, the complainant managed to convince Atty.
Panes to prepare the appellant's brief for him.[9]
Eventually, Atty. Panes was able to finish the appellant's brief [10] and filed it within
the reglementary period. He also gave a copy of the said pleading to the
complainant whom he allowed to pay his professional fees of Ten Thousand Pesos
(P10,000.00) by installment.[11]
Sometime thereafter, the complainant learned that the Office of the Solicitor
General (OSG) had filed a motion to dismiss his appeal [12] before the CA. He only
learned of the existence of the said motion in a spontaneous visit to the
respondent's office on February 2, 2006. With the respondent still out of reach, the
complainant contacted Atty. Panes and informed him about the motion. Atty. Panes
thereafter filed a Comment[13] thereto and attached the necessary documents. The
CA denied the OSG's motion to dismiss and gave due course to the appeal in
Resolution[14] dated April 21, 2006.[15]
On November 8, 2006, the complainant received a call from Atty. Panes, informing
him that the CA had rendered a Decision[16] dated October 26, 2006, setting aside
the appealed decision of the RTC and acquitting him of the two (2) counts of
homicide filed against him.[17]
On February 23, 2007, the complainant filed the present administrative complaint
against the respondent for failing to live up to his responsibilities as counsel under
the CPR. He asseverates that due to the respondent's negligence, he almost lost his
appeal and could have been sent to prison had he not sought the help of Atty.
Panes, who promptly prepared and filed his appellant's brief. He likewise laments
the fact that the respondent collected professional fees from him but failed to file
the necessary pleadings required by the court.
In his Comment,[18] the respondent denied neglecting the complainant's case and
claimed that he had consistently informed him of the status of the case. He alleged
that when he informed the complainant about the extension of time to file his
appeal, the latter told him that he had already found a new lawyer to represent
him. He added that he even sent the complainant a text message regarding the
OSG's filing of a motion to dismiss his appeal with the CA.
Subsequently, the Court referred the instant administrative case to the Integrated
Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and recommendation. [19]
In the Report and Recommendation[20] dated August 27, 2008, the Investigating
Commissioner recommended that the respondent be suspended for a period of
three (3) months and be ordered to return the fees he collected for services that he
failed to perform.[21]
On September 20, 2008, the IBP Board of Governors (the Board) issued Resolution
No. XVIII-2008-483,[22] disposing thus:
RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPPROVE, as it is hereby unanimously ADOPTED and
APPROVED, with modification, the Report and Recommendation of the
Investigating Commissioner of the above-entitled case, herein made part of this
Resolution as Annex "A", and finding the recommendation fully supported by the
evidence on record and the applicable laws and rules, and considering Respondent's
failure to inform complainant about the status of his case, Atty. Igtnedio S. Prado,
Jr. is herebySUSPENDED from the practice of law for three (3) months
and Ordered to Return to complainant the amount of Twenty Five Thousand
(P25,000.00) Pesos representing the fees for legal services that were not
performed.[23]
Aggrieved, the respondent filed a motion for reconsideration of the foregoing
resolution.[24] Then, on June 26, 2011, the Board denied the motion in its'
Resolution No. XIX-2011-456,[25] which held:
RESOLVED to unanimously DENY Respondent's Motion for Reconsideration, there
being no cogent reason to reverse the findings of the Board and it being a mere
reiteration of the matters which had already been threshed out and taken into
consideration. Thus, for lack of substantial ground or reason to disturb it, the Board
of Governor's Resolution No. XV 111-2008-483 dated September 20, 2008 is
hereby
AFFIRMED.[26]
Ruling of the Court
The Court sustains the findings and recommendation of the IBP with modification.
The CPR provides:

Canon 17 - A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and he shall be mindful
of the trust and confidence reposed in him.
Canon 18 - A lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence.
xxxx
Rule 18.02 - A lawyer shall not handle any legal matter without adequate
preparation.
Rule 18.03 - A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his
negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.
Rule 18.04 - A lawyer shall keep the client informed of the status of his case and
shall respond within a reasonable time to the client's request for information.
It bears stressing that from the time a lawyer accepts a case, he binds himself to
serve and protect his client's interest to the best of his ability. He undertakes to
exert all legal efforts to pursue the cause of his client and help him exhaust all
available remedies.
In Belleza v. Atty. Macasa,[27] the Court emphasized:
A lawyer who accepts professional employment from a client undertakes to serve
his client with competence and diligence. He must conscientiously perform his duty
arising from such relationship. He must bear in mind that by accepting a retainer,
he impliedly makes the following representations: that he possesses the requisite
degree of learning, skill and ability other lawyers similarly situated possess; that he
will exert his best judgment in the prosecution or defense of the litigation entrusted
to him; that he will exercise reasonable care and diligence in the use of his skill and
in the application of his knowledge to his client's cause; and that he will take all
steps necessary to adequately safeguard his client's interest.[28] (Citations omitted)
Upon engagement of his services, it is incumbent upon a lawyer to thoroughly study
the circumstances of the case in order to determine the most suitable course of
action or defense for his client. He must survey the facts and the parties involved
so that he may be able to trace the source of his client's predicament and devise a
legal strategy in order to resolve the same. He must take appropriate action out of
his investigation and prepare the necessary pleading in court and file it on time. In
performing his responsibilities, he must be mindful of the prescriptive period in
taking an action because failing to do so could lose the client his case.
In the instant case, the respondent failed to discharge his duties as counsel. He
failed to prepare and file a memorandum on the complainant's behalf despite the
RTC's order to do so. The memorandum could have been a helpful medium for the
complainant to establish his claim of self-defense in the criminal cases charged
against him. However, due to the respondent's negligence, the complainant lost the
opportunity and was convicted of the charges. This was notwithstanding the fact
that the complainant paid him the amount of P10,000.00 to prepare the said
memorandum.
The respondent's negligence did not end here. He had the temerity to insinuate to
the complainant that there is a good chance that the decision of the RTC will be
overturned by the CA should they appeal the case. Out of desperation of his plight,
the complainant readily acquiesced and willingly paid out the amount of
P15,000.00, which the respondent required as his professional fees. Barely two
days before the lapse of the period of filing the appellant's brief, however, the
respondent was nowhere to be found and did not even bother to communicate with
the complainant to inform him of the status of his case.
In The Heirs of Ballesteros, Sr. v. Atty. Apiag,[29] the Court stated:
The Court has repeatedly stressed that the lawyer-client relationship is highly
fiduciary. There is always a need for the client to receive from the lawyer periodic
and full updates on developments affecting the case. The lawyer should apprise the
client on the mode and manner that the lawyer is utilizing to defend his client's
interests.[30] (Citations omitted)
Due to the respondent's negligence, the complainant was constrained to
immediately scout for a new lawyer who can prepare and file the appellant's brief
for his case. With the short period of time before the lapse of the period to file the
appellant's brief, the complainant had a tough time looking for a lawyer who will
salvage him from his quandary. The complainant's concern was not baseless as the
respondent had previously reneged on his responsibility as counsel when he failed
to file the memorandum required by the RTC. Luckily for the complainant, he was
able to engage the services of Atty. Panes despite the latter's initial hesitation
because of the work entailed in the drafting of the appellant's brief and the little
time remaining to prepare and file the same.
The seriousness of the respondent's negligence cannot be overemphasized. Under
the Rules of Court, the failure to file the appellant's brief within the reglementary
period may warrant the dismissal of an appeal.[31] The respondent's laxity could
have cost the complainant his liberty, and his family, a source of living. It could
have amounted to some agonizing years in prison for the complainant for doing
something that is justified under the law. The respondent's negligence is gross and
inexcusable. It is exactly the opposite of what is required of him as an officer of the
court.
In Vda. de Enriquez v. Atty. San Jose,[32] the Court emphasized, thus
[W]hen a lawyer takes a client's cause, he covenants that he will exercise due
diligence in protecting the latter's rights. Failure to exercise that degree of vigilance
and attention expected of a good father of a family makes the lawyer unworthy of
the trust reposed in him by his client and makes him answerable not just to his
client but also to the legal profession, the courts and society. Until the lawyer's
withdrawal is properly done, the lawyer is expected to do his or her best for the
interest of the client.[33]
Moreover, in Fernandez v. Atty. Cabrera II,[34] the Court reiterated that:
The failure to exercise that degree of vigilance and attention expected of an Officer
of the Court makes such lawyer unworthy of the trust reposed in him by his clients
and makes him answerable not just to his client but also to the legal profession, the
courts, and the society, x x x.[35]
The Court also notes that the respondent's failure to return the money given to him
by the complainant despite non-performance of the agreed legal services is in
violation of Canon 16[36] of the CPR. In Meneses v. Atty. Macalino,[37] the Court
underscored, thus:
The Code mandates that every "lawyer shall hold in trust all moneys and properties
of his client that may come into his possession." The Code further states that "[a]
lawyer shall account for all money or property collected or received for or from the
client." Furthermore, "[a] lawyer shall deliver the funds and property of his client
when due and upon demand."
When a lawyer receives money from the client for a particular purpose, the lawyer
is bound to render an accounting to the client showing that the money was spent
for the intended purpose. Consequently, if the lawyer does not use the money for
the intended purpose, the lawyer must immediately return the money to the
client. [38] (Citations omitted)
For his supposed professional fees, the respondent charged the complainant the
amount of P10,000.00 for the preparation and filing of memorandum with the RTC.
Subsequently, he asked the complainant the amount of P15,000.00 to handle his
appeal with the CA, particularly to prepare his appellant's brief. The respondent,
however, failed to render the legal services he undertook to perform. More
lamentably, he did not even have the decency to return the money to the
complainant despite the dismal manner by which he handled his case. His failure to
account for the money he received or to return the same to the complainant is
indicative of lack of integrity and propriety and a violation of the trust reposed on
him. His unjustified withholding of money belonging to the complainant warrants
the imposition of disciplinary action.[39]
Indisputably, the respondent miserably failed to live up to the standards of
competence, diligence and integrity expected of him. It bears remembering that
"[l]awyers are expected to always live up to the standards embodied in the [CPR]
because an attorney-client relationship is highly fiduciary in nature and demands
utmost fidelity and good faith. Those who violate the [CPR] must be disciplined." [40]
Considering the seriousness of his negligence, the Court finds that the
recommended penalty of three (3) months of suspension from the practice of law is
too light for the violations committed by the respondent. In Talento, et al. v. Atty.
Paneda,[41] the Court imposed a penalty of one (1) year of suspension from the
practice of law for therein respondent's failure to file the appeal brief for his client
and for failure to return the money paid for legal services that were not performed.
On the other hand, in Atty. San Jose,[42] therein respondent's negligence in handling
his client's cause merited a suspension of six (6) months from the practice of law.
Likewise, inSpouses Rabanal v. Atty. Tugade,[43] therein respondent's failure to file
the appellant's brief meted out a penalty of suspension for six (6) months. There
were even cases when the penalty imposed was two (2) years of suspension from
the practice of law.[44] It is clear therefore that in the previous rulings of this Court,
those found guilty of the same or similar acts were suspended for not less than six
(6) months from the practice of law.
Accordingly, the Court modifies the respondent's penalty to six (6) months of
suspension from the practice of law.
WHEREFORE, the Court finds respondent Atty. Igmedio S. Prado, Jr. GUILTY of
violation of Canon 16, Rule 16.01, Canons 17 and 18, Rules 18.02, 18.03 and 18.04
of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Accordingly, the Court SUSPENDS him
from the practice of law for six (6) months effective upon finality of this Decision
andORDERS him to return the amount of P25,000.00 to complainant Rene B.
Hermano for legal services he failed to render within thirty (30) days from receipt
of this Decision. He is further WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar
offense shall be dealt with more severely.
Let copies of this Decision be furnished to the Office of the Bar Confidant, to be
appended to the personal record of Atty. Igmedio S. Prado, Jr. as an attorney.
Likewise, copies shall be furnished to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and all
courts in the country for their information and guidance.

SO ORDERED.
Velasco,Jr., (Chairperson), Peralta, Perez, and Jardeleza, JJ., concur.
June 15, 2016
Sirs/Mesdames:
Very truly yours,

(SGD)
WILFREDO V. LAPITAN
[1]
Rollo, pp. 1-7.
[2]
Id. at 1.
[3]
Id. at 2.
[4]
Rendered by Judge Rogelio J. Amador; id. at 8-25.
[5]
Id. at 2.
[6]
Id.
[7]
Id. at 2-3.
[8]
Id. at 3.
[9]
Id.
[10]
Id. at 27-50.
[11]
Id. at 4.
[12]
Id. at 52-57.
[13]
Id. at 58-61.
Penned by Associate Justice Ramon M. Bato, Jr., with Associate Justices Isaias P.
Dicdican and Apolinario D. Bruselas, Jr. concurring; id. at 63.
[14]
[15]
Id. at 5.
Penned by Associate Justice Agustin S. Dizon, with Associate Justices Pampio A.

Abarintos and Priscilla Baltazar-Padilla concurring; id at 66-81.
[16]
[17]
Id. at 6.
[18]
Id. at 88-93.
[19]
Court's Resolution dated August 13, 2007; id. at 102.
[20]
Id. at 113-119.
[21]
Id. at 119.
[22]
Id. at 112.
[23]
Id.
[24]
Id. at 120-124.
[25]
Id. at 160.
[26]
Id.
[27]
611 Phil. 179(2009).
[28]
Id. at 188.
[29]
508 Phil. 113(2005).
[30]
Id. at 126.
[31]
RULES OF COURT, Rule 50, Section 1 (e).
[32]
545 Phil. 379 (2007).
[33]
Id. at 383-384.
[34]
463 Phil. 352 (2003).
[35]
Id. at 357.
Canon 16 - A lawyer shall hold in trust all moneys and properties of his client
that may come into his profession.
[36]
Rule 16.01 - A lawyer shall account for all money or property collected or received
for or from the client.
xxxx
[37]
518 Phil. 378 (2006).
[38]
Id. at 385.
[39]
Id. at 386.
[40]
Villanueva v. Atty. Conzales, 568 Phil. 379, 389 (2008).
[41]
623 Phil. 662 (2009).
[42]
Supra note 32.
[43]
432 Phil. 1064(2002).
Villanueva v. Atty. Gonzalex, supra note 40; Small v. Atty. Banares, 545 Phil.
226 (2007).
[44]

G.R.
No.
194260
HEIRS OF FELICIANO YAMBAO, NAMELY: CHONA YAMBAO, JOEL YAMBAO, WILLY YAMBAO, LENNIE YAMBAO AND
RICHARD YAMBAO, AND ALL OTHER PERSONS ACTING UNDER THEIR AUTHORITY, PETITIONERS, VS. HEIRS OF
HERMOGENES YAMBAO, NAMELY: ELEANOR YAMBAO, ALBERTO YAMBAO, DOMINIC YAMBAO, ASESCLO YAMBAO,
GERALD DANTIC AND MARIA PILAR YAMBAO, WHO ARE ALL REPRESENTED BY THEIR ATTORNEY-IN-FACT, MARIA
PILAR
YAMBAO,
RESPONDENTS.
April 13, 2016
THIRD DIVISION
[ G.R. No. 194260, April 13, 2016 ]
HEIRS OF FELICIANO YAMBAO, NAMELY: CHONA YAMBAO,
JOEL YAMBAO, WILLY YAMBAO, LENNIE YAMBAO AND
RICHARD YAMBAO, AND ALL OTHER PERSONS ACTING
UNDER THEIR AUTHORITY, PETITIONERS, VS. HEIRS OF
HERMOGENES YAMBAO, NAMELY: ELEANOR YAMBAO,
ALBERTO YAMBAO, DOMINIC YAMBAO, ASESCLO YAMBAO,
GERALD DANTIC AND MARIA PILAR YAMBAO, WHO ARE ALL
REPRESENTED BY THEIR ATTORNEY-IN-FACT, MARIA PILAR
YAMBAO, RESPONDENTS.
RESOLUTION
REYES, J.:
This is a petition for review on certiorari[1] under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court
seeking to annul and set aside the Decision[2] dated October 22, 2010 issued by the
Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 92755, which reversed and set aside the
Decision dated December 23, 2008 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Iba,
Zambales, Branch 69, in SP. Civil Case No. RTC-88-I.
Facts
The subject of this case is a parcel of land located in Barangay Bangan, Botolan,
Zambales, which was originally possessed by Macaria De Ocampo (Macaria).
Macaria's nephew, Hermogenes Yambao (Hermogenes), acted as the administrator
of the property and paid realty taxes therefor. Hermogenes has eight children,
namely: Ulpiano, Dominic, Teofilo, Feliciano, Asesclo, Delia, Amelia, and Melinda, all
surnamed Yambao.[3]
After Hermogenes died, it was claimed that all of his heirs were free to pick and
harvest from the fruit-bearing trees planted on the subject property. Eleanor
Yambao (Eleanor), Ulpiano's daughter, even constructed a house on the subject
property. However, sometime in 2005, the communal and mutual use of the subject
property by the heirs of Hermogenes ceased when the heirs of Feliciano, herein
petitioners, prohibited them from entering the property. The heirs of Feliciano even
ejected Eleanor from the subject property.[4]
This prompted the heirs of Hermogenes, herein respondents, to file with the RTC a
complaint for partition, declaration of nullity of title/documents, and damages
against the heirs of Feliciano. The heirs of Hermogenes alleged that they and the
heirs of Feliciano are co-owners of the subject property, having inherited the right
thereto from Hermogenes.[5]
The heirs of Feliciano denied the allegations of the heirs of Hermogenes and
claimed that their father, Feliciano, was in possession of the subject property in the
concept of owner since time immemorial. Accordingly, Feliciano was awarded a free
patent thereon for which Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. P-10737 was issued.
They also averred that the cause of action in the complaint filed by the heirs of
Hermogenes, which questioned the validity of OCT No. P-10737, prescribed after
the lapse of one year from its issuance on November 29, 1989. [6]
Ruling of the RTC
On December 23, 2008, the RTC rendered a Decision dismissing the complaint filed
by the heirs of Hermogenes. The RTC opined that the heirs of Hermogenes failed to
show that the subject property is owned by Macaria, stating that tax declarations
and receipts in Macaria's name are not conclusive evidence of ownership. The RTC
further held that even if Macaria owned the subject property, the heirs of
Hermogenes failed to show that Hermogenes had the right to succeed over the
estate of Macaria.
Ruling of the CA
On appeal, the CA, in its Decision[7] dated October 22, 2010, reversed and set aside
the RTC's Decision dated December 23, 2008. The CA found that the RTC, in hastily
dismissing the complaint for partition, failed to determine first whether the subject
property is indeed co-owned by the heirs of Hermogenes and the heirs of Feliciano.
The CA pointed out that:
[A] review of the records of the case shows that in Feliciano's application for free
patent, he acknowledged that the source of his claim of possession over the subject
property was Hermogenes's possession of the real property in peaceful, open,
continuous, and adverse manner and more importantly, in the concept of an owner,
since 1944. Feliciano's claim of sole possession in his application for free patent did
not therefore extinguish the fact of co-ownership as claimed by the children of
Hermogenes.[8] (Citation omitted and emphasis deleted)
Accordingly, the CA, considering that the parties are co-owners of the subject
property, ruled that the RTC should have conducted the appropriate proceedings for
partition.[9]
Aggrieved, the heirs of Feliciano filed with the Court this petition for review alleging
that the CA erred in ruling that there is co-ownership between them and the heirs
of Hermogenes. The heirs of Feliciano likewise averred that the CA also erred in
ordering the partition of the subject property since it amounts to a collateral attack
on the validity of OCT No. P-10737.[10]
Ruling of the Court
The petition is denied.
As pointed out by the CA, the RTC overlooked the fact that the subject property is
co-owned by the parties herein, having inherited the same from Hermogenes.
Feliciano's free patent application indicated that he merely tacked his possession of
the subject property from Hermogenes, his father, who held the property in
peaceful, open, continuous, and adverse manner in the concept of an owner since
1944. This is an implicit recognition of the fact that Feliciano merely co-owns the
subject property with the other heirs of Hermogenes. Indeed, the heirs of Feliciano
have not presented any evidence that would show that Hermogenes bequeathed
the subject property solely to Feliciano.
A co-ownership is a form of trust, with each owner being a trustee for each other.
Mere actual possession by one will not give rise to the inference that the possession
was adverse because a co-owner is, after all, entitled to possession of the property.
Thus, as a rule, prescription does not run in favor of a co-heir or co-owner as long
as he expressly or impliedly recognizes the co-ownership; and he cannot acquire by
prescription the share of the other co-owners, absent a clear repudiation of the coownership. An action to demand partition among co-owners is imprescriptible, and
each co-owner may demand at any time the partition of the common property.[11]
Prescription may nevertheless run against a co-owner if there is adverse, open,
continuous and exclusive possession of the co-owned property by the other coowner/s. In order that a co-owners possession may be deemed adverse to
the cestui que trust or other co-owners, the following requisites must concur: (1)
that he has performed unequivocal acts of repudiation amounting to an ouster of
the cestui que trust or other co-owners; (2) that such positive acts of repudiation
have been made known to the cestui que trust or other co-owners; and (3) that the
evidence thereon must be clear and convincing.[12]
The issuance of the certificate of title would constitute an open and clear
repudiation of any trust.[13] In such a case, an action to demand partition among coowners prescribes in 10 years, the point of reference being the date of the issuance
of certificate of title over the property. But this rule applies only when the plaintiff is
not in possession of the property, since if a person claiming to be the owner thereof
is in actual possession of the property, the right to demand partition does not
prescribe.[14]
Although OCT No. P-10737 was registered in the name of Feliciano on November
29, 1989, the prescriptive period within which to demand partition of the subject
property, contrary to the claim of the heirs of Feliciano, did not begin to run. At that
time, the heirs of Hermogenes were still in possession of the property. It was only
in 2005 that the heirs of Feliciano expressly prohibited the heirs of Hermogenes
from entering the property. Thus, as aptly ruled by the CA, the right of the heirs of
Hermogenes to demand the partition of the property had not yet prescribed.
Accordingly, the RTC committed a reversible error when it dismissed the complaint
for partition that was filed by the heirs of Hermogenes.
There is likewise no merit to the claim that the action for partition filed by the heirs
of Hermogenes amounted to a collateral attack on the validity of OCT No. P-10737.
The complaint for partition filed by the heirs of Hermogenes seeks first, a
declaration that they are a co-owners of the subject property, and second, the
conveyance of their lawful shares. The heirs of Hermogenes do not attack the title
of Feliciano; they alleged no fraud, mistake, or any other irregularity that would
justify a review of the registration decree in their favor. Their theory is that
although the subject property was registered solely in Feliciano's name, they are
co-owners of the property and as such is entitled to the conveyance of their shares.
On the premise that they are co-owners, they can validly seek the partition of the
property in co-ownership and the conveyance to them of their respective shares. [15]
Moreover, when Feliciano registered the subject property in his name, to the
exclusion of the other heirs of Hermogenes, an implied trust was created by force of
law and he was considered a trustee of the undivided shares of the other heirs of
Hermogenes in the property. As trustees, the heirs of Feliciano cannot be permitted
to repudiate the trust by relying on the registration.[16] "A trustee who obtains a
Torrens title over a property held in trust for him by another cannot repudiate the
trust by relying on the registration."[17]
WHEREFORE, in light of the foregoing disquisitions, the petition is
hereby DENIED. The Decision dated October 22, 2010 issued by the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 92755 is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
Velasco, Jr., (Chairperson), Perez, and Jardeleza, JJ., concur.
Peralta, J., on official leave.
April 29, 2016

NOTICE OF JUDGMENT
Sirs / Mesdames:
Very truly yours,

[1]
Rollo, pp. 9-23.
Penned by Associate Justice Vicente S.E. Veloso, with Associate Justices Francisco
P. Acosta and Samuel H. Gaerlan concurring; id. at 26-36.
[2]
[3]
Id. at 27.
[4]
Id. at 28.
[5]
Id. at 27.
[6]
Id. at 28-29.
[7]
Id. at 26-36.
[8]
Id. at 34.
[9]
Id. at 35.
[10]
Id. at 14.
[11]
Fangonil-Herrera v. Fangonil, 558 Phil. 235, 261-262 (2007).
[12]
See Heirs of Juanita Padilla v. Magdua, 645 Phil. 140, 151 (2010).
Pangan v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-39299, October 18, 1988, 166 SCRA
375, 383, citing Lopez, et al. v. Gonzaga, et al., 119 Phil. 424 (1964).
[13]
Heirs of Jose Olviga v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 104813, October 21, 1993,
227 SCRA 330, 334.
[14]
[15]
See Mallilin, Jr. v. Castillo, 389 Phil. 153, 165 (2005).
[16]
See Vda. de Figuracion, et al. v. Figuracion-Gerilla, 703 Phil. 455, 472 (2013).
[17]
Ringor v. Ringor, 480 Phil. 141, 161 (2004).

G.R.
No.
193554
SPOUSES RODRIGO IMPERIAL, JR. AND JOCELYN IMPERIAL, AND FE IMPERIAL, PETITIONERS, VS. SPOUSES ROGELIO
AND
ASUNCION
PINIGAT,
RESPONDENTS.
April 13, 2016
THIRD DIVISION
[ G.R. No. 193554, April 13, 2016 ]
SPOUSES RODRIGO IMPERIAL, JR. AND JOCELYN IMPERIAL,
AND FE IMPERIAL, PETITIONERS, VS. SPOUSES ROGELIO
AND ASUNCION PINIGAT, RESPONDENTS.
RESOLUTION
REYES, J.:
This is a petition for review on certiorari[1] filed under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court,
assailing the Decision[2] dated March 25, 2010 and Resolution[3] dated September
27, 2010 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP. No. 98950, which reversed
and set aside the Decision[4] dated March 29, 2007 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC)
of Iriga City, Branch 37.
The instant case stemmed from Civil Case No. 627 for Quieting of Title, Recovery of
Possession and Damages filed by Rodrigo Imperial, Sr. (Rodrigo Sr.) against Betty
Imperial (Betty), involving a 248-square-meter residential lot with improvements,
situated in San Roque, Baao, Camarines Sur. The subject property was formerly
declared for tax purposes in the name of Isabelo Imperial (Isabelo), brother of
Betty's husband, Juan Imperial (Juan) and of Rodrigo Sr.'s mother, Beatriz. [5]
Rodrigo Imperial, Jr. (Rodrigo Jr.), testifying for Rodrigo Sr., claimed that the subject
property was sold by his grandfather, Isabelo, to his father, as evidenced by an
Absolute Deed of Sale dated September 28, 1979. Following the sale, however,
Isabelo stayed in the house with him while his father left for Manila. When the time
came that Rodrigo Jr. needed to go to Manila to pursue college studies, Isabelo
allowed Juan and Betty to stay with him in the house, with the agreement that they
will leave upon demand. In 1985, Isabelo died. Rodrigo Sr. asked Juan and Betty to
stay in the house until Rodrigo Jr. finishes college. Soon, thereafter, Spouses
Rogelio and Asuncion Pinigat (respondents), who were the son-in-law and daughter
of Juan and Betty, respectively, were also allowed to move in to the house. [6]
In 1997, Rodrigo Jr. and his father were surprised to learn that there was already a
deed of sale over one-half portion of the subject property in favor of the
respondents registered with the Registry of Deeds of Camarines Sur. Rodrigo Sr.
lodged a complaint with Barangay Captain Edwin Bedural of Baao, Camarines Sur
but the parties failed to reach an amicable settlement of their dispute. [7]
For her part, Betty alleged that Isabelo, during his lifetime, sold one-half portion of
the subject property to Juan for P10,000.00. [8] Upon the death of Juan, she sold the
said portion of the property to Rogelio, who thereafter registered the same and paid
taxes thereon.[9]
On October 28, 2002, the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Baao, Camarines Sur,
rendered a Decision,[10] recognizing the respondents' ownership of one-half portion
of the subject property. The pertinent portion of the decision reads:
And, the court after carefully scrutinizing the evidences submitted in the record
finds the preponderance of the evidence in favor of the defendants. If it is true the
plaintiff had bought the property in question in 1979, why is it that from that time
and up to the present, he never took steps to register the document and to caused
[sic] the transfer of the covering tax declaration in his name? He did not even pay
the real property taxes as they accrue annually. As shown by his exhibits C-1 to C2, it was [Isabelo] who paid the real property taxes of the property. If it is true,
[Isabelo] had already sold to the plaintiff the property in 1979, why is it that the
former was still able to mort[g]aged [sic] the same to Modesto Padua in January
1980 as shown by the Deed of Real Estate Mortgage (exhibit 5)? x x x.
xxxx
x x x [T]he court is more inclined to believe [Betty's] version that of having
purchased one-half of the property in-question from [Isabelo] for the sum of
[P10,000.00] and that no document was executed to evidenced [sic] the sale. As
testified to by [Betty], she and her late husband-[Juan] lived together in the house
and lot in question. In fact, after such sale, Isabelo [and] Juan had the property
relocated and sub-divided by Geodetic Engineer Ramon Camposano, who
prepared/made a sketch plan xxx.
xxxx
Be that as it may, since as [Betty] herself admitted the remaining half of the house
and lot in question still belongs to [Isabelo], then, plaintiff should content himself of
that remaining half. The other half which was already sold to [the respondents]
should be recognized and respected. x x x.[11]
The foregoing decision became final and executory after the RTC of Iriga City
dismissed the appeal of Rodrigo Sr. In the course of the execution, however, a
survey on the subject property revealed that portions of the existing houses of
Spouses Rodrigo Jr. and Jocelyn Imperial and Roberto Ballesteros and Fe Imperial
(Fe) (petitioners) stood within the portion pertaining to the respondents. The
respondents demanded that the petitioners vacate the encroached portions.
Initially, the petitioners acceded to the demand and started demolishing walls of
their houses but later ceased from doing so notwithstanding the respondents'
repeated demands.[12] The parties failed to reach an amicable settlement of their
differences which prompted the respondents to file a Complaint [13] for Unlawful
Detainer with Damages against the petitioners, which was docketed as Civil Case
No. 845. The respondents alleged that the petitioners unjustifiably refused to
vacate the subject property and remove structures erected therein. [14]
On June 16, 2006, the MTC rendered a Decision [15] in favor of the respondents, the
dispositive portion of which reads, as follows:
WHEREFORE, in view of all of the foregoing, on preponderance of evidence, this
Court finds in favor of the [respondents] and against the [petitioners] who are
ordered to:
1.) Peacefully vacate and remove the structures constructed on the portion of the parcel of land
subject of this case as declared under Tax Declaration (A.R.P.) #94-020-0236 with an area
of 124 sq.m. (i.e. 1/2 of the total 248 sq. m ) and turnover the same to the [respondents];
2.) Jointly and severally pay the [respondents] the amount of Php 500.00 per month from the
date of judicial demand until they have effectively vacated the land in question as
reasonable rentals.
3.) Pay the costs of suit.
All other claims and counter-claims by the [respondents] and the [petitioners]
against each other are all denied.
SO ORDERED.[16]
Unyielding, the petitioners appealed from the decision of the MTC. And, in a
Decision[17] dated March 29, 2007, the RTC reversed the decision of the MTC. The
dispositive portion of the decision reads:
WHEREFORE, the [petitioners] contention[s] are sustained and the decision of the
lower court dated June 16, 2006 is hereby ordered reversed for lack of jurisdiction
and cause of action. No damages are imposed against the [respondents] in favor of
the [petitioners].
SO ORDERED.[18]
The RTC held that the respondents' complaint failed to state the fact that the
petitioners' possession was lawful from the beginning but became illegal when their
right to possess had expired or terminated. It also noted that the complaint failed
to aver the facts constitutive of forcible entry or unlawful detainer particularly the
manner of entry; hence, the proper remedy should be either an accion
publiciana or accion reivindicatoria which must be filed with the proper RTC. The
RTC further observed that the dispositive portion of the decision in Civil Case No.
627 did not mention that the respondents are entitled to the possession of the
property nor did it order the petitioners to vacate the same. [19]
The respondents elevated the case to the CA on petition for review under Rule 42 of
the Rules of Court. Then, on March 25, 2010, the CA rendered a Decision,
[20]
reversing the decision of the RTC, the dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, the Decision of the [RTC] of Iriga City, Branch 37, dated March 29,
2007 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Decision of the [MTC] of Baao, Camarines
Sur, dated June 16, 2006, is REINSTATED.
SO ORDERED.[21]
The petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration but the CA denied the same in its
Resolution[22] dated September 27, 2010. Hence, this petition.
The petitioners claim that the decision of the MTC in Civil Case No. 627 does not
apply to them as they were not made parties thereto. They likewise question the
validity of the relocation survey that was conducted to divide the subject property,
claiming that the same was done unilaterally.
The respondents' right to one-half portion of the subject property had long been
settled in the MTC's Decision dated October 28, 2002 in Civil Case No. 627. The
MTC acknowledged the entitlement of the respondents to half of the subject
property, holding that they were able to clearly establish the source of their right
and found their claims adequately supported by convincing and credible evidence. It
also noted the fact that the property was already registered in the name of the
respondents and that they have been religiously paying real property taxes due the
same. Its decision became final and executory but the petitioners, in disregard
thereof, refused to yield the possession of the portion owned by the respondents on
the pretext that the decision did not specifically order them to vacate the house.
Thus, the respondents were constrained to file another case for unlawful detainer,
to compel the petitioners to vacate the premises. For the second time, the MTC
recognized the respondents' right to one-half portion of the subject property and
ordered the petitioners to peaceably surrender the possession of the same to the
former. Still, the petitioners were adamant and asserted that the MTC's Decision
dated October 28, 2002 would not bind them as they were not parties thereto.
The petitioners' argument is misplaced.
Indeed, Civil Case No. 627 was between Rodrigo Sr. and the respondents. A final
and executory decision of the court, however, is applicable not only to the parties
thereto but also to their successors-in-interest. Thus, in Cabresos v. Tiro,[23] the
Court upheld the validity of the writ of execution issued against the successors-ininterest of the losing litigant despite the fact that these successors-in-interest were
not mentioned in the judgment and were never parties to the case. The Court
explained that an action is binding on the privies of the litigants even if such privies
are not literally parties to the action. Their inclusion in the writ of execution does
not vary or exceed the terms of the judgment.[24] The Court ratiocinated:
By "third party" is meant a person who is not a party to the action under
consideration. We agree with the private respondents that the petitioners are
privies to the case for recovery of ownership and possession filed by the former
against the latter's predecessors-in-interest, the latter being the daughter-in-law
and grandchildren of the losing party in Civil Case No. 3150. By the term "privies" is
meant those between whom an action is deemed binding although they are not
literally parties to the said action. There is no doubt that the assailed decision is
binding on the petitioners.[25]
In Civil Case No. 627, the MTC dismissed Rodrigo Sr.'s claim of ownership after
failing to establish the veracity of his allegation that a contract of sale over the
subject property was executed between him and Isabelo. Hence, Rodrigo Jr. may
not anchor his claim of title on that supposed purchase by his father. The only
possibility that Rodrigo Jr. may be entitled to a portion of the property is by means
of succession, his deceased father being the nephew of Isabelo who died without
any children. As a mere successor, however, Rodrigo, Jr. only succeeds to that
portion of the estate that the decedent did not dispose of during his lifetime. It is
crystal clear from the facts that at the time of Isabelo's death, he is the owner of
only one-half of the subject property, having disposed the other half by virtue of an
absolute sale to his brother, Juan. Rodrigo Jr. cannot now repudiate the
conclusiveness of the judgment in Civil Case No. 627, which delineated the portion
of the subject property still owned by Isabelo and that which he had already
disposed to the respondents. Rodrigo Jr., having merely stepped into the shoes of
his predecessor, cannot claim that the decision does not apply to him. Nemo dat
quod non habet.
In Barcelona, et al. v. Barcelona and CA,[26] the Court emphasized that hereditary
successors merely step into the shoes of the decedent by operation of law and are
merely the continuation of the personality of their predecessor in interest. [27] Hence,
they acquire rights and interests not more than what their predecessors have at the
time of their death.
On the other hand, Fe failed to present any basis for her claim of title over the
subject property. She, being the widow of the eldest son of Juan, Virgilio Imperial,
cannot succeed directly from Isabelo and had absolutely no business staying in the
subject property.
Finally, the petitioners cannot evade the enforceability of the decision by merely
claiming that the relocation survey conducted on the property was done without
their participation. It appears from the records, that the geodetic engineer who
conducted the survey was appointed by the court and did his undertaking in the
presence of the parties. In the Affidavit[28] dated August 12, 2005 of Salvador
Guevara (Sheriff Guevara), the implementing sheriff of the court in Civil Case No.
627 stated:
That in the execution of the aforementioned decision, Alfredo Samper, a Geodetic
Engineer by profession was appointed by the Court to conduct the subdivision
survey in equal shares of the land subject of the case;
That on June 3, 2004 at around 9:30 o'clock in the morning, Engr. Alfredo Samper,
the undersigned together with Sheriff Rolando T. Sergio and in the presence of the
parties of the case, including the spouses [Rodrigo Jr.] and Jocelyn Imperial, the
person of Roberto Ballesteros and other members of the family conducted the
actual subdivision survey of the land in question, dividing the property into two (2)
equal portions, for which the share where the building structure of Rogelio Pinigat
was constructed, and which actually identified and segreg[a]ted from the entire
landholding.
xxxx
That on the actual survey, I came to know that that the house of Roberto
Ballesteros (part) and also the spouses [Rodrigo Jr.] and Jocelyn Imperial (part)
whose portion of their houses likewise encroached in the identified property of
Rogelio Pinigat, hence I filed a report on the matter with the [MTC] of Baao,
Camarines Sur x x x.[29]
The petitioners never disputed the statement of Sheriff Guevara throughout the
proceedings in the RTC and CA. If they had any question on the propriety of the
survey, they should have raised them at the time that the survey was being
conducted or, at least, noted their disagreement in the pleadings they submitted
before the trial court. Considering that the survey was undertaken to divide the
property, it is only expected from the parties to raise a protest should the same be
conducted irregularly or with manifest partiality to one party. There being neither
resistance nor challenge to the survey conducted, it is only reasonable for the Court
to assume that the same was conducted properly and to conclude that the
petitioners were merely formulating issues in order to further delay the execution of
the final decision of the MTC. The Court will not countenance such a deliberate
effort to prevent the prevailing party from reaping the fruits of litigation.
WHEREFORE, the Decision dated March 25, 2010 and Resolution dated September
27, 2010 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP. No. 98950 are AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
April 27, 2016

NOTICE OF JUDGMENT
Sirs / Mesdames:
Very truly yours,

[1]
Rollo, pp. 28-40.
Penned by Associate Justice Antonio L. Villamor, with Associate Justices Vicente

S. E. Veloso and Francisco P. Acosta concurring; id. at 41-52.
[2]
[3]
Id. at 53-54.
[4]
Issued by Presiding Judge Rogelio Ll. Dacara; id. at 140-143.
[5]
Id. at 60.
[6]
Id. at 60-61.
[7]
Id. at 61-62.
[8]
Id. at 63A.
[9]
Id. at 62.
[10]
Issued by Judge Dominador A. Agor; id. at 60-65A.
[11]
Id. at 64-65A.
[12]
Id. at 56-57.
[13]
Id. at 55-59.
[14]
Id. at 57.
[15]
Rendered by Judge-Designate Timotea A. Panpa, Jr., id. at 122-126.
[16]
Id. at 126.
[17]
Id. at 140-143.
[18]
Id. at 143.
[19]
Id. at 142.
[20]
Id. at 41-52.
[21]
Id. at 51.
[22]
Id. at 53-54.
[23]
G.R. No. L-46843, October 18, 1988, 166 SCRA 400.
[24]
Id. at 405-406.
[25]
Id.
[26]
100 Phil. 251 (1956).
[27]
Id. at 257.
[28]
Rollo, p. 85.
[29]
Id.

G.R.
No.
195155
DIVINE WORD COLLEGE OF LAOAG, PETITIONER, VS. SHIRLEY B. MINA, AS HEIR-SUBSTITUTE OF THE LATE DELFIN A.
MINA,
RESPONDENT.
April 13, 2016
THIRD DIVISION
[ G.R. No. 195155, April 13, 2016 ]
DIVINE WORD COLLEGE OF LAOAG, PETITIONER, VS.
SHIRLEY B. MINA, AS HEIR-SUBSTITUTE OF THE LATE
DELFIN A. MINA, RESPONDENT.
DECISION
REYES, J.:
Assailed in this petition for review[1] under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court is the
Decision[2] dated July 19, 2010 and Resolution[3] dated January 13, 2011 of the
Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 107749 declaring respondent Delfin A.
Mina (Mina) to have been constructively dismissed by petitioner Divine Word
College of Laoag (DWCL) and awarding him backwages, damages and attorney's
fees.
Antecedent Facts
DWCL is a non-stock educational institution offering catholic education to the public.

It is run by the Society of Divine Word (SVD), a congregation of Catholic priests
that maintains several other member educational institutions throughout the
country.[4]
On July 1, 1969, the Society of Divine Word Educational Association (DWEA)
established a Retirement Plan to provide retirement benefits for qualified employees
of DWEA's member institutions, offices and congregations.[5] The DWEA Retirement
Plan[6] contains a clause about the portability of benefits, to wit:
When a member who resigns or is separated from employment from one
Participating Employer and who is employed by another Participating Employer, the
member will carry the credit he earned under his former Participating Employer to
his new Employer and the length of service in both will be taken into consideration
in determining his total years of continuous service on the following conditions:
a. The transfer is approved by both the Participating Employer whose service he
is leaving and the new Participating Employer;
b. The Retirement Board is notified of the transfer; and
c. The member is employed by another Participating Employer on the next
working day after his resignation.[7]
Mina was first employed in 1971 as a high school teacher, and later on a high school
principal, at the Academy of St. Joseph (ASJ), a school run by the SVD. On June 1,
1979, he transferred to DWCL and was accorded a permanent status after a year of
probationary status.[8] He was subsequently transferred in 2002 to DWCL's college
department as an Associate Professor III. Thereafter, on June 1, 2003, Mina was
assigned as the College Laboratory Custodian of the School of Nursing and was
divested of his teaching load, effective June 1, 2003 until May 31, 2004, subject to
automatic termination and without need for any further notification. [9] He was the
only one among several teachers transferred to the college department who was
divested of teaching load.[10]
In early June 2004, Mina was offered early retirement by Professor Noreen dela
Rosa, Officer-in-Charge of DWCL's School of Nursing. He initially declined the offer
because of his family's dependence on him for support. He later received a
Memorandum[11] dated July 27, 2004 from the Office of the Dean enumerating
specific acts of gross or habitual negligence, insubordination, and reporting for work
under the influence of alcohol. He answered the allegations against him; [12] sensing,
however, that it was pointless to continue employment with DWCL, he requested
that his retirement date be adjusted to September 2004 to enable him to avail of
the 25-year benefits. He also requested for the inclusion of his eight years of
service in ASJ, to make his total years of service to 33 years pursuant to the
portability clause of the retirement plan, which was denied by DWCL. Instead, he
was paid P275,513.10 as retirement pay.[13] It was made to appear that his services
were terminated by reason of redundancy to avoid any tax implications. Mina was
also made to sign a deed of waiver and quitclaim[14] stating that he no longer has
any claim against DWCL with respect to any matter arising from his employment in
the school.[15]
On September 21, 2004, he filed a case for illegal dismissal and recovery of
separation pay and other monetary claims. [16] Pending resolution of his case, Mina
passed away on June 18, 2005.[17]
On August 26, 2005, the Labor Arbiter (LA) rendered its Decision, [18] ruling that the
actuation of DWCL is not constitutive of constructive dismissal. The LA ratiocinated,
however, that the computation of Mina's retirement pay based on redundancy is
illegal; hence, it was modified, and the number of years he worked for ASJ was
added to the years he worked for DWCL thus making his creditable number of years
of service to 33 years. According to the LA, his length of service in both institutions
will be taken into consideration in determining his total years of continuous service
since the DWEA Retirement Plan has a provision on portability, which allows a
member to carry the earned credit for his number of years of service from his
former participating employer to his new employer. Moreover, the LA held that there
is no showing that Mina ceased to be a member of the plan when he left the ASJ as
there was not a day that he was separated from any school that is the member of
the plan. The LA's computation of Mina's retirement benefits is as follows:
Monthly
P13,006.23
salary:
Date
June 1971
hired:
Years in
33 years
service:
24 December
Birth day:
1950
Monthly pay/26.22 x 22.2
x 33 years x 100%
P13,006.23/26.23 x 22.2
= P363.400.29
[x] 33 years x 100%
Less: Severance benefits
= P275,513.10
received:
Deficienc
=P87,887.19[19]
y
The LA disposed thus:
IN VIEW THEREOF, judgment is hereby rendered with the following dispositions:
1. Finding that [Mina] was underpaid in his retirement benefits pursuant to the
DWEA Retirement Plan. Consequently, [DWCL] must pay the deficiency in his
retirement benefits in the amount of P87,887.19.
2. Finding that the respondents were harsh on him. Consequently, the DWCL
must be adjudged to pay him P50,000 as moral damages and P50,000 as
exemplary damages.
3. That his claims for additional separation pay for his future services are
denied.
4. [DWCL] must pay [Mina] 10% of the total award as attorney's fees for his
having been forced to litigate to protect his rights as an employee.
SO ORDERED.[20]
Both DWCL and Mina appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC),
with DWCL mainly questioning the LA's decision making Mina's creditable years of
service 33 years, and awarding moral and exemplary damages. [21]
Ruling of the NLRC
The NLRC ruled that Mina was constructively dismissed when he was appointed as
College Laboratory Custodian and divested of his teaching load without any
justification.[22] It also ruled that Mina was not deemed to have waived all his claims
against DWCL as quitclaims cannot bar employees from demanding benefits to
which they are legally entitled.[23] The NLRC, however, disregarded Mina's eight
years of service in ASJ in the computation of his retirement pay because of his
failure to show compliance with the portability provision.[24] The dispositive portion
of the NLRC Decision dated July 10, 2008 provided:
WHEREFORE, We grant in partly [sic] the appeals of both [Mina] and [DWCL]. The
decision dated August 26, 200[5] is hereby modified to delete the order adding the
length of service rendered by [Mina] to the [ASJ] in the computation of the latter's
retirement pay from the former. Accordingly, [DWCL] is held liable to pay
[Mina] full backwages and separation pay, in lieu of reinstatement and to
his full compulsory retirement pay, less the amount already received by
him representing his optional retirement.
SO ORDERED.[25] (Emphasis ours)
DWCL sought reconsideration of the NLRC decision but it was denied in a

Resolution[26] dated November 28, 2008.
DWCL thus filed a petition for certiorari before the CA, seeking to reverse and set
aside the NLRC decision and resolution.[27] DWCL primarily asserted that the NLRC
committed grave abuse of discretion in holding that Mina was constructively
dismissed from work, in holding DWCL liable for moral and exemplary damages,
and in ordering the payment of separation pay as well as retirement pay computed
up to the age of 60.[28]
Ruling of the CA
On July 19, 2010, the CA rendered the assailed Decision, denying the petition but
modifying the award. It sustained the NLRC's ruling that Mina was indeed
constructively dismissed from work. The CA also held that Mina is entitled to receive
backwages, to be computed from the time of hiring on June 1, 1979 until the time
of his death on June 18, 2005, as he was constructively dismissed from work, as
follows:
Monthly
Salary
Php13,006.23
x 26 (1 June 1979 - 18 June 2005)

Backwage
Php338,161.98[29]
s
The dispositive portion of the CA decision provided:
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED, granting to [Mina] substituted by his heirs
in addition to the full retirement benefits at Php275,513.10, the following:
1. backwages in the amount of Php338,161.98;
2. moral and exemplary damages at Php50,000.00; and
3. attorney's fees at ten percent (10%) of the amount due herein.
SO ORDERED.[30]
DWCL's motion for reconsideration was denied by the CA in its Resolution [31] dated
January 13, 2011.
Hence, the present petition, anchored on the following grounds:
I.
The Honorable [CA] erred in upholding [NLRC's] findings that [Mina] was
constructively dismissed.
II.
The Honorable [CA] erred in holding [DWCL] liable for moral and exemplary
damages and attorney's fees.
III.
Even assuming, without admitting that [Mina] was constructively dismissed, the
Honorable [CA] erred in ordering the payment of his backwages "computed from
the time of hiring, 1 June 1979 until the time of his death 18 June 2005."
IV.
Even assuming, without admitting, that [Mina] was constructively dismissed, the
Honorable [CA] has no legal basis in awarding him full retirement benefits since it
invalidated Mina's retirement for which the retirement benefits were given to him.
[32]
Ruling of the Court

In a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, only questions of law may be
raised. The raison d'etre is that the Court is not a trier of facts.[33] The rule,
however, admits of certain exceptions, such as when the factual findings of the LA
differ from those of the NLRC, as in the instant case, which opens the door to a
review by this Court.[34]
The Constitution[35] and the Labor Code[36] mandate that employees be accorded
security of tenure. The right of employees to security of tenure, however, does not
give the employees vested rights to their positions to the extent of depriving
management of its prerogative to change their assignments or to transfer them.
[37]
In cases of transfer of an employee, the employer is charged with the burden of
proving that its conduct and action are for valid and legitimate grounds such as
genuine business necessity and that the transfer is not unreasonable, inconvenient
or prejudicial to the employee.[38] If the employer cannot overcome this burden of
proof, the employee's transfer shall be tantamount to unlawful constructive
dismissal.[39]
Constructive dismissal is a dismissal in disguise.[40] There is cessation of work in
constructive dismissal because '"continued employment is rendered impossible,
unreasonable or unlikely, as an offer involving a demotion in rank or a diminution in
pay' and other benefits."[41] To be considered as such, an act must be a display of
utter discrimination or insensibility on the part of the employer so intense that it
becomes unbearable for the employee to continue with his employment. [42] The law
recognizes and resolves this situation in favor of employees in order to protect their
rights and interests from the coercive acts of the employer.[43]
In this case, Mina's transfer clearly amounted to a constructive dismissal. For

almost 22 years, he was a high school teacher enjoying a permanent status in
DWCL's high school department. In 2002, he was appointed as an associate
professor at the college department but shortly thereafter, or on June 1, 2003, he
was appointed as a college laboratory custodian, which is a clear relegation from his
previous position. Not only that. He was also divested of his teaching load. His
appointment even became contractual in nature and was subject to automatic
termination after one year "without any further notification." [44] Aside from this,
Mina was the only one among the high school teachers transferred to the college
department who was divested of teaching load. More importantly, DWCL failed to
show any reason for Mina's transfer and that it was not unreasonable, inconvenient,
or prejudicial to him.[45]
Also, the CA correctly ruled that Mina's appointment as laboratory custodian was a
demotion. There is demotion when an employee occupying a highly technical
position requiring the use of one's mental faculty is transferred to another position,
where the employee performed mere mechanical work virtually a transfer from a
position of dignity to a servile or menial job. The assessment whether Mina's
transfer amounted to a demotion must be done in relation to his previous position,
that is, from an associate college professor, he was made a keeper and inventorytaker of laboratory materials. Clearly, Mina's new duties as laboratory custodian
were merely perfunctory and a far cry from his previous teaching job, which
involved the use of his mental faculties. And while there was no proof adduced
showing that his salaries and benefits were diminished, there was clearly a
demotion in rank. As was stated in Blue Dairy Corporation v. NLRC,[46] "[i]t was
virtually a transfer from a position of dignity to a servile or menial job." [47]
Given the finding of constructive dismissal, Mina, therefore, is entitled to
reinstatement without loss of seniority rights, and payment of backwages computed
from the time compensation was withheld up to the date of actual reinstatement.
[48]
The Court notes that aside from full compulsory retirement pay, the NLRC
awarded full backwages and separation pay, in lieu of reinstatement. [49] The CA,
however, computed the amount to be awarded as backwages from the time of
Mina's hiring on June 1, 1979 until the time of his death on June 18, 2005,
apparently interchanging backwages and separation pay.[50] Aside from this, the CA
omitted to include a separate award of separation pay.
The Court has repeatedly stressed that the basis for the payment of backwages is
different from that of the award of separation pay. "The basis for computing
separation pay is usually the length of the employee's past service, while that for
backwages is the actual period when the employee was unlawfully prevented
from working."[51] Thus, the Court explained in Bani Rural Bank, Inc. v. De
Guzman[52] that:
[U]nder Article 279 of the Labor Code and as held in a catena of cases, an
employee who is dismissed without just cause and without due process is entitled
to backwages and reinstatement or payment of separation pay in lieu thereof:
xxxx
The normal consequences of respondents' illegal dismissal, then, are reinstatement
without loss of seniority rights, and payment of backwages computed from the time
compensation was withheld up to the date of actual reinstatement. Where
reinstatement is no longer viable as an option, separation pay equivalent to one (1)
month salary for every year of service should be awarded as an alternative. The
payment of separation pay is in addition to payment of backwages. [53] (Emphasis
and underscoring deleted, and italics ours)
Thus, the computation of Mina's backwages should be from the time he was
constructively dismissed on June 1, 2003.
Aside from the foregoing, the CA should have also awarded separation pay since
reinstatement is no longer viable due to Mina's death in 2005. As stated before, the
award of separation pay is distinct from the award of backwages. The award of
separation pay is also distinct from the grant of retirement benefits. These benefits
are not mutually exclusive as "[r]etirement benefits are a form of reward for an
employee's loyalty and service to an employer and are earned under existing laws,
[Collective Bargaining Agreements], employment contracts and company
policies."[54] Separation pay, on the other hand, is that amount which an employee
receives at the time of his severance from employment, designed to provide the
employee with the wherewithal during the period that he is looking for another
employment.[55] In the computation of separation pay, the Court stresses that it
should not go beyond the date an employee was deemed to have been
actually separated from employment, or beyond the date when
reinstatement was rendered impossible.[56] The period for the computation of
separation pay Mina is entitled to shall therefore begin to run from June 1, 1979,
when he was transferred to DWCL from ASJ, until his death on June 18, 2005, or
for a period of 26 years.
The award of damages was also justified given the CA and NLRC's finding that
DWCL acted in a manner wherein Mina was not treated with utmost good faith. The
intention of the school to erase him out of employment is too apparent. [57] The
Court upholds the CA's finding that when DWCL's act of unceremoniously demoting
and giving Mina contractual employment for one year and citing him for numerous
violations of school regulations when he rejected the school's offer to voluntarily
retire is constitutive of bad faith.[58]
Lastly, the Court affirms the NLRC's findings that the eight years of service
rendered by Mina in ASJ shall not be included in the computation of his retirement
benefits. No adequate proof is shown that he has complied with the portability
clause of the DWEA Retirement Plan. The employee has the burden of proof to show
compliance with the requirements set forth in retirement plans, being in the nature
of privileges granted to employees. Failure to overcome the burden of proof would
necessarily result in the employee's disqualification to receive the benefits.
WHEREFORE, the Decision dated July 19, 2010 and Resolution dated January 13,
2011 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 107749 are MODIFIED in that, in
addition to the award of attorney's fees, and moral and exemplary damages,
petitioner Divine Word College of Laoag is ORDERED to pay Shirley B. Mina, as
heir-substitute of the late Delfin Mina, the following:
(1) backwages, to be computed from June 1, 2003 until June 18, 2005, or P13,006.23 x 24
(months) = P312,149.52; and
(2) separation pay, to be computed from June 1, 1979 until June 18, 2005, or P13,006.23 x 26
(years) = P338,161.98.
The monetary awards granted shall earn legal interest at the rate of six percent
(6%) per annum from the date of the finality of this Decision until fully paid.
SO ORDERED.
April 27, 2016

NOTICE OF JUDGMENT
Sirs / Mesdames:
Very truly yours,

Division clerk of Court
[1]
Rollo, pp. 11-34.
Penned by Associate Justice Rosmari D. Carandang, with Associate Justices

Ramon R. Garcia and Manuel M. Barrios concurring; id. at 35-46.
[2]
[3]
Id. at 47-50.
[4]
Id. at 36, 198.
[5]
Id. at 199.
[6]
Id. at 178-190.
[7]
Id. at 161.
[8]
Id. at 147.
[9]
Id. at 148.
[10]
Id. at 36.
[11]
Id. at 149.
[12]
Id. at 150-151.
[13]
Id. at 195.
[14]
Id. at 197.
[15]
Id. at 36-38.
[16]
Id. at 206.
[17]
Mina was substituted by his widow, Shirley B. Mina; id. at 223.
[18]
Issued by Executive Labor Arbiter Irenarco R. Rimando; id. at 198-217.
[19]
Id. at 212-213.
[20]
Id. at 216-217.
[21]
Id. at 218-231.
[22]
Id. at 101.
[23]
Id. at 103.
[24]
Id. at 103-104.
[25]
Id. at 105-106.
[26]
Id. at 108-109.
[27]
Id. at 63-82.
[28]
Id. at 71.
[29]
Id. at 45.
[30]
Id. at 46.
[31]
Id. at 47-50.
[32]
Id. at 20-21.
[33]
Norkis Trading Co., Inc. and/or Albos, Jr. v. Gnilo, 568 Phil. 256, 265 (2008).
[34]
Perez v. The Medical City General Hospital, 519 Phil. 129, 133 (2006).
Article XIII, Section 3 of the 1987 Constitution states that workers shall be
entitled to security of tenure, humane conditions of work, and a living wage.
[35]
Art. 3. Declaration of basic policy. The State shall afford protection to labor,
promote full employment, ensure equal work opportunities regardless of sex, race
or creed, and regulate the relations between workers and employers. The State
shall assure the rights of workers to self-organization, collective bargaining,
security of tenure, and just and humane conditions of work.
[36]
[37]
Philippine Japan Active Carbon Corporation v. NLRC, 253 Phil. 149, 153 (1989).
[38]
Morales v. Harbour Centre Port Terminal, Inc., 680 Phil. 112, 121 (2012).
[39]
Westmont Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Samaniego, 518 Phil. 41, 51 (2006).
[40]
Dimagan v. Dacworks United, Inc. and/or Cancino, 677 Phil. 472, 481 (2011).
Verdadero v. Barneys Autolines Group of Companies Transport, Inc., 693 Phil.

646, 656 (2012).
[41]
Gemina, Jr. v. Bankwise. Inc. (Thrift Bank), G.R. No. 175365, October 23, 2013,
708 SCRA 403, 416.
[42]
[43]
Dimagan v. Dacworks United, Inc. and/or Cancino, supra note 40.
[44]
Rollo, p. 148.
See Peckson v. Robinsons Supermarket Corporation, G.R. No. 198534, July 3,

2013, 700 SCRA 668, 678-679, citing Rural Bank of Cantilan, Inc. v. Julve, 545 Phil.
619, 624-625 (2007).
[45]
[46]
373 Phil. 179 (1999).
[47]
Id. at 188.
See Bani Rural Dank, Inc. v. De Guzman, G.R. No. 170904, November 13, 2013,
709 SCRA 330.
[48]
[49]
Rollo, p. 105.
[50]
Id. at 45.
[51]
Wenphil Corp. v. Abing, G.R. No. 207983, April 7, 2014, 721 SCRA 126, 141.
[52]
G.R. No. 170904, November 13, 2013, 709 SCRA 330.
Id. at 349-350, citing Macasero v. Southern Industrial Gases Philippines and/or

Lindsay, 597 Phil. 494, 500-501 (2009).
[53]
Goodyear Philippines, Inc. and Remegio M. Ramos v. Marina L. Angus, G.R. No.
185449, November 12, 2014.
[54]
[55]
Id.
[56]
Bordomeo, et al. v. CA, et al., 704 Phil. 278, 300 (2013).
[57]
Rollo, p. 44.
[58]
Id. at 43.

G.R.
PEOPLE
No.
OF
THE
PHILIPPINES,
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
208648
VS.
REYNALDO
UMANITO,
ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
April 13, 2016
THIRD DIVISION
[ G.R. No. 208648, April 13, 2016 ]
REYNALDO UMANITO, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
RESOLUTION
PEREZ, J.:
This s an appeal from the Decision[1] dated 30 May 2013 of the Court of Appeals,
Cagayan de Oro City in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 00739-MIN affirming the
Judgment[2] of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Tacurong City, Branch 20, finding
appellant Reynaldo Umanito guilty of rape and sentencing him to suffer the penalty
of reclusion perpetua.
Appellant was charged with rape in an Information, the accusatory portion of which
reads as follows:
That sometime on March, 2005 or prior thereto at Purok Rosas, Barangay San Jose,
Municipality of President Quirino, Province of Sultan Kudarat, Philippines, and within
the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, with lewd designs and by
means of force and intimidation, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously, lie and succeeded in having carnal knowledge of one [AAA], [3] a mute
and mentally retarded nineteen (19) year old girl against her will and consent. [4]
Appellant pleaded not guilty on arraignment. Trial on the merits ensued. AAA,
assisted by an interpreter, testified using a sign language. She pointed to appellant
as the one who raped and impregnated her. When asked what appellant did to her,
AAA responded by tapping her thigh with her two fingers, which was interpreted as
sexual intercourse. BBB, AAA's mother, testified that sometime in August 2005, she
noticed that AAA's belly was growing. She called a hilot (midwife) who confirmed
that AAA has been pregnant for seven (7) months. AAA gave birth to a baby boy on
10 December 2005. When BBB asked AAA who impregnated her, AAA took BBB's
hand and brought her to the house of appellant which was located some 50 meters
away from their house. Upon learning the identity of the culprit, BBB immediately
sought help from the barangay. AAA was made to undergo a medical examination.
Dr. Jocelyn Tadena issued a medical certificate[5] confirming that AAA is mute and
suffering from mental retardation. AAA was also diagnosed to be pregnant.
Appellant testified in his own behalf and denied that he had raped AAA. Appellant
alleged that he only came to know that he was being accused of rape when he was
summoned by the barangay captain. Upon arriving at the barangay captain's
residence, he was confronted by AAA's accusation. Appellant denied the charge.
Thereafter, he was detained at the police station.
Appellant admitted in court that AAA is a mental retardate and that AAA delivered a
baby boy.
On 30 April 2007, the RTC rendered judgment finding appellant guilty and imposing
the penalty of reclusion perpetua. The RTC also ordered appellant to pay
P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and P50,000.00 as moral damages, to support his
child with AAA and to pay the costs.[6]
The Court of Appeals affirmed in toto the decision of the trial court.
Appellant filed a Notice of Appeal.[7] In a Resolution[8] dated 11 November 2013, the
parties were required to simultaneously submit their respective supplemental briefs
if they so desired. The Office of the Solicitor-General (OSG) manifested that it is
adopting its brief filed before the appellate court. [9]
On the other hand, appellant filed a Supplemental Brief [10] reiterating his innocence.
Appellant contends that AAA's testimony is vague to warrant his conviction. He
elaborates that proof of carnal knowledge, an essential element of rape, could not
be deduced from AAA's gesture of tapping her two fingers. Appellant argues that
carnal knowledge is present only upon showing of penile penetration or contact with
vagina which the prosecution failed to prove. In his Brief [11] filed before the Court of
Appeals, appellant invokes the case of People v. Guillermo[12] where the Supreme
Court acquitted the accused because the private complainant, who is a mental
retardate, merely testified in gestures. Appellant also claims that he was singled out
as the perpetrator when AAA pointed to the direction of his house. Moreover,
appellant asserts that the fact that AAA knew him does not prove that he was the
one who had sexual intercourse with her. Appellant reasons that AAA never
conveyed any categorical sign language, to prove that he had sexual intercourse
with her.
The OSG maintains that AAA's testimony clearly identified appellant as the rapist.
The OSG argues that the case of People v. Guillermo is not in all fours because in
said case, the testimony of the accused was corroborated by three other witnesses
while in the instant case, the testimony of the accused is uncorroborated. The OSG
also points out that in Guillermo, the victim testified only that she knew the
accused while in this case, AAA consistently pointed to appellant as the one who
impregnated her.
When a woman says that she has been raped, she says in effect all that is
necessary to show that rape has in fact been committed.[13] Thus, the lone
testimony of the victim in a prosecution for rape, if credible, is sufficient to sustain
a verdict of conviction. The rationale is that, owing to the nature of the offense, the
only evidence that can be adduced to establish the guilt of the accused is usually
only the offended party's testimony.[14]
In the case of mentally-deficient rape victims, mental retardation per se does not
affect credibility. A mental retardate may be a credible witness. The acceptance of
her testimony depends on the quality of her perceptions and the manner she can
make them known to the court.[15]
In fact, in People v. Suansing,[16] the Court held that it is highly improbable that a
mental retardate would fabricate the rape charge against appellant. It is likewise
unlikely that she was instructed into accusing appellant given her limited intellect.
Due to her mental condition, only a very traumatic experience would leave a lasting
impression on her so that she would be able to recall it when asked.
This Court will not contradict the RTC's assessment of AAA's credibility, which was
affirmed by the Court of Appeals. The observance of the witnesses' demeanor
during an oral direct examination, cross-examination, and during the entire period
that he or she is present during trial is indispensable especially in rape cases
because it helps establish the moral conviction that an accused is guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime charged. Trial provides judges with the opportunity
to detect, consciously or unconsciously, observable cues and micro expressions that
could, more than the words said and taken as a whole, suggest sincerity or betray
lies and ill will. These important aspects can never be reflected or reproduced in
documents and objects used as evidence.[17]
We find no cogent reason to overturn the findings of the lower courts.
As observed by the trial court, AAA was consistent in identifying appellant as the
one who had carnal knowledge of her and consequently impregnated her, thus:
PROSECUTOR
Q
Do you know the accused Reynaldo Umanito also known as Dong?
INTERPRETE Witness bowing her head.

R
PROSECUTOR
Q
Will you please tell us what this Reynaldo Umanito did, if there was any?
INTERPRETE Witness making a sign with her left finger and her left thigh by tapping her thigh
R
using her two (2) fingers.
COURT
Anyway, we all know what the accused communicated (to sign language which)
means sexual intercourse.
PROSECUTOR
Q
Will you please tell us what happened especially on your belly after this
Reynaldo Umanito or after Reynaldo Umanito sexually abused you or what this
Dong did to you like this, indicating the tapping on your left thigh like this,
making a semi-circle motion to indicate that her belly became enlarged. Are you
telling us that you became pregnant?
INTERPRETE Witness bowing her head.

R
PROSECUTOR
Q
Is your baby a girl or a boy?
INTERPRETE Witness said "baye" but not so audible.

R
PROSECUTOR
Q
Anyway, Your Honor, the mother handed to the court a machine copy of the
birth certificate of a certain Dennis Jake Laza.
COURT
Attach the birth certificate to the record.
PROSECUTOR In this birth certificate appears that his mother is a certain Jovelyn Toquero Laza
which the Court directs that the record of the case and be marked as Exh. "X",
Your Honor.
Q
COURT
You said that this Reynaldo Umanito did like this, how did Reynaldo Umanito
did that to you?
Fiscal, she demonstrated by tapping her fingers to her left thigh.
INTERPRETE Only once, the witness raised her finger, which means only once.
R
PROSECUTOR
Q
Before he did this to you, what first did he do?
INTERPRETE Witness making again a sign on her left thigh with her fingers indicating that
R
Reynaldo Umanito has sexual intercourse with her.
PROSECUTOR
Q
Did Reynaldo Umanito box you?
INTERPRETE Witness shaking her head.

R
PROSECUTOR
Q
Did this Reynaldo Umanito slap you?
INTERPRETE Witness nodding her head which means, yes.

R
PROSECUTOR
Q
Where did he hit you when he slapped you?
INTERPRETE On her left face, witness touching her left face.

R
PROSECUTOR
Q
How many times Dong slapped you on the left face?
Witness making a sign of one.
COURT
Q
After Dong slapped you once on your face, what did he do?
INTERPRETE Witness making a sign by making a circular motion meaning pregnant.

R
PROSECUTOR
Q
Why did you become pregnant?
INTERPRETE Witness pointing to the door with her mouth (sic) where the accused went out a
R
while ago.
PROSECUTOR
Q
You said Dong is in Court, will you point to him if he is in Court?
INTERPRETE Witness is pointing towards the direction of the door.

R
COURT
Guard, will you call the accused to get inside the courtroom.
INTERPRETE The accused is getting inside the courtroom with the sheriff.
R
COURT
Q
Who is Dong between the two getting inside the courtroom?
INTERPRETE The witness pointing to the accused who is wearing orange t-shirt when asked
R
his name [he] answered Reynaldo Umanito.
COURT
Q
Are you also know as Dong?
INTERPRETE Witness nodding her head.

R
PROSECUTOR
Q
Could you tell us again what this Dong did to you?
INTERPRETE The witness making a sign which means she was sexually abused.
R
PROSECUTOR That is all, Your Honor.[18]
Carnal knowledge of a woman who is a mental retardate is rape under Article 266A, paragraph 1(b) of the Revised Penal Code, as amended. This is because a
mentally deficient person is automatically considered incapable, of giving consent to
a sexual act. Thus, what needs to be proven are the facts of sexual intercourse
between the accused and the victim, and the victim's mental retardation. [19]
The prosecution has sufficiently established that AAA is a mental retardate. Through
AAA and corroborated by her mother BBB, the element of carnal knowledge was
proven. In fact, there was no denying that AAA became pregnant and she pointed
to no other than appellant as the culprit.
Perpetrator's knowledge of the victim's mental disability, at the time he committed
the rape, qualifies the crime and makes it punishable by death under Article 266-B,
paragraph 10, to wit:
xxxx
of the following aggravating/qualifying circumstances:
xxxx
10) When the offender knew of the mental disability, emotional disorder and/or
physical handicap of the offended party at the time of the commission of the crime.
However, an allegation in the information of such knowledge of the offender is
necessary as a crime can only be qualified by circumstances pleaded in the
indictment.[20] In this case, there was none. Moreover, the lower courts did not
make any specific finding on the said qualifying circumstance.
This Court finds the award of civil indemnity and moral damages as. modified by
the Court of Appeals proper. But prevailing jurisprudence on simple rape likewise
awards exemplary damages in order to set a public example and to protect hapless
individuals from sexual molestation.[21] Finally, all damages awarded shall earn
interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum, from the date of finality of this
judgment until fully paid.[22]
WHEREFORE, the 30 May 2013 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CRH.C. No. 00739-MIN finding appellant Reynaldo Umanito guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of the crime of simple rape and sentencing him to suffer the penalty
of reclusion perpetua is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in that appellant is
further ordered to pay AAA the amount of P30,000.00 as exemplary damages and
interest at the legal rate of six percent (6%) per annum on all the amounts of
damages awarded, commencing from the date of finality of this Resolution until
fully paid.
SO ORDERED.
Velasco, Jr., (Chairperson), Del Castillo,** and Reyes, JJ., concur.
Peralta, J.,on official leave.
April 26, 2016

NOTICE OF JUDGMENT
Sirs / Mesdames:
Very truly yours,

**
Additional member per Raffle dated 24 February 2016.
Rollo, pp. 3-12; Penned by Associate Justice Renato C. Francisco with Associate
Justices Romulo V. Borja and Oscar V. Badelles concurring.
[1]
[2]
Records, pp. 229-254; Presided by Judge Milanio M. Guerrero.
The real name of the victim and her immediate family members are withheld to
protect her identity and privacy pursuant to Section 29 of Republic Act No. 71610,
Section 44 of Republic Act No. 9262 and Section 40 of A.M. No. 04-10-11-SC.
See People v. Cabalquinto, 533 Phil. 703 (2006).
[3]
[4]
Records, p. 1.
[5]
Id. at 15.
[6]
Id. at 253-254.
[7]
Rollo, p. 13-14.
[8]
Id. at 18-19.
[9]
Id. at 20-22.
[10]
Id. at 27-30.
[11]
CA rollo, pp. 6-23.
[12]
461 Phil. 543 (2003).
[13]
People v. Gahi, G.R. No. 202976, 19 February 2014, 717 SCRA 209, 227.
[14]
People v. Bitangcor, 441 Phil. 758, 768 (2002).
[15]
People v. Rosales, G.R. No. 197537, 24 July 2013, 702 SCRA 297, 307.
[16]
G.R. No. 189822, 2 September 2013, 704 SCRA 515, 529.
[17]
People v. Quintos, G.R. No. 199402, 12 November 2014.
[18]
[19]
People v. Caoile, G.R. No. 203041, 5 June 2013, 697 SCRA 638, 654.
[20]
People v. Dela Paz, 569 Phil. 684, 705 (2008).
[21]
People v. Delfin, G.R. No. 190349, 10 December 2014.
[22]
People v. Suarez, G.R. No. 201151, 14 January 2015.

G.R.
No.
208676
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ALLAN MENALING Y CANEDO ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
April 13, 2016
THIRD DIVISION
[ G.R. No. 208676, April 13, 2016 ]
ALLAN MENALING Y CANEDO ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
DECISION
PEREZ, J.:
Before us for review is the Decision[1] of the Court of Appeals in CA G.R. CR.-H.C.
No. 04819 dated 26 November 2012 which dismissed the appeal of appellant Allan
Menaling y Canedo and affirmed with modification the Judgment[2] of the Regional
Trial Court (RTC) of Olongapo City, Branch 73, in Criminal Cases Nos. 353-2006 and
354-2006, finding appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
Qualified Rape.
Appellant was charged with two (2) counts of qualified rape, to wit:
That on or about the twenty-first (21st) day of January, 2006, in the City of
Olongapo, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named accused, being the biological/natural father of [AAA [3]], a 12-year old
minor and having moral ascendancy over the latter and with lewd design did then
and there wilfully, unlawfully, and feloniously and with force, threat and said
intimidation, have sexual intercourse with said [AAA], by then and there inserting
his penis to the vagina of said [AAA] against her will and consent to her damage
and prejudice.[4]

That on or about the twenty-six[th] (26th) day of Jamuary, 2006, in the City of
Olongapo, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named accused, being the biological/natural father of AAA, a 12-year old
minor and having moral ascendancy [over] the latter and with lewd design did then
and there wilfully, unlawfully, and feloniously and with force, threat and said
intimidation, have sexual intercourse with said AAA, by then and there inserting his
penis to the vagina of said AAA against her will and consent to her damage and
prejudice.[5]
Appellant pleaded not guilty to the charges. At the pre-trial conference, the parties
stipulated that AAA is a twelve-year old minor at the time of the alleged crime and
that appellant is her natural/biological father.
Trial on the merits ensued.
The prosecution presented four (4) witnesses: the victim, AAA; Dr. Rolando Marfel
Ortis (Dr. Ortis); psychologist Dr. Naila dela Cruz (Dr. dela Cruz); and BBB, AAA's
mother. The appellant was the sole witness for the defense.
AAA, who was only twelve (12) years old at the time of the commission of the
crimes, recounted that in the evening of 21 January 2006, she was sleeping with
her sibling and BBB on a bed in her house when her father, appellant, woke her up
by tapping her foot and asked her transfer to the floor where he was sleeping. AAA
sat down, refused his request, and cried. But appellant held her hands. Then he
directed her to remove her clothing. When AAA refused this, appellant himself
removed her clothing, kissed her and inserted his male organ into her. AAA cried in
pain. Appellant threatened AAA with harm if she would tell BBB about the incident.
BBB woke up shortly and asked AAA to transfer to the bed.[6]
In the afternoon of 26 January 2006, AAA and her four siblings were sleeping when
appellant again woke her up and sexually assaulted her. Her brother woke up and
witnessed the incident. He ran away and told his aunt about it until word reached
BBB.[7]
BBB cried when she learned of the incidents from her sister on 28 February 2006.
BBB immediately reported the crime to the police resulting in the filing of charges
against appellant.[8]
Dr. Ortiz was able to examine AAA on 1 March 2006. Per his Medico Legal
Certificate[9] dated 3 March 2006, AAA's hymen was not intact and was found to
have old healed lacerations at 7 o'clock position and her female anatomy admits of
two fingers with ease. On the witness stand, Dr. Ortis stated that the hymen
laceration was thirty (30) days old or more; and that two (2) fingers could be
inserted with ease into AAA's female anatomy indicates previous multiple sexual
intercourse. AAA also had some infection from a previous sexual intercourse. [10]
Dr. dela Cruz, the psychologist testified that AAA was referred to her for protective
custody. At the time of the interview, AAA appeared disturbed by the abuse
committed against her by her father. Further, AAA was observed to harbor intense
feelings of hatred, dissatisfaction and resentment against her father.[11] In the
report of her findings, Dr. dela Cruz made the following remarks:
x x x She has transparent and vocal manifestations of resentment and indignation
towards her experience. Client is agitated for thinking that she will not regain
anymore her loss (sic) relationship with her siblings as well as her mother because
of this case filed. She is helpless, unhappy, and insecure and has no emotional
security and satisfaction. x x x[12]
The prosecution filed their Formal Offer of Evidence [13] on 26 December 2007 with
the RTC and rested their case. On 1 February and 18 April 2008, AAA and BBB were
respectively called back to the witness stand by the defense counsel and the two
recanted their previous testimonies against appellant. AAA declared that the real
perpetrator was her grandfather, the uncle of her mother, now deceased. [14] BBB
stated that she had told lies when she first testified. BBB also admitted that she
loves her husband very much and would do anything to have the charges against
him dismissed.[15]
Appellant, for his part, denied raping his daughter AAA. Appellant claimed that AAA
was a problem child who had a relationship with a lesbian. Appellant confessed
though that he always created trouble every time he went home drunk which may
have prompted AAA to charge him of rape.[16] Appellant also asserted that he could
not have possibly raped AAA because his wife, BBB, always stayed home. Appellant
first came to know of the charges against him when he came home from work on 4
March 2006 when he was invited by the policemen to their station. [17]
In an Order[18] dated 12 January 2009, the RTC rejected AAA and BBB's
recantations. The RTC noted that the alleged real culprit had died in 2004, two (2)
years before the commission of the rape charges in 2006. The trial court dismissed
the recantations as incredulous and unworthy of belief.
On 23 November 2010, appellant was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
qualified rape. The dispositive portion of the RTC Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, the foregoing considered, judgment is hereby rendered finding
accused Allan Menaling guilty beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of qualified
rape in Criminal Case No. 353-2006, for which he is sentenced to suffer the
maximum penalty of reclusion perpetua.
On the other hand, due to reasonable doubt, said accused is acquitted of the same
crime in Criminal Case No. 354-2006.[19]
Appellant filed a Notice of Appeal on 21 December 2010.[20]
On 26 November 2012, the Court of Appeals rendered the assailed decision
affirming with modification the trial court's judgment, viz.:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant appeal is hereby DENIED. The
Decision dated November 23, 2010 of the RTC, Branch 73, Olongapo City
isAFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in that in addition to the maximum penalty
of reclusion perpetua, accused-appellant Allan Menaling y Canedo is
furtherORDERED to pay private complainant AAA Seventy-Five Thousand Pesos
(P75,000.00) as civil indemnity, Seventy-Five Thousand Pesos (P75,000.00) as
moral damages, and Thirty Thousand Pesos (P30,000.00) as exemplary damages.
[21]
Appellant filed the instant appeal. In a Resolution[22] dated 11 November 2013,

appellant and the Officer of the Solicitor General (OSG) were asked to file their
respective supplemental briefs if they so desired. OSG manifested that it was
adopting its brief filed before the appellate court [23] while appellant filed his
Supplemental Brief arguing that AAA's initial testimony regarding the rape incident
is incredulous. Appellant asserts that AAA's narration that she was raped by her
father in the presence of her mother is preposterous because no mother would keep
quiet and act nonchalantly after having witnessed the abuse of her daughter.
Appellant also points out that AAA's mother testified that she was in Batangas on
the day of the alleged rape. Appellant also questions the actuations of AAA during
the rape incident. Appellant asks why AAA did not scream or offer any resistance
despite the proximity of her siblings at that time. Appellant stresses that AAA and
BBB had the motive to falsely charge him because they feared him. [24]
It is a well-settled rule that appellate courts will generally not disturb the factual
findings of the trial court considering that it is in a better position to decide the
question, having heard the witnesses themselves and observed their deportment
and manner of testifying during the trial.[25]
We have carefully reviewed the records of the case and we find no reason to depart
from this established rule.
Articles 266-A and 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act
(R.A.) No. 8353,[26] define and punish rape as follows:
Article 266-A. Rape; When and How committed. - Rape is committed 1. By a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the
following circumstances:
a. Through force, threat or intimidation;

b. When the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious;
c. By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority; and
d. When the offended party is under twelve (12) years of age or is demented,
even though none of the circumstances mentioned above be present.
xxxx
Article 266-B. Penalties. - Rape under paragraph 1 of the next preceding article
shall be punished by reclusion perpetua.
xxxx
of the following attendant circumstances:
1. When the victim is under eighteen (18) years of age and the offender is a
parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or
affinity within the third civil degree, or the common-law spouse of the parent
of the victim.
It is extant in the records that the prosecution has successfully proven beyond
reasonable doubt that appellant had carnal knowledge of his twelve (12) year old
daughter, AAA, through force and intimidation. AAA described the harrowing details
of her experience, to wit:
PROS. PARCOQ
A
Do you know the accused in this case?

Yes, sir.
Q
A
Why do you know the accused in this case?

Because he was the one who did this thing to me.
Q
A
How is he related to you?

He is my father.
Q
A
Do you recall madam witness where you were (sic) on January 21, 2006 in the evening?
I was in the house.
Q
A
What were you then doing in the evening?

We were then sleeping.
Q
A
When you said "kami" who were these persons?

My mother and my siblings.
Q
A
When you were sleeping, what happened?

He woke me up.
Q
A
Who woke you up?

My father.
Q
A
The accused in this case?

Yes, sir.
Q
A
After you woke up, what happened?

He told me to remove my clothing but I refused, that's why he was the one who took off my
clothes and he kissed me and inserted his organ to my organ.
Q
A
How did you feel when he inserted his organ to your organ?
I felt pain.
Q
A
Did you not shout?

No, sir I just cried.
Q
A
After that, what happened?

My mother woke up and she told me to transfer to the bed.
Q
A
Also on January 26, 2006 in the afternoon, do you recall any incident that happened to you?
Yes, sir.
Q
A
What was this incident?

The same incident as in January 21.
Q
A
What do you mean the same?

He again told us to sleep. My mother was not there and after that, he again did what he did
to me the last time.[27]
xxxx
ATTY. GUILARANQ
A
Q
You testified that in the evening of January 26, 2006, you were sleeping then with your
father and your mother and your other siblings?
Yes, Ma'am.
What part of the house did you sleep on January 21, 2006 together with your father, your
mother and your siblings?
On the bed.
Q
A
How many siblings do you have?

We are all 5, Ma'am.
Q
A
Plus your mother and your father, you are all seven (7)?
Yes, Ma'am.
Q
A
And you were sleeping in one bed, the 7 of you?

No, Ma'am.
Q
A
Where did you sleep then?

We slept on the bed with my mother, my younger sister and me.
Q
A
Three (3) of you slept in the bed?

Yes, Ma'am.
Q
A
Where were the others slept?

In the other bed.
Q
A
Do you want to impress this Court that your room has two beds?
Yes, Ma'am.
Q
A
How big is your room?

It's just a small room.
Q
A
Could you approximate the area of your room?

From that wall to this wall.
And the beds are single?

Single, Ma'am.
Q
A
Who slept at the other bed?

My three other siblings.
Q
A
Where did you[r] father sleep then?

Beside our bed.
Q
A
On the floor?
Yes, Ma'am.
You testified that your father woke you up on January 21, 2006 and he instructed you to pull
down your pants, where was your mother then?
She was sleeping on the bed because my father asked me to transfer to where he was then
sleeping.
Q
A
He was sleeping on the floor beside the bed where you, your mother and your younger sister
slept and you transferred. How big was the space where your father slept?
As big as the table, Ma'am.
INTERPRETERThe witness is referring to the table in the courtroom which is about 2 meters by 1 meter.
ATTY. GUILARANQ
A
How did your father wake you up on January 21, 2006?

He slept on the bed where my three other siblings are sleeping and then he tapped my foot.
Q
A
What was your reaction when your father tapped your foot?
I was awakened.
Q
A
What did you do thereafter, when you were awakened by the tapping of your foot by your
father?
I sat down.
Q
A
What did your father do after you sat down?

He called me to transfer to where he was sleeping.
Q
A
And you immediately heeded?

No, Ma'am.
Q
A
What did you do in refusing to the order of your father?

I cried.
Q
A
Loud?
No, Ma'am because he told me not to make noise.
Q
A
I thought, he only tapped your foot and you were awakened?

Yes, ma'am he tapped my foot and called for me to ask me to transfer.
Q
A
And you refused?

Yes, ma'am.
Q
A
You cried not loud?

Yes, ma'am.
Q
A
What happened?
He held my hands.
Q
A
Where was your mother?

She was sleeping.
Q
A
Beside you?
No, Ma'am.
Q
A
You were beside your sister?

Yes, ma'am.
Q
A
You were allegedly sexually assaulted by your father at the room of your mother and father
and your siblings were sleeping?
Yes, Ma'am.
Q
A
For how long did the accused sexually assault you?

Maybe 5 to 6 minutes and my mother awakened.
Q
A
You did not tell your mother what your father did to you?
No, Ma'am I really want to tell her but I was afraid.
Q
A
Were you threatened by your father?

Yes, Ma'am.
Q
A
How?
He told me if I tell my mother and if he will be incarcerated 1 will also be detained and he
will kill my mother.
Q
A
Where were your pants then when your mother was awakened?
Just below my knee.
Q
A
And your mother saw it?

Yes, Ma'am.
Q
A
And she did nothing?

Yes, Ma'am.[28]
Rape is a crime that is almost always committed in isolation or in secret, usually

leaving only the victim to testify about the commission of the crime. Thus, the
accused may be convicted of rape on the basis of the victim's sole testimony
provided such testimony is logical, credible, consistent and convincing. Moreover,
the testimony of a young rape victim is given full weight and credence considering
that her denunciation against him for rape would necessarily expose herself and her
family to shame and perhaps ridicule.[29]
The initial testimony of AAA appears to be truthful, candid and spontaneous. The
oft-repeated adage that no young Filipina would publicly admit that she had been
criminally abused and ravished unless it is the truth, for it is her natural instinct to
protect her honor[30] finds application in this case. No young girl would concoct a
tale of defloration, allow the examination of her private parts and undergo the
expense, trouble and inconvenience, not to mention the trauma and scandal of a
public trial, unless she was, in fact, raped.[31]
That the incident was done in the presence of AAA's mother, BBB, who herself
seemed to have had no reaction to the grave matter, does not diminish or affect the
credibility of AAA's testimony nor render her narration improbable. BBB might have
been in a state of shock at the time, reason for the non-reaction. Or this fact could
speak of how dysfunctional the family has become that a father can boldly rape his
own daughter in the presence of the latter's mother who herself will not feel
repulsed by the same. Lust indeed respects neither time nor place. [32]
AAA's behaviour during and immediately after the ordeal also do not affect the
veracity of her testimony that she was raped. As supported by prevailing
jurisprudence, one could not expect a twelve (12)-year old to act like an adult or
mature and experienced woman who would know what to do. under such difficult
circumstances and who would have the courage and intelligence to disregard a
threat on her life and the members of her family and complain immediately that she
had been forcibly deflowered, no less, by her own father.[33] Moreover, rape is
nothing more than a conscious process of intimidation by which a man keeps a
woman in a state of fear and humiliation. Thus, it is not even impossible for a rape
victim not to make an outcry against an unarmed assailant. In fact the moral
ascendancy and influence of appellant, being the victim's father, can take the place
of threat and intimidation.[34]
Notably, Dr. Ortis's medical findings corroborate AAA's testimony that she had been
sexually abused. When a victim's testimony is corroborated by the medical findings
of penetration, there is sufficient basis for concluding that sexual intercourse did
take place.[35]
We uphold the appellate court's declaration that victim's recantation is unreliable.
In her testimony, AAA intimated that she was not raped by her father, but was
actually raped by her grandfather who had already passed away.
A retraction is looked upon with considerable disfavor by the courts. It is
exceedingly unreliable for there is always the probability that such recantation may
later on be repudiated. It can easily be obtained from witnesses through
intimidation or monetary consideration. Like any other testimony, it is subject to the
test of credibility based on the relevant circumstances and, especially, on the
demeanor of the witness on the stand.[36]
Before allowing the recantation, the court must not be too willing to accept it, but
must test its value in a public trial with sufficient opportunity given to the party
adversely affected to cross-examine the recanting witness both upon the substance
of the recantation and the motivations for it. The recantation, like any other
testimony, is subject to the test of credibility based on the relevant circumstances,
including the demeanor of the recanting witness on the stand. In that respect, the
finding of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses is entitled to great weight on
appeal unless cogent reasons necessitate its re-examination, the reason being that
the trial court is in a better position to hear first-hand and observe the deportment,
conduct and attitude of the witnesses.[37]
Guided by the preceding precept, we do not ascribe any weight to the recantation
of the victim. In this regard, very telling is the following portion of the crossexamination of BBB's own recantation, to wit:
Q
A
And accused in this case, are you legally married?

No madam.
Q
A
You love him so much?

Yes.
Q
A
And you will do anything to help him so that the charges against him will be dismissed?
Yes.
Q
A
That will include telling lies?

I am not telling a lie.
That will also be helping him that will also include forcing your daughter to recant her
testimony?
Yes.[38] (Emphasis supplied)
We find unmeritorious appellant's defense of denial. Denial could not prevail over
the victim's direct, positive and categorical assertion.[39]
All told, appellant's guilt of the crime charged was established beyond reasonable
doubt.
The lower courts correctly reduced the penalty from death penalty to reclusion
perpetua. The passage of R.A. No. 9346 debars the imposition of the death penalty
without declassifying the crime of qualified rape as heinous. It must be stated
however, that the accused shall suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua without
eligibility for parole.[40]
Also, we however, modify the appellate court's award of damages and increase it as
follows: P100,000.00 as civil indemnity, P100,000.00 as moral damages, and
P100,000.00 as exemplary damages pursuant to prevailing jurisprudence.
[41]
Further, the amount of damages awarded should earn interest at the rate of
6% per annum from the finality of this judgment until said amounts are fully paid.
[42]
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Decision dated 26 November 2012 of the

Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 04819, finding appellant Allan Menalmg y
Canedo guilty in Criminal Case No. 353-2006, is
hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Appellant shall suffer the penalty
of reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole. Appellant is ordered to pay the
private offended party as follows: P100,000.00 as civil indemnity, P100,000.00 as
moral damages, and P100,000.00 as exemplary damages. He is FURTHER ordered
to pay interest on all damages awarded at the legal rate of six percent (6%) per
annum from the date of finality of this judgment.
No pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.
Sereno,* C. J., Velasco, Jr., (Chairperson), and Reyes, JJ., concur.
May 2, 2016
NOTICE OF JUDGMENT
Sirs / Mesdames:
was received by this Office on May 2, 2016 at 1:45 p.m.
Very truly yours,

Additional Member per Raffle dated 21 March 2016.
Rollo, pp. 2-21; Penned by Associate Justice Ramon R. Garcia with Associate
Justices Amelita G. Tolentino and Dante Q. Bueser concurring.
[1]
[2]
Records, pp. 179-186; Presided by Presiding Judge Consuelo Amog-Bacar.
The victim's real name as well as the members of her immediate family is
withheld to protect her privacy pursuant to People v. Cabalquinto, 533 Phil. 703
(2006).
[3]
[4]
Records, p. 1.
[5]
Id. at 179.
[6]
TSN, 16 March 2007, pp. 2-17.
[7]
Id.
[8]
TSN, 17 July 2007, pp. 2-12.
[9]
Records, p. 12.
[10]
TSN, 16 February 2007 pp. 3-5.
[11]
TSN, 8 June 2007, pp. 1-7.
[12]
Records, p. 104.
[13]
Records, p. 102.
[14]
TSN, 1 February 2008, p. 3.
[15]
TSN, April 2008, pp. 4-5.
[16]
TSN, August 2009, pp. 2-4.
[17]
TSN, 11 January 2010, p. 3.
[18]
Records, p. 132.
[19]
Id. at 185-186.
[20]
Id. at 189.
[21]
Rollo, p. 20.
[22]
Id. at 27.
[23]
Id. at 32.
[24]
Id. at 37-44.
[25]
See People v. Paculba, 628 Phil. 662, 673 (2010).
[26]
Effective on 22 October 1997.
[27]
TSN, 16 March 2007, pp. 3-5.
[28]
Id. at 9-13.
[29]
People v. Gallano, G.R. No. 184762, 25 February 2015.
[30]
People v. Avero, 247-A Phil. 216, 221 (1988).
[31]
People v. Espenilla, G.R. No. 192253, 18 September 2013, 706 SCRA 134, 147.
[32]
People v. Alviz, 477 Phil. 188, 199 (2004).
See People v. Oydoc, 210 Phil. 214, 220-221 (1983) quoted in People v. Avero,
supra note 30 at 220-221.
[33]
[34]
People v. Aguilar, 643 Phil. 643, 656 (2010).
People v. Sabal, G.R.No. 201861, 2 June 2014, 724 SCRA 407, 412 citing People
v. Perez, 595 Phil. 1232, 1258 (2008).
[35]
People v. Bulagao, 674 Phil. 535, 544 (2011) citing People v. Sumingwa, 618
Phil. 650, 663 (2009).
[36]
People v. Teodoro, G.R. No. 175876, 20 February 2013, 691 SCRA 324, 344345.
[37]
[38]
TSN, 18 April 2008, p. 5.
[39]
People v. Sabal, supra note 35.
Section 2, A.M. No. 15-08-02-SC (Guidelines for the Proper Use of the Phrase
"Without Eligibility for Parole" in Indivisible Penalties).
[40]
[41]
People v. Gambao, G.R. No. 172707, 1 October 2013, 706 SCRA 508.
[42]
People v. Vitero, G.R. No. 175327, 3 April 2013, 695 SCRA 54, 69.

G.R.
No.
184933
VIOLETA BALBA, FOR AND IN BEHALF OF HER MINOR CHILDREN ROY VINCE AND VIENNA GRACIA, BOTH SURNAMED
BALBA, PETITIONERS, VS. TIWALA HUMAN RESOURCES, INC., AND/OR TOGO MARITIME CORP., RESPONDENTS.
April 13, 2016
THIRD DIVISION
[ G.R. No. 184933, April 13, 2016 ]
VIOLETA BALBA, FOR AND IN BEHALF OF HER MINOR
CHILDREN ROY VINCE AND VIENNA GRACIA, BOTH
SURNAMED BALBA, PETITIONERS, VS. TIWALA HUMAN
RESOURCES, INC., AND/OR TOGO MARITIME CORP.,
RESPONDENTS.
DECISION
REYES, J.:
Before this Court is a petition for review on certiorari[1] under Rule 45 of the Rules
of Court, filed by the legal heirs (collectively referred to as the petitioners) of the
late Rogelio Balba (Rogelio), seeking to annul and set aside the Decision [2] dated
May 31, 2007 and the Resolution[3] dated October 14, 2008 of the Court of Appeals
(CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 93606. The CA reversed the Decision [4] dated December 28,
2004 and Resolution[5] dated December 22, 2005 of the National Labor Relations
Commission (NLRC), in NLRC NCR CA No. 033946-02, and reinstated the
Decision[6] dated September 25, 2002 of the Labor Arbiter (LA), in NLRC NCR OFW
Case No. 00-04-0683-00, which dismissed the claim of Rogelio for disability
benefits for lack of merit.
Statement of Facts
Sometime in 1998, Rogelio entered into a 10-month contract of employment with

Tiwala Human Resources, Inc. for its foreign principal, Togo Maritime Corporation
(respondents), wherein he was employed as chief cook on board the vessel M/V
Giga Trans.[7] He was declared fit for work in his pre-employment medical
examination and boarded the vessel M/V Giga Trans on November 13, 1998. [8]
Upon the expiration of his contract, Rogelio was repatriated to the Philippines in
October 1999.[9]
From October to November 1999, Rogelio was treated by Dr. Benito Dungo (Dr.
Dungo) for weakness and numbness of his left half body and lower extremities and
was diagnosed to be suffering from moderately severe diabetes. [10]
In 2000, Rogelio was confined at the Seamen's Hospital and was found to have
metastatic cancer. As such, he sought disability compensation and benefits from the
respondents but these were denied.[11]
Consequently, Rogelio filed on April 6, 2000 a complaint against the respondents for
disability benefits with damages and attorney's fees.[12]
On April 28, 2000, however, Rogelio was admitted at the Philippine General Hospital
for lung cancer. He succumbed to his illness in July 2000. As a result of Rogelio's
death, his complaint was subsequently amended and his wife, Violeta Balba, and
two children, Roy and Vienna Gracia, were substituted as complainants. [13]
Ruling of the LA
On September 25, 2002, the LA dismissed the complaint after finding that Rogelio's
death was not compensable under the Philippine Overseas Employment
Administration Standard Employment Terms and Conditions Governing the
Employment of Filipino Seafarers on Board Ocean-Going Vessels (POEA-SEC).
[14]
Within the reglementary period, the petitioners appealed to the NLRC.
Ruling of the NLRC
In a Decision dated December 28, 2004, the NLRC reversed the LA's Decision dated
September 25, 2002 and declared that Rogelio contracted his illness while on board
the vessel and during the existence of his contract. [15] The dispositive portion
thereof states:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the appealed Decision is hereby REVERSED
and SET ASIDE and a new one ENTERED ordering respondents to jointly and
severally pay [the petitioners] the amount of US$60,000.00 representing the death
benefits of [Rogelio] plus US$7,000.00 each for the two minor children and
US$1,000.00 as burial benefits or in a total amount of US$75,000.00, plus 5%
thereof as attorney's fees.
SO ORDERED.[16]
The respondents filed a motion for reconsideration but the same was denied in a
Resolution[17] dated December 22, 2005. Aggrieved, the respondents filed a petition
with the CA and alleged that there was grave abuse of discretion on the part of
NLRC in awarding benefits to the petitioners.
Ruling of the CA
On May 31, 2007, the CA issued a Decision[18] granting the petition. It declared that
the evidence on record is bereft of any proof linking Rogelio's cancer with his work
as chief cook. The dispositive portion of the CA's decision reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition for certiorari is hereby GRANTED.
The assailed Decision dated December 28, 2004 and the Resolution dated
December 22, 2005 of the [NLRC] in NLRC NCR CA NO. 033946-02 (NLRC NCR
OFW CASE NO. 00-04-0683-00) are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
SO ORDERED.[19]
The petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration, which the CA denied in its
Resolution[20] dated October 14, 2008. Undaunted, the petitioners filed the instant
petition assailing the ruling of the CA.
The Issue
The petitioners assign the sole issue to be resolved:
WHETHER OR NOT THE HONORABLE CA COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF
DISCRETION IN GRANTING THE RESPONDENTS' PETITION FOR CERTIORARI AND
DENYING THE PETITIONERS' MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION BY REVERSING AND
SETTING ASIDE THE NLRC DECISION IN AWARDING DEATH BENEFITS UNDER THE
POEA-SEC.[21]
Ruling of the Court
A careful perusal of the petition shows that it fundamentally assails the findings of
the LA, as affirmed by the CA, that the evidence on record is insufficient to
establish the petitioners' entitlement to death and burial benefits as a result of
Rogelio's death. This clearly involves a factual inquiry, the determination of which is
the statutory function of the labor tribunals.
As a general rule, it must be emphasized that this Court is not a trier of facts and a
petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court must exclusively
raise questions of law.[22] In the exercise of its power of review, the findings of fact
of the CA are conclusive and binding on this Court and it is not our function to
analyze or weigh evidence all over again. It is a recognized exception, however,
that when the CA's findings are contrary to those of the NLRC, there is a need to
review the records to determine which of them should be preferred and more
conformable to evidentiary facts.[23]
In the present case, considering the conflicting findings of the LA and CA on one
hand, and the NLRC on the other, this Court is impelled to resolve the factual issues
along with the legal ones.
Essentially, the fundamental issue to be resolved in this petition is whether or not
the petitioners are entitled to death and burial benefits on account of Rogelio's
death.
The Court rules in the negative.
In Masangcay v. Trans-Global Maritime Agency, Inc., et al.,[24] the Court held:
As with all other kinds of worker, the terms and conditions of a seafarers
employment is governed by the provisions of the contract he signs at the time he is
hired. But unlike that of others, deemed written in the seafarers contract is a set of
standard provisions set and implemented by the POEA, called the Standard Terms
and Conditions Governing the Employment of Filipino Seafarers on Board OceanGoing Vessels, which are considered to be the minimum requirements acceptable to
the government for the employment of Filipino seafarers on board foreign oceangoing vessels. x x x.[25]
Taking into consideration that Rogelio was employed on November 13, 1998, it is
the 1996 Revised POEA-SEC that is considered incorporated in his contract of
employment and is controlling for purposes of resolving the issue at hand.
Section 20(A) of the 1996 Revised POEA-SEC provides that in order to avail of
death benefits, the death of the seafarer must be work-related and should occur
during the effectivity of the employment contract. The provision reads:
SECTION 20. COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS

A. COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS FOR DEATH
1. In case of death of the seafarer during the term of his contract, the
employer shall pay his beneficiaries the Philippine Currency equivalent to the
amount of Fifty Thousand US dollars (US$50,000) and an additional amount
of Seven Thousand US dollars (US$7,000) to each child under the age of
twenty-one (21) but not exceeding four (4) children, at the exchange rate
prevailing during the time of payment.
xxxx
4. The other liabilities of the employer when the seafarer dies as a result of
injury or illness during the term of employment are as follows:
a. The employer shall pay the deceased's beneficiary all outstanding

obligations due the seafarer under this Contract.
b. The employer shall transport the remains and personal effects of the
seafarer to the Philippines at employer's expense except if the death
occurred in a port where local government laws or regulations do not
permit the transport of such remains. In case death occurs at sea, the
disposition of the remains shall be handled or dealt with in accordance
with the master's best judgment. In all cases, the employer/master
shall communicate with the manning agency to advise for disposition
of seafarer's remains.
c. The employer shall pay the beneficiaries of the seafarer the Philippine
currency equivalent to the amount of One Thousand US dollars
(US$1,000) for burial expenses at the exchange rate prevailing during
the time of payment. (Emphases supplied)
Also, in Southeastern Shipping, et al. v. Navarra, Jr.,[26] the Court declared that in
order to avail of death benefits, the death of the employee should occur during the
effectivity of the employment contract. The death of a seaman during the term of
employment makes the employer liable to his heirs for death compensation
benefits. Once it is established that the seaman died during the effectivity of his
employment contract, the employer is liable.[27]
In the more recent case of Talosig v. United Philippine Lines, Inc.,[28] the Court
again reiterated that the death of a seafarer must have occurred during the term of
his contract of employment for it to be compensable.
In the present case, it is undisputed that Rogelio succumbed to cancer on July 4,
2000 or almost ten (10) months after the expiration of his contract and almost nine
(9) months after his repatriation. Thus, on the basis of Section 20(A) and the
above-cited jurisprudence explaining the provision, Rogelio's beneficiaries, the
petitioners, are precluded from receiving death benefits.
Moreover, even if the Court considers the possibility of compensation for the death
of a seafarer occurring after the termination of the employment contract on account
of a work-related illness under Section 32(A) of the POEA-SEC, the claimant must
still fulfill all the requisites for compensability, to wit:
1. The seafarer's work must involve the risks described herein;
2. The disease was contracted as a result of the seafarer's exposure to the
described risks;
3. The disease was contracted within a period of exposure and under such other
factors necessary to contract it;
4. There was no notorious negligence on the part of the seafarer.[29]
In the present case, the petitioners failed to adduce sufficient evidence to show that
Rogelio's illness was acquired during the term of his employment with the
respondents. Instead, what the petitioners presented were medical certificate
issued by Dr. Dungo dated November 12, 1999 attesting that Rogelio consulted him
due to weakness and numbness of Rogelio's left half body and lower extremities
and medical examination results in March and April 2000 showing that he had
cancer. The Court, however, finds it not sufficient proof to show a causal connection
or at least a work relation between the employment of Rogelio and his cancer. In
the absence of substantial evidence, Rogelio's working conditions cannot be
assumed to have increased the risk of contracting cancer.
In Medline Management, Inc., et al. v. Roslinda, et al.,[30] the Court held:
Indeed, the death of a seaman several months after his repatriation for illness does
not necessarily mean that: a) the seaman died of the same illness; b) his working
conditions increased the risk of contracting the illness which caused his death; and
c) the death is compensable, unless there is some reasonable basis to support
otherwise. x x x.[31]
In the instant case, Rogelio was repatriated not because of any illness but because
his contract of employment expired. There is likewise no proof that he contracted
his illness during the term of his employment or that his working conditions
increased the risk of contracting the illness which caused his death.
Based on these considerations, it is apparent that the instant petition is without
merit and that the CA was correct when it reversed and set aside the NLRC award
of death benefits to the petitioners as heirs of Rogelio. While the Court adheres to
the principle of liberality in favor of the seafarer in construing the POEA-SEC, we
cannot allow claims for compensation based on surmises. When the evidence
presented negates compensability, the Court has no choice but to deny the claim,
lest we cause injustice to the employer.[32]
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision dated May 31, 2007 and
Resolution dated October 14, 2008 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 93606
areAFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
Velasco, Jr., (Chairperson), Perez, Leonen,* and Jardeleza, JJ., cocncur.
May 25, 2016

NOTICE OF JUDGMENT
Sirs / Mesdames:
Very truly yours,

Additional Member per Raffle dated February 18, 2015 vice Associate Justice
Diosdado M. Peralta.
*
[1]
Rollo, pp. 8-24.
Penned by Associate Justice Jose C. Reyes, Jr., with Associate Justices Fernanda
Lampas-Peralta and Myrna Dimaranan Vidal concurring; id. at 25-37.
[2]
[3]
Id. at 38-39.
Penned by Commissioner Hrnesto S. Dinopol, with Commissioners Roy V. Seneres

and Romeo L. Go concurring; id. at 40-47.
[4]
Penned by Commissioner Perlita B. Velasco, concurred by Commissioner Romeo

L. Go and dissented by Commissioner Benedicto Ernesto R. Bitonio, Jr.; id. at 4850.
[5]
[6]
Issued by Labor Arbiter Jovencio LI. Mayor, Jr.; id. at 51-61.
[7]
Id. at 26
[8]
Id. at 159.
[9]
Id. at 26.
[10]
Id.
[11]
Id.
[12]
Id.
[13]
Id.
[14]
Id. at 51-61.
[15]
Id. at 40-47.
[16]
Id. at 46.
[17]
Id. at 48-50.
[18]
Id. at 25-37.
[19]
Id. at 36.
[20]
Id. at 38-39.
[21]
Id. at 14.
[22]
Sarona v. NLRC, et al., 679 Phil. 394, 414 (2012).
Esguerra v. United Philippine Lines, Inc., G.R. No. 199932, July 3, 2013, 700
SCRA 687, 696.
[23]
[24]
590 Phil. 611 (2008).
[25]
Id. at 626.
[26]
635 Phil. 350 (2010).
[27]
Id. at 360.
[28]
G.R. No. 198388, July 28, 2014, 731 SCRA 180.
Klaveness Maritime Agency, Inc., et al. v. Beneficiaries of the Late Second

Officer Anthony S. Allas, 566 Phil. 579, 588 (2008).
[29]
[30]
645 Phil, 34 (2010).
[31]
Id. at 52.
[32]

G.R.
No.
207662
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. FABIAN URZAIS Y LANURIAS, ALEX BAUTISTA, AND
RICKY
BAUTISTA
April 13, 2016
ACCUSED.
FABIAN
URZAIS
LANURIAS,
ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
THIRD DIVISION
[ G.R. No. 207662, April 13, 2016 ]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS.
FABIAN URZAIS Y LANURIAS, ALEX BAUTISTA, AND RICKY
BAUTISTA ACCUSED.
FABIAN URZAIS Y LANURIAS, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
DECISION
PEREZ, J.:
Before us for review is the Decision[1] of the Court of Appeals (CA) in C.A. G.R. CR.H.C. No. 04812 dated 19 November 2012 which dismissed the appeal of accusedappellant Fabian Urzais y Lanurias and affirmed with modification the Judgment [2] of
the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cabanatuan City, Branch 27, in Criminal Case No.
13155 finding accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
carnapping with homicide through the use of unlicensed firearm.
Accused-appellant, together with co-accused Alex Bautista and Ricky Bautista, was
charged with Violation of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6539, otherwise known as the
Anti-Carnapping Act of 1972, as amended by R.A. No. 7659, with homicide through
the use of an unlicensed firearm. The accusatory portion of the Information reads
as follows:
That on or about the 13th day of November, 2002, or prior thereto, in the City of
Cabanatuan, Republic of the Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court, the above-named accused, conspiring, confederating with and abetting one
another, with intent to gain and by means of force, violence and intimidation, did
then and there, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously take, steal and carry away, a
Isuzu Highlander car, colored Forest Green, with Plate No. UUT-838 of one MARIO
MAGDATO, valued at FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P500,000.00) Philippine
Currency, owned by and belonging to said MARIO MAGDATO, against his will and
consent and to his damage and prejudice in the aforestated amount of
P500,000.00, and on the occasion of the carnapping, did assault and use personal
violence upon the person of one MARIO MAGDATO, that is, by shooting the latter
with an unlicensed firearm, a Norinco cal. 9mm Pistol with Serial No. 508432,
thereby inflicting upon him gunshot wound on the head which caused his death. [3]
At his arraignment, accused-appellant pleaded not guilty. The trial proceeded
against him. His two co-accused remain at large.
The prosecution presented as witnesses Shirley Magdato (Shirley), Senior Police

Officer 2 Fernando Figueroa (SPO2 Figueroa) and Dr. Jun Concepcion (Dr.
Concepcion).
Shirley, the widow of the victim, testified mainly regarding her husband's
disappearance and discovery of his death. She narrated that her husband used to
drive for hire their Isuzu Highlander with plate number UUT-838 from Pulilan,
Bulacan to the LRT Terminal in Metro Manila. On 12 November 2002, around four
o'clock in the morning, her husband left their house in Pulilan and headed for the
terminal at the Pulilan Public Market to ply his usual route. When her husband did
not return home that day, Shirley inquired of his whereabouts from his friends to no
avail. Shirley went to the terminal the following day and the barker there told her
that a person had hired their vehicle to go to Manila. Shirley then asked her
neighbors to call her husband's mobile phone but no one answered. At around 10
o'clock in the morning of 13 November 2002, her husband's co-members in the
drivers' association arrived at their house and thereafter accompanied Shirley to
her husband's supposed location. At the Sta.Rosa police station in Nueva Ecija,
Shirley was informed that her husband had passed away. She then took her
husband's body home.[4] Shirley retrieved their vehicle on 21 November 2002 from
the Cabanatuan City Police Station. She then had it cleaned as it had blood stains
and reeked of a foul odor.[5]
SPO2 Figueroa of the Philippine National Police (PNP), Cabanatuan City, testified
concerning the circumstances surrounding accused-appellant's arrest. He stated
that in November 2002, their office received a "flash alarm" from the Bulacan PNP
about an alleged carnapped Isuzu Highlander in forest green color. Thereafter, their
office was informed that the subject vehicle had been seen in the AGL Subdivision,
Cabanatuan City. Thus, a team conducted surveillance there and a checkpoint had
been set up outside its gate. Around three o'clock in the afternoon of 20 November
2002, a vehicle that fit the description of the carnapped vehicle appeared. The
officers apprehended the vehicle and asked the driver, accused-appellant, who had
been alone, to alight therefrom. When the officers noticed the accused-appellant's
waist to be bulging of something, he was ordered to raise his shirt and a gun was
discovered tucked there. The officers confiscated the unlicensed 9mm Norinco, with
magazine and twelve (12) live ammunitions. The officers confirmed that the engine
of the vehicle matched that of the victim's. Found inside the vehicle were two (2)
plates with the marking "UUT-838" and a passport. Said vehicle contained traces of
blood on the car seats at the back and on its flooring. The officers detained
accused-appellant and filed a case for illegal possession of firearm against him. The
subject firearm was identified in open court. [6]
Dr. Concepcion testified about the wounds the victim sustained and the cause of his
death. He stated that the victim sustained one (1) gunshot wound in the head, the
entrance of which is at the right temporal area exiting at the opposite side. The
victim also had several abrasions on the right upper eyelid, the tip of the nose and
around the right eye. He also had blisters on his cheek area which could have been
caused by a lighted cigarette.[7]
Accused-appellant testified in his defense and interposed the defense of denial.
Accused-appellant testified that he had ordered in October 2002 from brothers Alex
and Ricky Bautista, an owner-type jeepney worth P60,000.00 for use in his
business. The brothers, however, allegedly delivered instead a green Isuzu
Highlander around half past three o'clock in the afternoon of 13 November 2002.
The brothers told accused-appellant that his P60,000.00 would serve as initial
payment with the remaining undetermined amount to be paid a week after.
Accused-appellant agreed to this, amazed that he had been given a new vehicle at
such low price. Accused-appellant then borrowed money from someone to pay the
balance but the brothers never replied to his text messages. On 16 November
2002, his friend Oscar Angeles advised him to surrender the vehicle as it could be a
"hot car." Accused-appellant was initially hesitant to this idea as he wanted to
recover the amount he had paid but he eventually decided to sell the vehicle. He
removed its plate number and placed a "for sale" sign at the back. On 18 November
2002, he allegedly decided to surrender the vehicle upon advice by a certain Angie.
But when he arrived home in the afternoon of that day, he alleged that he was
arrested by Alex Villareal, a member of the Criminal Investigation and Detection
Group (CIDG) of Sta. Rosa, Nueva Ecija.[8] Accused-appellant also testified that he
found out in jail the owner of the vehicle and his unfortunate demise. [9] On crossexamination, accused-appellant admitted that his real name is "Michael Tapayan y
Baguio" and that he used the name Fabian Urzais to secure a second passport in
2001 to be able to return to Taiwan.[10]
The other defense witness, Oscar Angeles (Angeles), testified that he had known
the accused-appellant as Michael Tapayan when they became neighbors in the AGL
subdivision. Accused-appellant also served as his computer technician. Angeles
testified that accused-appellant previously did not own any vehicle until the latter
purchased the Isuzu Highlander for P30,000.00 from the latter's friends in Bulacan.
Angeles advised accused-appellant that the vehicle might have been carnapped due
to its very low selling price. Angeles corroborated accused-appellant's testimony
that he did not want to surrender the car at first as he wanted to recover his
payment for it.[11]
On 18 October 2010, the RTC rendered judgment finding accused-appellant guilty
of the crime charged. The RTC anchored its ruling on the disputable presumption
that a person found in possession of a thing taken in the doing of a recent wrongful
act is the taker and the doer of the whole act.[12] It held that the elements of
carnapping were proven by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt through the
recovery of the purportedly carnapped vehicle from the accused-appellant's
possession and by his continued possession thereof even after the lapse of one
week from the commission of the crime.[13] The dispositive portion of the RTC
Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, the Court finds accused Fabian Urzais
alias Michael Tapayan y Lanurias GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
carnapping as defined and penalized by Republic Act 6539 (Anti-Carnapping Act of
1972) as amended by R.A. 7659 with homicide thru the use of unlicensed firearm.
Accordingly, he is hereby sentenced to suffer imprisonment of forty (40) years
of reclusion perpetua.
In the service of the sentence, accused shall be credited with the full time of his
preventive detention if he agreed voluntarily and in writing to abide by the
disciplinary rules imposed upon convicted prisoners pursuant to Article 29 of the
Revised Penal Code.
Accused is further sentenced to indemnify the heirs of Mario Magdato the sum of
Php50,000.00 as death indemnity, Php50,000.00 as moral damages, and
Php672,000.00 as loss of earning capacity.[14]
Accused-appellant filed a Notice of Appeal on 22 December 2010. [15]
On 19 November 2012, the CA rendered the assailed judgment affirming with
modification the trial court's decision. The CA noted the absence of eyewitnesses to
the crime yet ruled that sufficient circumstantial evidence was presented to prove
accused-appellant's guilt, solely, accused-appellant's possession of the allegedly
carnapped vehicle.
Accused-appellant appealed his conviction before this Court. In a
Resolution[16] dated 12 August 2013, accused-appellant and the Office of the
Solicitor General (OSG) were asked to file their respective supplemental briefs if
they so desired. Accused-appellant filed a Supplemental Brief [17] while the OSG
manifested[18] that it adopts its Brief[19] filed before the CA for the purpose of the
instant appeal.
Before the Court, accused-appellant vehemently maintains that there is no direct
evidence that he robbed and murdered the victim; and that the lower courts erred
in convicting him based on circumstantial evidence consisting only of the fact of his
possession of the allegedly carnapped vehicle. Accused-appellant decries the
appellate court's error in relying on the disputable presumption created by law
under Section 3 (j), Rule 131 of the Rules of Court to conclude that by virtue of his
possession of the vehicle, he is considered the author of both the carnapping of the
vehicle and the killing of its owner. Accused-appellant asserts that such
presumption does not hold in the case at bar.
The Court agrees.
Every criminal conviction requires the prosecution to prove two (2) things: 1. The
fact of the crime, i.e. the presence of all the elements of the crime for which the
accused stands charged; and (2) the fact that the accused is the perpetrator of the
crime. The Court finds the prosecution unable to prove both aspects, thus, it is left
with no option but to acquit on reasonable doubt.
R.A. No. 6539, or the Anti-Carnapping Act of 1972, as amended, defines carnapping
as the taking, with intent to gain, of a motor vehicle belonging to another without
the latter's consent, or by means of violence against or intimidation against
persons, or by using force upon things. [20] By the amendment in Section 20 of R.A.
No. 7659, Section 14 of the Anti-Carnapping Act now reads:
SEC. 14. Penally for Carnapping. Any person who is found guilty of carnapping, as
this term is defined in Section two of this Act, shall, irrespective of the value of the
motor vehicle taken, be punished by imprisonment for not less than fourteen years
and eight months and not more than seventeen years and four months, when the
carnapping is committed without violence or intimidation of persons, or force upon
things, and by imprisonment for not less than seventeen years and four months
and not more than thirty years, when the carnapping is committed by means of
violence or intimidation of any person, or force upon things; and the penalty of
reclusion perpetua to death shall be imposed when the owner, driver or occupant of
the carnapped motor vehicle is killed or raped in the course of the commission of
the carnapping or on the occasion thereof. (Emphasis supplied)
Three amendments have been made to the original Section 14 of the AntiCarnapping Act: (1) the penalty of life imprisonment was changed to reclusion
perpetua, (2) the inclusion of rape, and (3) the change of the phrase "in the
commission of the carnapping" to "in the course of the commission of the
carnapping or on the occasion thereof." This third amendment clarifies the law's
intent to make the offense a special complex crime, by way of analogy vis-a-vis
paragraphs 1 to 4 of the Revised Penal Code on robbery with violence against or
intimidation of persons. Thus, under the last clause of Section 14 of the AntiCarnapping Act, the prosecution has to prove the essential requisites of carnapping
and of the homicide or murder of the victim, and more importantly, it must show
that the original criminal design of the culprit was carnapping and that the killing
was perpetrated "in the course of the commission of the carnapping or on the
occasion thereof." Consequently, where the elements of carnapping are not proved,
the provisions of the Anti-Carnapping Act would cease to be applicable and the
homicide or murder (if proven) would be punishable under the Revised Penal Code.
[21]
In the instant case, the Court finds the charge of carnapping unsubstantiated for
failure of the prosecution to prove all its elements. For one, the trial court's decision
itself makes no mention of any direct evidence indicating the guilt of accusedappellant. Indeed, the CA confirmed the lack of such direct evidence. [22] Both lower
courts solely based accused-appellant's conviction of the special complex crime
on one circumstantial evidence and that is, the fact of his possession of the
allegedly carnapped vehicle.
The Court notes that the prosecution's evidence only consists of the fact of the
victim's disappearance, the discovery of his death and the details surrounding
accused-appellant's arrest on rumors that the vehicle he possessed had been
carnapped. Theres is absolutely no evidence supporting the prosecution's theory
that the victim's vehicle had been carnapped, much less that the accused-appellant
is the author of the same.
Certainly, it is not only by direct evidence that an accused may be convicted, but for
circumstantial evidence to sustain a conviction, following are the guidelines: (1)
there is more than one circumstance; (2) the facts from which the inferences are
derived are proven; and (3) the combination of all the circumstances is as such as
to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.[23] Decided cases expound that
the circumstantial evidence presented and proved must constitute an unbroken
chain which leads to one fair and reasonable conclusion pointing to the accused, to
the exclusion of all others, as the guilty person. All the circumstances must be
consistent with each other, consistent with the hypothesis that the accused is guilty
and at the same time inconsistent with the hypothesis that he is innocent, and with
every other rationale except that of guilt.[24]
In the case at bar, notably there is only one circumstantial evidence. And this sole
circumstantial evidence of possession of the vehicle does not lead to an inference
exclusively consistent with guilt. Fundamentally, prosecution did not offer any iota
of evidence detailing the seizure of the vehicle, much less with accused-appellant's
participation. In fact, there is even a variance concerning how accused-appellant
was discovered to be in possession of the vehicle. The prosecution's uncorroborated
evidence says accused-appellant was apprehended while driving the vehicle at a
checkpoint, although the vehicle did not bear any license plates, while the latter
testified he was arrested at home. The following testimony of prosecution witness
SPO2 Figueroa on cross-examination raises even more questions:
Q: You mentioned the car napping incident, when was that, Mr. witness?
ATTY. GONZALES:
Your Honor, I noticed that every time the witness gave his answer, he is looking at a
piece of paper and he is not testifying on his personal knowledge.

xx
xx
COURT:
The witness is looking at the record for about 5 min. now. Fiscal, here is another
witness who has lapses on the mind.
FISCAL MACARAIG:
I am speechless, Your Honor.
WITNESS:
It was not stated in my affidavit, sir the time of the carnapping incident.
ATTY. GONZALES:
Your Honor, if he can no longer remember even the simple matter when this car
napping incident happened then he is an incompetent witness and we are deprive (sic)
of the right to cross examine him. I move that his testimony would be stricken off from
the record.
xx
xx
Q: Mr. Witness, what is the date when you arrested the accused Fabian Urzais?
A: It was November 20, 2002 at around 3 o'clock in the afternoon, sir.
Q: You said earlier that on November 3, 2002 that you met the accused is that correct, Mr.
Witness?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Why did you see the accused on November 3, 2002, Mr. Witness?
A: During that time, we conducted a check point at AGL were (sic) the Highlander was often
seen, sir.
Q: So, since on November 3, 2002, you were conducting this check point at AGL, it is safe to
assume that the carnapping incident happened earlier than November 3, 2002?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Were you present when this vehicle was car napped, Mr. Witness?
A: No, sir.
Q: Since you were not present, you have no personal knowledge about this car napping
incident, right, Mr. Witness?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: No further question, Your Honor.[25]
Considering the dearth of evidence, the subject vehicle is at best classified as
"missing" since the non-return of the victim and his vehicle on 12 November 2002.
Why the check-point had begun before then, as early 3 November 2002, as stated
by the prosecution witness raises doubts about the prosecution's version of the
case. Perhaps, the check-point had been set up for another vehicle which had gone
missing earlier. In any event, accused-appellant's crime, if at all, was being in
possession of a missing vehicle whose owner had been found dead. There is
perhaps guilt in the acquisition of the vehicle priced so suspiciously below standard.
But how this alone should lead to a conviction for the special complex crime of
carnapping with homicide/murder, affirmed by the appellate court is downright
disturbing.
The application of disputable presumption found in Section 3 (j), Rule 131 of the
Rules of Court, that a person found in possession of a thing taken in the doing of a
recent wrongful act is the taker and doer of the whole act, in this case the alleged
carnapping and the homicide/murder of its owner, is limited to cases where such
possession is either unexplained or that the proffered explanation is rendered
implausible in view of independent evidence inconsistent thereto.[26] In the instant
case, accused-appellant set-up a defense of denial of the charges and adhered to
his unrebutted version of the story that the vehicle had been sold to him by the
brothers Alex and Ricky Bautista. Though the explanation is not seamless, once the
explanation is made for the possession, the presumption arising from the
unexplained possession may not anymore be invoked and the burden shifts once
more to the prosecution to produce evidence that would render the defense of the
accused improbable. And this burden, the prosecution was unable to discharge. In
contrast to prosecution witness SPO2 Figueroa's confused, apprehensive and
uncorroborated testimony accused-appellant unflinchingly testified as follows:
Q: Will you please tell us how you came into possession of this Isuzu Highlander with plate
number UTT 838?
A: That vehicle was brought by Ricky Bautista and Alex Bautista, sir.
xx
xx
Q: Do you know why Alex and Ricky Bautista gave you that Isuzu Highlander?
A: Actually that was not the vehicle I ordered form (sic) them, I ordered an owner type jeep
worth Php60,000 but on November 13, 2002 they brought that Isuzu Highlander, sir.
Q: Why did you order an owner type jeep from them?
A: Because I planned to install a trolley, cause I have a videoke for rent business, sir.
xx
xx
Q: What happened upon the arrival of this Alex and Ricky Bautista on that date and time?
A: I was a little bit surprise (sic) because Alex alighted from an Isuzu Highlander colored
green, sir.
Q: What happened after that?
A: I told them that it was not I ordered from you and my money is only Php60,000, sir.
Q: What did he told (sic) you?
A: He told me to give them the Php60,000 and they will leave the vehicle and when I have the
money next week I will send text message to them, sir.
Q: What was your reaction?
A: I was amazed because the vehicle is brand new and the price is low, sir.
xx
xx
Q: Did you find out anything about the Isuzu highlander that they left to you?
A: When I could not contact them I went to my friend Oscar Angeles and told him about the
vehicle then he told me that you better surrender the vehicle because maybe it is a hot car,
sir. "Nung hindi ko na po sila makontak ay nagpunta ako sa kaibigan kong si Oscar Angeles
at sinabi ko po yung problema tungkol sa sasakyan at sinabi nya sa akin na isurrender na
lang at baka hot car yan"[27]
xx
xx
Q: Mr. Witness, granting for the sake that what you are saying is true, immediately on the 16th,
according to your testimony, and upon confirming it to your friend, you then decided to
surrender the vehicle, why did you not do it on the 16th, why did you still have to wait until
you get arrested?
A: Because I was thinking of my Sixty Thousand Pesos (Php60,000.00) at that time, and on
how I can take it back, sir. ("Kasi nanghinayang po ako sa Sixty Thousand (Php60,000.00)
ko nung oras na un ... pano ko po yun mabawi sabi ko".)
xx
xx
Q: So Mr. Witness, let us simplify this, you have purchased a carnapped vehicle, your intention
is to surrender it but you never did that until you get caught in possession of the same, so in
other words, that is all that have actually xxx vehicle was found dead, the body was dumped
somewhere within the vicinity of Sta. Rosa, those are the facts in this case?
A: I only came to know that there was a dead person when I was already in jail, sir.
Q: What about the other facts that I have mentioned, are they correct or not?
A: When I gave the downpayment, I do not know yet that it was a hot car and I came to know it
only on the 16th, sir.[28]
Significantly, accused-appellant's testimony was corroborated by defense witness
Angeles who had known accused-appellant by his real name "Michael Tapayan y
Baguio," to wit:
Q: Do you know if this Michael Tapayan owns any vehicle sometime in 2002?
A: At first none, sir, he has no vehicle.
Q: What do you mean when you say at first he has no vehicle?
A: Later, sir, I saw him riding in a vehicle.
xx
xx
Q: Did Michael Tapayan tell you how much he bought that vehicle?
A: I remember he told me that he bought that vehicle for Thirty Thousand (Php30,000.00)
Pesos, sir.
Q: What was your reaction when you were told that the vehicle was purchased for only Thirty
Thousand Pesos (Php30,000.00)?
A: I told him that it's very cheap and also told him that it might be a carnap (sic) vehicle.
Q: What was the reaction of Michael Tapayan when you told him that?
A: He thought about it and he is of the belief that the person who sold the vehicle to him will
come back and will get the additional payment, sir.
Q: Aside from this conversation about that vehicle, did you have any other conversation with
Michael Tapayan concerning that vehicle?
A: After a few days, sir, I told him to surrender the said vehicle to the authorities because the
persons who sold it to him did not come back for additional payment.
Q: What was the reaction of Michael Tapayan to this suggestion?
A: He told me that he will think about it because he was thinking about the money that he
already gave to them.[29]
Evidently, the disputable presumption cannot prevail over accused-appellant's
explanation for his possession of the missing vehicle. The possession having been
explained, the legal presumption is disputed and thus, cannot find application in the
instant case. To hold otherwise would be a miscarriage of justice as criminal
convictions necessarily require proof of guilt of the crime charged beyond
reasonable doubt and in the absence of such proof, should not be solely based on
legal disputable presumptions.
The carnapping not being duly proved, the killing of the victim may not be treated
as an incident of carnapping. Nonetheless, even under the provisions of homicide
and murder under the Revised Penal Code, the Court finds the guilt of accusedappellant was not established beyond reasonable doubt.
There were no eyewitnesses to the killing of the victim, Mario Magdato. Again, both
courts relied only on the circumstantial evidence of accused-appellant's possession
of the missing vehicle for the latter's conviction. Shirley, the widow, testified that
her husband and their vehicle went missing on 12 November 2002. Dr. Concepcion
gave testimony on the cause of death of Mario Magdato and the injuries he had
sustained. Most glaringly, no connection had been established between the victim's
gunshot wound which caused his death and the firearm found in the person of
accused-appellant. Only SPO2 Figueroa's testimony gave light on how allegedly
accused-appellant was found to have been in possession of the missing vehicle of
the victim. But even if this uncorroborated testimony was true, it does not link
accused-appellant to the carnapping, much less, the murder or homicide of the
victim. And it does not preclude the probability of accused-appellant's story that he
had merely bought the vehicle from the Bautista brothers who have themselves
since gone missing.
The equipoise rule states that where the inculpatory facts and circumstances are
capable of two or more explanations, one of which is consistent with the innocence
of the accused and the other consistent with his guilt, then the evidence does not
fulfil the test of moral certainty and is not sufficient to support a conviction. The
equipoise rule provides that where the evidence in a criminal case is evenly
balanced, the constitutional, presumption of innocence tilts the scales in favor of
the accused.[30]
The basis of the acquittal is reasonable doubt, which simply means that the
evidence of the prosecution was not sufficient to sustain the guilt of accusedappellant beyond the point of moral certainty. Proof beyond reasonable doubt,
however, is a burden particular to the prosecution and does not apply to
exculpatory facts as may be raised by the defense; the accused is not required to
establish matters in mitigation or defense beyond a reasonable doubt, nor is he
required to establish the truth of such matters by a preponderance of the evidence,
or even to a reasonable probability.[31]
It is the primordial duty of the prosecution to present its side with clarity and
persuasion, so that conviction becomes the only logical and inevitable conclusion.
What is required of it is to justify the conviction of the accused with moral certainty.
Upon the prosecution's failure to meet this test, acquittal becomes the
constitutional duty of the Court, lest its mind be tortured with the thought that it
has imprisoned an innocent man for the rest of his life. [32] The constitutional right to
be presumed innocent until proven guilty can be overthrown only by proof beyond
reasonable doubt.[33]
In the final analysis, the circumstances narrated by the prosecution engender doubt
rather than moral certainty on the guilt of accused-appellant.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated
19 November 2012 in C.A. G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 04812 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
FABIAN URZAIS Y LANURIAS alias Michael Tapayan y Baguio is ACQUITTED on
reasonable doubt of the crime of carnapping with homicide, without prejudice to
investigation for the crime of fencing penalized under Presidential Decree 1612. His
immediate release from confinement is hereby ordered, unless he is being held for
some other lawful cause.
SO ORDERED.
Velasco, Jr., (Chairperson), Bersamin,** and Reyes, JJ., concur.
April 26, 2016

NOTICE OF JUDGMENT
Sirs / Mesdames:
Very truly yours,

**
Rollo, pp. 2-16; Penned by Associate Justice Jose C. Reyes, Jr. with Associate
Justices Mario V. Lopez and Socorro B. Inting concurring.
[1]
[2]
Records, pp. 216-226; Presided by Presiding Judge Angelo C. Perez.
[3]
Id. at 1.
[4]
TSN, 20 January 2004, pp. 3-6, 13; Testimony of Shirley.
[5]
Id. at 6-9.
TSN, 13 August 2004, pp. 3-8; TSN, 12 September 2006, p. 7; Testimony of

SPO2 Figueroa.
[6]
[7]
TSN, 18 April 2006, pp. 5-7; Testimony of Dr. Concepcion.
[8]
TSN, 9 December 2008, pp. 4-9; Testimony of Accused-Appellant.
[9]
TSN, 8 January 2009, pp. 8 and 13.
[10]
TSN, 9 December 2008, pp. 10-12.
[11]
TSN, 10 August 2010, pp. 3-5; Testimony of Angeles.
[12]
Section 3 (j), Rule 131 of the Revised Rules of Court.
[13]
Records, p. 221.
[14]
Id. at 226.
[15]
Id. at 229-231.
[16]
Rollo, pp. 23-24.
[17]
Id. at 38-51.
[18]
Id. at 25-27.
[19]
[20]
Section 2, R.A. No. 6539.
[21]
People v. Santos, 388 Phil. 993, 1005-1006 (2000).
[22]
Rollo, p. 10.
[23]
Section 4, Rule 133, Revised Rules of Court.
People v. Geron, 346 Phil. 14, 24 (1997); People v. Quitorio, 349 Phil. 114, 129
(1998); People v. Reyes, 349 Phil. 39, 58 (1998) citing People v. Binamira, G.R.
No. 110397, 14 August 1997, 277 SCRA 232, 249-250 citing People v. Adofina,
G.R. No. 109778, 8 December 1994, 239 SCRA 67, 76-77. See also People v.
Payawal, 317 Phil. 507, 515 (1995).
[24]
[25]
[26]
People v. Geron, supra note 23 at 25.
[27]
TSN 09 December 2008, pp. 4-8.
[28]
TSN dated 8 January 2009, pp. 11-13.
[29]
TSN dated 10 August 2010, pp. 4-5.
[30]
People v. Erguiza, 592 Phil. 363, 388 (2008).
[31]
People v. Geron, supra note 23 at 29 citing 23 C.J.S. 195-196.
[32]
People v. Cabalse, G.R. No. 146274, 17 August 2004, 436 SCRA 629, 640.
[33]
People v. Asis, 439 Phil. 707, 728 (2002).
ORDER OF RELEASE
TO: The Director
Bureau of Corrections
1770 Muntinlupa City
GREETINGS:
WHEREAS, the Supreme Court on April 13, 2016 promulgated a Decision in the
above-entitled case, the dispositive portion of which reads:
"WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated
19 November 2012 in C.A. G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 04812 is REVERSED andSET ASIDE.
FABIAN URZAIS Y LANURIAS alias Michael Tapayan y Baguio is ACQUITTED on
reasonable doubt of the crime of carnapping with homicide, without prejudice to
investigation for the crime of fencing penalized under Presidential Decree 1612. His
immediate release from confinement is hereby ordered, unless he is being held for
some other lawful cause.
SO ORDERED."
NOW, THEREFORE, You are hereby ordered to immediately release FABIAN
URZAIS Y LANURIAS unless there are other causes for which he should be further
detained, and to return this Order with the certificate of your proceedings within
five (5) days from notice hereof.
GIVEN by the Honorable PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR., Chairperson of the Third
Division of the Supreme Court of the Philippines, this 13th day of April 2016.
Very truly yours,


G.R.
No.
194119
SONIA F. MARIANO, PETITIONER, VS. MARTINEZ MEMORIAL COLLEGES, INC., AND/OR FERDINAND A. MARTINEZ/ DR.
ELIZABETH
M.
DEL
RIO,
RESPONDENTS.
April 13, 2016
THIRD DIVISION
[ G.R. No. 194119, April 13, 2016 ]
SONIA F. MARIANO, PETITIONER, VS. MARTINEZ MEMORIAL
COLLEGES, INC., AND/OR FERDINAND A. MARTINEZ/ DR.
ELIZABETH M. DEL RIO, RESPONDENTS.

DECISION
REYES, J.:
This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari[1] under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court filed
by Sonia F. Mariano (petitioner) seeking to annul and set aside the Decision [2]dated
July 19, 2010 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 110663. The CA
affirmed the Decision[3] dated June 30, 2009 and Resolution[4] dated August 18,
2009 of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) in NLRC LAC No. 11003867-08, which reversed the Decision[5] dated September 8, 2008 of the Labor
Arbiter (LA) in NLRC NCR Case No. 04-06111-08, declaring the petitioner's
dismissal from employment as illegal.
Facts of the Case
Martinez Memorial Colleges, Inc. (MMC) is a private educational institution located
in Caloocan City, with Ferdinand A. Martinez (Martinez) as the College incumbent
President and Dr. Elizabeth M. Del Rio (Del Rio) as the College Executive VicePresident (respondents).[6] On the other hand, the petitioner was MMC's Assistant
Cashier since April 15, 1976 and had been in service for 32 years. Part of her job
was to accept payments and issue receipts and deposit slips to MMC students. [7]
On March 12, 2008, the petitioner went on a one month authorized leave of
absence, as she and her husband Dario Mariano (Dario), Director for Finance of
MMC, would be vacationing in the United States. [8] When the petitioner reported
back to work on April 14, 2008, she received a Memorandum [9] dated April 8, 2008
signed by the respondents, stating that in line with the streamlining activities of
MMC, the petitioner would be transferred from the Cashier's Office to the Office of
the Vice-President (OVP) for Finance, her husband's office, effective April 15, 2008.
Eugene Bitancur was assigned to handle all the collections of MMC. The petitioner
alleged that the copies of the said memorandum had already been distributed to all
concerned immediately after the respondents signed it while she and her husband
were still on vacation.[10]
On the same day, Dario was invited to attend a special meeting of the Board of
Directors of MMC[11] where he had the opportunity to request for the petitioner's
reinstatement to the Cashier's Office, in deference to her long period of service to
MMC. MMC, however, denied his request. Dario then advised the petitioner to file an
extended leave of absence until April 21, 2008, which was granted. [12]
On April 22, 2008, the petitioner went to MMC to file another application for leave
as she was not feeling well but this was denied by the Muman Resources. When her
leave form was returned, there was a note from Del Rio, which reads: "Extension
disapproved until further notice due to on-going audit."[13] In the afternoon of the
same day, she consulted Dr. Arthur Torio, the resident physician on duty at Martinez
Memorial Hospital, who recommended her confinement. [14] She was hospitalized
until April 24, 2008.[15]
In the meantime, the Special Assistant to the President, Evelyn Muallil (Muallil),
who was tasked to conduct an audit review of MMC's Finance Department,
concluded her review which covered the period from 2004 to summer of 2008.
Evelyn submitted her report and findings dated April 23, 2008 to Martinez, and the
report showed the petitioner's improper handling of cash accounts of MMC. A
separate account called "non-essential accounts" in which some collections of MMC
were deposited and diverted from MMC's general fund was likewise discovered. The
non-essential accounts contained the total amount of P40,490,619.26. [16]
On April 28, 2008, the petitioner filed with the NLRC a Complaint [17] for constructive
dismissal against MMC and the respondents. The day after, or on April 29, 2008,
Dario received a letter[18] dated April 28, 2008 from Martinez, through MMC's
counsel, addressed to the petitioner, where the latter was asked to explain in
writing, within five days, her possible involvement in the diversion of MMC's funds.
Aside from the petitioner, her husband Dario, Roberto Martinez (Roberto), Daisy
Martinez (Daisy) and Eloida Cordero (Cordero), received similar letters. [19]
In their letter-answer[20] dated May 6, 2008, they explained that the MMC Board of
Directors sanctioned the non-essential account. Thinking that said letter-answer
was sufficient, the petitioner did not submit any separate reply.[21]
On May 14, 2008, the petitioner received a letter[22] dated May 7, 2008 from
Martinez, informing her that her employment has been terminated on the ground of
serious or gross dishonesty in relation to the discovered misappropriation and
diversion of funds of MMC, and aggravated by her continuous absence from office
without leave or any explanation.
Thereafter, the petitioner amended her complaint[23] with the NLRC to one of illegal
dismissal.
In response to the complaint, the respondents contended that before the end of the
last quarter of 2007, Martinez, in his capacity as President and Chief Executive of
MMC, came to know of the irregularities perpetuated in MMC related to the
collections and disbursements of the funds in which, the petitioner, in her capacity
as Assistant Cashier, was directly involved. In an effort to improve the operations of
MMC and to correct the improper and inappropriate handling of duties, Martinez
initiated its reorganization and streamlining of activities. Among those affected by

the streamlining was the petitioner, who was temporarily transferred to the OVP for
Finance. The last time she went to work was on April 14, 2008. [24]
On September 8, 2008, the LA rendered its Decision, [25] the dispositive portion of
which reads:
WHEREFORE, Judgment is hereby rendered declaring the dismissal of the
[petitioner] as illegal. Respondent [MMC] is [h]ereby ordered to pay [the petitioner]
her backwages from date of dismissal to date of decision in the amount of
PI00,000.00; separation pay in the amount of P800,000.00, and attorney's fees
equivalent to 10% of the total award.
The backwages shall stop only upon payment of separation pay.
SO ORDERED.[26]
The LA found the petitioner's dismissal as illegal for failure of the respondents to
prove lawful or just cause for the termination of her employment and for their
failure to accord her due process.[27]
On appeal, the NLRC vacated and set aside the LA's decision. The dispositive
portion of NLRC's Decision[28] dated June 30, 2009 provides:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal of respondents is hereby GRANTED.
The decision of the [LA] dated 8 September 2008 is hereby VACATED and SET
ASIDE.
The [petitioner] is DISMISSED for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.[29]
The petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration[30] on August 3, 2009, which was
denied by the NLRC in its Resolution[31] dated August 18, 2009.
The petitioner then went to the CA,[32] which denied her petition for lack of merit.
[33]
The CA agreed with the NLRC and found that the System Review Report
prepared by Muallil provided sufficient grounds for MMC to terminate the petitioner
from employment for serious or gross dishonesty. The CA said that the petitioner
was the Assistant Cashier who performs the duties of a cashier, position that
requires a high degree of trust and confidence, and her infraction reasonably taints
the trust and confidence reposed upon her by her employer.[34]
Unsatisfied, the petitioner instituted the present petition predicated on the ground
that
THE HONORABLE CA COMMITTED GRAVE AND SERIOUS ERROR IN UPHOLDING THE
DECISION OF THE NLRC THAT THE DISMISSAL OF THE PETITIONER IS LEGAL
DESPITE THE EXISTENCE OF SUBSTANTIAL AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE OF BAD
FAITH IN THE ILLEGAL DISMISSAL OF THE PETITIONER.[35]
The petitioner contends that she was illegally dismissed; that the respondents were
not able to comply with the twin requirements of notice and hearing as mandated
by law; that her transfer rests merely on Martinez's arbitrariness, whims, caprices
or suspicion; and that the loss of trust and confidence cannot be used against her
as there exist no solid and substantial grounds against her but merely suspicion.
Ruling of the Court
The Court has consistently adhered to the principle that the standard of review of a
CA decision in a labor case, brought to the Court via Rule 45 of the Rules of Court,
is limited to a review of errors of law.[36] The Court has to examine the CA decision
from the perspective of whether it correctly determined the presence or absence of
grave abuse of discretion in the NLRC decision before it, and not on the basis of
whether the NLRC decision on the merits of the case was correct. [37]
The issue to be resolved, therefore, is whether the CA committed a reversible error
in ruling that the NLRC did not commit any grave abuse of discretion in upholding
the petitioner's dismissal from MMC.[38]
Firstly, the petitioner argues that her transfer from the Cashier's Office to the OVP
for Finance placed her in a situation that was inconvenient, unreasonable and
prejudicial to her, and which provoked her to file a case for constructive dismissal.
She said that the transfer was allegedly in line with the ongoing streamlining
activities of MMC and based on a valid sound business policy, but husband and wife
in the same department especially in the Finance Department is not a healthy
business practice as this has an adverse effect on the check and balance principle.
The petitioner also contends that there was bad faith in her transfer because the
memorandum did not state any corresponding work assignments. [39]
The Court, however, finds that the CA correctly ruled that MMC's act of transferring
the petitioner from the Cashier's Office to the OVP for Finance is a valid exercise
of management prerogative.[40] The Court has often declined to interfere in
legitimate business decisions of employers,[41] as long as the company's exercise of
the same is in good faith to advance its interest and not for the purpose of
defeating or circumventing the rights of employees under the laws or valid
agreements.[42] In this case, the MMC's exercise of its management prerogative was
done for the advancement of its interest and not for the purpose of defeating the
lawful rights of the petitioner.[43] It was within MMC's discretion to allow husband
and wife to be in one department and there is no express prohibition on this matter.
The Board of Directors' decision to transfer the petitioner to her husband's
department did not cause any conflict at all and the same was on an interim basis
only. Moreover, the petitioner's transfer was akin to a reassignment pending an
investigation, which, as ruled in Endico v. Quantum Foods Distribution Center,[44] is
a valid exercise of management prerogative to discipline its employees. The Court
stated:
Reassignments made by management pending investigation of violations of
company policies and procedures allegedly committed by an employee fall within
the ambit of management prerogative. The decision of Quantum Foods to transfer
Endico pending investigation was a valid exercise of management prerogative to
discipline its employees. The transfer, while incidental to the charges against
Endico, was not meant as a penalty, but rather as a preventive measure to avoid
further loss of sales and the destruction of Quantum Foods' image and goodwill. It
was not designed to be the culmination of the then on-going administrative
investigation against Endico.[45] (Citation omitted)
As regards the petitioner's dismissal from employment, the Court also affirms the
CA ruling that the NLRC did not commit any grave abuse of discretion in declaring
its validity.
Article 296(c) (formerly Article 282[c]) of the Labor Code enumerates the just and
valid causes for the dismissal of an employee, viz.: (a) serious misconduct or willful
disobedience by the employee of the lawful orders of his employer or representative
in connection with her work; (b) gross and habitual neglect by the employee of her
duties; (c) fraud or willful breach by the employee of the trust reposed in her by her
employer or duly authorized representative; (d) commission of a crime or offense
by the employee against the person of her employer or any immediate member of
her family or her duly authorized representatives; and (e) other causes analogous
to the foregoing.
In this case, MMC's ground for terminating the petitioner's employment was
"serious or gross dishonesty and for having committed an offense against
[MMC],"[46]which was based on the findings in the System Review Report submitted
by Muallil. Another basis was the alleged diversion of MMC's funds wherein nonessential accounts or accounts payable to and for MMC were deposited to "private
accounts" in the names of Roberto and Cordero, and Cordero and Daisy. In
upholding the validity of the petitioner's dismissal on these grounds, the NLRC
ruled:
As shown in the System Review (Report for short) of [MMCJ, x x x, it was the
finding that [the petitioner] have been actually doing the work of a cashier, like
collecting, signing and issuing official receipts and issuing student assessment. She
is the one actually receiving payment and preparing the daily cashier's report. It
was further reported and we quote: "When she was subjected to a spot cash count,
she asked an accounting staff to print a Cashier's Report, opened her cabinet
drawer and counted money and gave the exact amount stated in the cashier's
report and handed them to the undersigned. When asked what the other cash in
the drawer are for, she immediately said that the examiner should not touch them
as they are from private business. When questioned why they are co-mingled with
the [MMC's] collection, she [the petitioner] said "syempre, ako ang nagma-manage
nuon!" x x x. The Report further said and we quote: "The exercise of the cash count
showed that custodian of collections was not aware of the standard auditing and
accounting practices of cashiering that is, company cash and monies, held on trust
with such custodian shall be clearly and fully accounted for, at anytime and not
mixed up with personal and other employee's business transactional proceeds." x x
x. More so, it was likewise admitted by [the petitioner] that the collection in her
possession on that day is actually from the previous day's collection but was not
able to turn over the same to Mr. Cordero as they run out of time. The Audit was
done at 2:00 p.m. x x x. The above findings were never rebutted nor denied by [the
petitioner] hence, it is considered true and would be prejudicial to the claim of [the
petitioner] that she was being accused of baseless wrong doings. In fact she was
caught red handed on the spot that she was remiss in the performance of her
duties, x x x.[47]
The CA agreed with the NLRC that the System Review Report prepared by Muallil
provided sufficient grounds for MMC to terminate the petitioner from employment of
serious or gross dishonesty,[48] and the Court finds no reversible error on the part of
the CA in doing so.
A review of the records shows that the petitioner failed to rebut the findings in the
System Review Report and insisted that she did not have the opportunity to contest
these because she was not furnished a copy. She also denied any knowledge
whatsoever regarding the alleged opening of said non-essential accounts, which,
according to her, were actually sanctioned by the MMC Board of Directors. [49] The
System Review Report, however, clearly showed that there was an improper
handling of MMC's cash accounts and that there was a separate account called nonessential accounts in which some of the collections of MMC were deposited and
diverted from the general fund.[50] Being the Assistant Cashier, it is doubtful that
she had no knowledge of the alleged opening of the "non-essential accounts"
because her tasks include acceptance of payments and the issuance of receipts and
bank deposit slips to MMC's students.[51] In fact, records show that she even issued
bank deposit slips to students for deposit of certain payments to these "non-
essential accounts." By and large, the petitioner's acts constituted dishonesty that
ultimately led to a breach of the trust reposed in her by MMC. As held in Gargoles
v. Del Rosario,[52] an act of dishonesty by an employee who has been put in charge
of the employer's money and property amounts to breach of the trust reposed by
the employer, and normally leads to loss of confidence in her, and such dishonesty
comes within the just and valid causes for the termination of employment under the
Labor Code. In the same vein, the Court has ruled that in dismissing a cashier on
the ground of loss of confidence, it is sufficient that there is some basis for the
same or that the employer has a reasonable ground to believe that the
employee is responsible for the misconduct, thus making him unworthy of
the trust and confidence reposed in him. Courts cannot justly deny the
employer the authority to dismiss him for employers are allowed wider latitude in
dismissing an employee for loss of trust and confidence.[53]
Finally, the petitioner contends that she had no opportunity to defend herself from
the charges as MMC deliberately failed to provide her a copy of the System Review
Report.[54]
In Sang-an v. Equator Knights Detective and Security Agency, Inc.,[55] the Court
held:
[T]he guarantee of due process, requiring the employer to furnish the employee
with two written notices before termination of employment can be effected: a first
written notice that informs the employee of the particular acts or omissions for
which his or her dismissal is sought, and a second written noticewhich informs
the employee of the employer's decision to dismiss him. In considering whether the
charge in the first notice is sufficient to warrant dismissal under the second notice,
the employer must afford the employee ample opportunity to be heard. [56]
Records show that Martinez, through MMC's counsel, sent a letter to the petitioner
ordering her to explain in writing her possible involvement in the diversion of MMC's
funds. The letter reads:
It has been disclosed through the audit report rendered by [Muallil], Special
Assistant to the President, MMC, that the non-essential accounts (NE) which are
account payable to and for the college are ordered to be deposited to "private
accounts" in the bank which are in the names of [Roberto] and [Cordero] for
Account No. 3801- 022-09, and of fCordero] and [Daisy] for Account No. 38010058-44. This is a clear act of diversion of funds of the college constituting
misappropriation or estafa for which you, as assistant cashier, and as the one who
issues the deposit slips to the students can be held liable with other persons who
are either directly or indirectly involved in said criminal act. [37]
The foregoing notice complies with the first written notice requirement as it
specified the ground for termination and gave the petitioner an opportunity to
explain her side. The due process mandate does not require that the entire report
from which the termination is based should be attached to the notice. What is
essential is that the particular acts or omissions for which her dismissal is sought
are indicated in the letter.
The petitioner also argues that while it may be that her termination comes within
the purview of a management prerogative, Martinez should have called for a
meeting or conference with the other affected officials. [58] Her position, however, is
untenable considering that a letter was already sent to them where they were
ordered to explain within five days their possible involvement in the alleged
diversion of funds, and they were able to explain their side in a joint letteranswer[59] dated May 6, 2008. A hearing does not strictly mean a personal or faceto-face confrontation. It is sufficient that an employee has the meaningful
opportunity to controvert the charges against him and to submit evidence in
support thereof.[60]
Accordingly, the CA's denial of the petitioner's petition must be upheld.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.
June 15, 2016
Sirs/Mesdames:
Very truly yours,

(SGD)
WILFREDO V. LAPITAN
[1]
Rollo, pp. 10-30.
Penned by Associate Justice Isaias Dicdican, with Associate Justices Stephen C.

Cruz and Danton Q. Bueser concurring; id. at 35-48.
[2]
Rendered by Presiding Commissioner Alex A. Lopez, with Commissioners

Gregorio O. Bilog III and Pablo C. Espiritu, Jr. concurring; CA rollo, pp. 277-290.
[3]
[4]
Id. at 33 1-332.
[5]
Issued by Labor Arbiter Eduardo G. Magno; rollo, pp. 87-94.
[6]
Id. at 96.
[7]
Id. at 36.
[8]
Id., CA rollo, p. 84.
[9]
CA rollo, p. 85.
[10]
Rollo, p. 36.
[11]
CA rollo, p. 86.
[12]
Id. at 87.
[13]
Id. at 88.
[14]
Rollo, p. 37.
[15]
Id. at 36-37.
[16]
Id. at 39.
[17]
CA rollo, pp. 49-51
[18]
Id. at 92. Rollo, pp. 37-38.
[19]
Rollo, pp. 37-38.
[20]
[21]
Rollo, p. 38.
[22]
CA rollo, p. 105.
[23]
Id. at 52-54.
[24]
Rollo, pp. 38-39.
[25]
Id. at 87-94.
[26]
Id. at 94.
[27]
Id. at 93.
[28]
[29]
Id. at 290.
[30]
Id. at 291-308.
[31]
Id. at 331-332.
[32]
Id. at 11-48.
[33]
Rollo, p. 47.
[34]
Id. at 44.
[35]
Id. at 19.
[36]
Bani Rural Bank, Inc., el al. v. De Guzman, et al., 721 Phil. 84, 98 (2013).
Id., citing Monloya v. Trammed Manila Corp./Mr. Ellena, et al., 613 Phil. 696,
707 (2009)
[37]
[38]
Rollo, p. 19.
[39]
Id. at 19-20.
[40]
Id. at 45.
[41]
Tinio v. CA, 55 1 Phil. 972, 98 1 (2007).
Union Carbide Labor Union v. Union Carbide Phils., Inc., G.R. No. 41314
November 13 1992 215 SCRA 554, 557.
[42]
[43]
Pantoja v. SCA Hygiene Products Corp., 633 Phil. 235, 236 (20 10).
[44]
597 Phil. 295 (2009).
[45]
Id. at 306-307.
[45]
CA rollo, p. 105.
[47]
Id. at 283-284.
[48]
Rollo, p. 44.
[49]
Id. at 23.
[50]
Id. at 39.
[51]
CA rollo, p. 283.
[52]
G.R. No. 158583, September 10, 2014, 734 SCRA 558.
P.J. Lhuillier, Inc. and Mario Ramon Ludena v. Flordeliz Velayo, G.R No 198620
November 12,2014.
[53]
[54]
Rollo, p. 24.
[55]
703 Phil. 492(2013).
[56]
Id. at 502.
[57]
CA rollo, p. 92.
[58]
Rollo, pp. 19-20.
[59]
New Puerto Commercial, et al. v. Lopez, et al., 639 Phil. 437, 445-446 (2010),
citing, Perez, et al. v. Philippine Telegraph and Telephone Co., et al., 602 Phil. 522,
538 (2009).
[60]

G.R.
No.
202618
CONSULAR AREA RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION, INC., REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT BENJAMIN V. ZABAT, ROMEO
JUGADO, JR., AND NANCY QUINO, PETITIONER, VS. ARNEL PACIANO D. CASANOVA, ENGR. TOMAS Y. MACROHON,
LOCAL
HOUSING
BOARD
OF
TAGUIG
CITY,
AND
THE
CITY
GOVERNMENT
OF
TAGUIG,
RESPONDENTS.
April 12, 2016
FIRST DIVISION
[ G.R. No. 202618, April 12, 2016 ]
CONSULAR AREA RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION, INC.,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT BENJAMIN V. ZABAT,
ROMEO JUGADO, JR., AND NANCY QUINO, PETITIONER, VS.
ARNEL PACIANO D. CASANOVA, ENGR. TOMAS Y.
MACROHON, LOCAL HOUSING BOARD OF TAGUIG CITY, AND
THE CITY GOVERNMENT OF TAGUIG, RESPONDENTS.
DECISION
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:
Before the Court is a petition[1] denominated as one for "Prohibition with plea for
the issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order and Injunction" filed by petitioner
Consular Area Residents Association, Inc., an association composed of residents of
the Diplomatic and Consular Area of Fort Bonifacio, Taguig City, represented by its
President Benjamin V. Zabat, Romeo Jugado, Jr., and Nancy Quino (petitioner),
against respondents Arnel Paciano D. Casanova (Casanova), President and Chief
Executive Officer of the Bases Conversion and Development Authority (BCDA), Engr.
Tomas Macrohon[2] (Engr. Macrohon), as well as the Local Housing Board of Taguig
City, and the City Government of Taguig, seeking that the BCDA be enjoined from
demolishing what it claims as the remaining structures in the Joint US Military Army
Group (JUSMAG) Area in Fort Bonifacio, Taguig City.
The Facts
In 1992, Congress enacted Republic Act No. (RA) 7227, [3] otherwise known as the
Bases Conversion and Development Act of 1992, which, inter alia, created the
BCDA in order to "accelerate the sound and balanced conversion into alternative
productive uses of the Clark and Subic military reservations and their extensions
(i.e., John Hay Station, Wallace Air Station, O'Donnell Transmitter Station, San
Miguel Naval Communications Station, and Capas Relay Station)" and "to raise
funds by the sale of portions of Metro Manila military camps." [4] For this purpose,
the BCDA was authorized to own, hold, and administer portions of the Metro Manila
military camps that may be transferred to it by the President.[5] In this relation,
Executive Order (EO) No. 40, Series of 1992[6] was issued, identifying Fort Bonifacio
as one of the military camps earmarked for development and disposition to raise
funds for BCDA projects.[7]
Located in Fort Bonifacio are the JUSMAG and Diplomatic and Consular Areas
subject of this case.[8] The JUSMAG Area is a 34.5-hectare area located along
Lawton Avenue where military officers, both in the active and retired services, and
their respective families, had occupied housing units and facilities originally
constructed by the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP). [9] Presently, it is being
developed by Megaworld Corporation as the McKinley West. [10] On the other hand,
the Diplomatic and Consular Area was declared as alienable and disposable land by
virtue of Proclamation No. 1725,[11] signed on February 10, 2009. Its administrative
jurisdiction, supervision, and control were transferred to the BCDA, which is
likewise responsible for maintaining the usefulness of the area. [12]
On July 18, 2012, the Local Housing Board of Taguig City issued a Certificate of
Compliance on Demolition[13] declaring that the BCDA had complied with the
requirement of "Just and Humane Demolition and Eviction," prescribed under
Section 28 of RA 7279,[14] otherwise known as the "Urban Development and
Housing Act of 1992," for the demolition of structures within the JUSMAG Area.
Consequently, respondent Casanova, as President and Chief Executive Officer of the
BCDA, sent a Letter[15] dated July 20, 2012, informing petitioner and its members
that they should, within a seven (7)-day period ending on July 27, 2012, coordinate
with BCDA officials should they choose to either accept the relocation package
being offered to them, or voluntarily dismantle their structures and peacefully
vacate the property.
Petitioner filed the present case to enjoin the demolition of their structures which
they claimed are within the Diplomatic and Consular Area, and not the JUSMAG
Area. They averred that the BCDA itself declared in its own website that the
Diplomatic and Consular Area is not its property,[16] and that its members are
occupying the Diplomatic and Consular Area with the consent of the Republic of the
Philippines given at the time of their assignments in the military service, [17] and
hence, cannot be demolished, especially in the absence of a court order.
[18]
Furthermore, petitioner posited that Casanova had no authority to act for and in
behalf of the BCDA considering his "highly anomalous and irregular" appointment as
President thereof.[19]
In their Comment,[20] respondents Casanova and Engr. Macrohon maintained that
the clearing operations undertaken by the BCDA covered only the JUSMAG area, on
which the structures possessed by petitioner's members are located. [21] They also
argued that under Section 28 (b) of RA 7279, eviction or demolition is allowed
when government infrastructure projects with available funding are about to be
implemented, even in the absence of a court order.[22] Moreover, they maintained
that respondent Casanova acted with authority as President and Chief Executive
Officer of the BCDA, having been duly appointed by the President of the Philippines,
[23]
and in any event, the instant case has already been rendered moot and
academic because the act sought to be enjoined, i.e., the demolition of the
remaining structures in the JUSMAG Area, was already completed on September
21, 2012.[24]
Respondents Local Housing Board of Taguig City and the City Government of Taguig
likewise filed their own Comment,[25] substantially adopting the contentions
propounded by respondents Casanova and Engr. Macrohon. Separately, however,
they contended that the instant petition should have been filed before the Regional
Trial Court (RTC) exercising jurisdiction over the territorial area, instead of the
Supreme Court.[26]

The main issue in this case is whether or not the demolition should be enjoined.
The Court's Ruling
The Court first resolves the preliminary concerns raised.
For one, respondents Local Housing Board of Taguig City and the City Government
of Taguig seek the outright dismissal of the petition on the ground that it should
have been filed before the RTC, and not before the Supreme Court. As basis, they
cite Section 4, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, which provision applies to, among
others, petitions for prohibition, viz.:
RULE 65
Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus
Section 4. When and where to file the petition. x x x x
If the petition relates to an act or an omission of a municipal trial court or of a
corporation, a board, an officer or a person, it shall be filed with the Regional Trial
Court exercising jurisdiction over the territorial area as defined by the Supreme
Court. It may also be filed with the Court of Appeals or with the Sandiganbayan
whether or not the same is in aid of the court's appellate jurisdiction. If the petition
involves an act or an omission of a quasi-judicial agency, unless otherwise provided
by law or these rules, the petition shall be filed with and be cognizable only by the
Court of Appeals.
xxxx
While the instant petition is denominated as one for prohibition, a careful perasal of
the same reveals that it is actually a petition for injunction as it ultimately seeks
that a writ of injunction be issued to pennanently stop "[respondents, or any other
person acting under their orders or authority, from carrying out, or causing to carry
out, the demolition of [p]etitioner's properties." [27] More significantly, respondents
(with the exception of Casanova as will be herein discussed) are not asked to be
prevented from exercising any judicial or ministerial function on account of any lack
or excess of jurisdiction, or grave abuse of discretion, which allegation is key in an
action for prohibition. Case law dictates that "[f]or a party to be entitled to a writ of
prohibition, he must establish the following requisites: (a) it must be directed
against a tribunal, corporation, board or person exercising functions,
judicial[, quasi-judiciall or ministerial; (b) the tribunal, corporation, board

or person has acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction, or with grave
abuse of discretion; and (c) there is no appeal or any other plain, speedy, and
adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law."[28] In his opinion in the case
of Nuclear Free Philippine Coalition v. National Power Corporation, [29] former Chief
Justice Ramon Aquino discussed the basic distinction between an action for
prohibition and one for injunction:
Prohibition is not the same as injunction. Lawyers often make the mistake of
confusing prohibition with injunction. Basically, prohibition is a remedy to stop a
tribunal from exercising a power beyond its jurisdiction, x x x.
Prohibition is an extraordinary prerogative writ of a preventive nature, its proper
function being to prevent courts or other tribunals, officers, or persons from
usurping or exercising a jurisdiction with which they are not vested.
It is a fundamental rule of procedural law that it is not the caption of the pleading
that determines the nature of the complaint but rather its allegations. [30] Hence,
considering the above-discussed allegations, the petition, albeit denominated as
one for prohibition, is essentially an action for injunction, which means that Section
4, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court would not apply.
Instead, it is Section 21 of RA 7227, which solely authorizes the Supreme Court to
issue injunctions to restrain or enjoin "[t]he implementation of the projects for the
conversion into alternative productive uses of the military reservations," that would
govern:[31]
Section 21. Injunction and Restraining Order. - The implementation of the projects
for the conversion into alternative productive uses of the military reservations are
urgent and necessary and shall not be restrained or enjoined except by an order
issued by the Supreme Court of the Philippines.(Emphasis supplied)
Notably, while the petition asks in the final item of its "PRAYER" that a "writ of
prohibition be issued commanding respondents, especially Casanova, from usurping
or exercising jurisdiction with which he has not been vested by law", [32] this relief,
when read together with the pertinent allegations in the body of the petition, [33] is
one which is directed against the title of respondent Casanova as President and
Chief Executive Officer of the BCDA. Particularly, it is claimed that respondent
Casanova's appointment was "highly anomalous and irregular" as it was made
contrary to Section 9[34] of RA 7227, which purportedly mandates that the Chairman
of the BCDA shall also be its President.
The Court observes that the collateral attack on respondent Casanova's title as
President and Chief Executive Officer, which is a public office by nature, [35] is
improper to resolve in this petition. The title to a public office may not be contested
except directly, by quo warranto proceedings; and it cannot be assailed collaterally.
[36]
Also, it has already been settled that prohibition does not lie to inquire into
the validity of the appointment of a public officer.[37] In fact, petitioner
impliedly recognized the impropriety of raising this issue herein by stating that
"until the final resolution regarding the purported authority of [respondent
Casanova], he should be prohibited from acting for and on behalf of BCDA and from
issuing notices of demolition."[38] Thus, at all events, the foregoing characterization
of this action as one for injunction, and the consequent conclusion that it was
properly filed before the Court remain. That being said, the Court now proceeds to
the main issue in this case.
As earlier mentioned, petitioner ultimately seeks the issuance of a writ of injunction
to enjoin the demolition of the structures which they - as opposed to respondents'
version - claim to be located in the Diplomatic and Consular Area, and hence,
outside of the JUSMAG Area.
Jurisprudence teaches that in order for a writ of injunction to issue, the petitioner
should be able to establish: (a) a right in esse or a clear and unmistakable right to
be protected; (b) a violation of that right; and (c) that there is an urgent and
permanent act and urgent necessity for the writ to prevent serious damage. In the
absence of a clear legal right, the writ must not issue. A restraining order or an
injunction is a preservative remedy aimed at protecting substantial rights and
interests, and it is not designed to protect contingent or future rights. Verily, the
possibility of irreparable damage without proof of adequate existing rights is not a
ground for injunction.[39]
In this case, the Court finds that petitioner has failed to prove that the structures
for which they seek protection against demolition fall within the Diplomatic and
Consular Area. Its supposition is anchored on two (2) documents, namely: (a) a
printed copy of BCDA's declaration in its website that the Diplomatic and Consular
Area is a non-BCDA property;[40] and (b) a map of the South Bonifacio Properties
showing the metes and bounds of the properties of the BCD A as well as the
properties contiguous to them.[41] However, none of these documents substantiate
petitioner's claim: the website posting is a mere statement that the Diplomatic
Consular Area is supposedly a non-BCDA property, whereas the map only depicts
the metes and bounds of the BCDA's properties.
Plainly, none of them show whether or not the structures to be demolished are
indeed within the Diplomatic and Consular Area as petitioner claims. On the other
hand, records show that on the basis of Relocation Survey Plan Rel-00001297[42] approved by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources
(DENR), the BCDA came up with a Structural Map of the JUSMAG Area,
[43]
conducted ground surveys, and tagged the location of informal settlers whose
structures will be affected by the demolition.[44] In this relation, the Urban Poor
Affairs Office of the City of Taguig assisted the BCDA in the conduct of house
tagging and validation of the affected families in the JUSMAG Area as well as a joint
inspection to verify the boundaries of the JUSMAG and Diplomatic and Consular
Areas.[45] Relying on the prima faciecredibility of these documents as opposed to
petitioner's flimsy argumentation, the Court finds that respondents have correctly
identified petitioner's structures as those belonging to the JUSMAG Area. Thus,
since petitioner's purported right in esse is hinged on the premise that the
structures do not fall within the JUSMAG but within the Diplomatic and Consular
Area, the petition should already fail.
For another, petitioner argues against the legality of the intended demolition,
insisting that there should be a court order authorizing the demolition pursuant to
Article 536[46] of the Civil Code and Section 28 of RA 7279, and not a mere
Certificate of Compliance on Demolition.[47] However, contrary to petitioner's
argument, the Court has already settled, in the case of Kalipunan ng Damay ang
Mahihirap, Inc. v. Robredo,[48] that demolitions and evictions may be validly
carried out even without a judicial order when, among others, government
infrastructure projects with available funding are about to be implemented
pursuant to Section 28 (b) of RA 7279, which reads:
Sec. 28. Eviction and Demolition. Eviction or demolition as a practice shall be
discouraged. Eviction or demolition, however, may be allowed under the following
situations:
(a) When persons or entities occupy danger areas such as esteros, railroad tracks,
garbage dumps, riverbanks, shorelines, waterways, and other public places such as
sidewalks, roads, parks, and playgrounds;
(b) When government infrastructure projects with available funding are
about to be implemented; or
(c) When there is a court order for eviction and demolition.
xxxx
Records show that the demolition of the properties is the precursory step to the
conversion of the JUSMAG area into a residential and mixed-use development [49] as
provided under the terms of a Joint Venture Agreement dated April 13,
2010[50] between the BCDA and Megaworld Corporation. As such, it falls within the
ambit of Section 28 (b) of RA 7279, which authorizes eviction or demolition without
the need of a court order.

Likewise, there is no merit to petitioner's statement that there was non-compliance
with the parameters of just and humane eviction or demolition under the same
provision, namely:
Sec. 28. Eviction and Demolition. x x x
xxxx
In the execution of eviction or demolition orders involving underprivileged and
homeless citizens, the following shall be mandatory:
(1) Notice upon the effected persons or entities at least thirty (30) days prior to the
date of eviction or demolition;
(2) Adequate consultations on the matter of settlement with the duly designated
representatives of the families to be resettled and the affected communities in the
areas where they are to be relocated;
(3) Presence of local government officials or their representatives during eviction or
demolition;
(4) Proper identification of all persons taking part in the demolition;
(5) Execution of eviction or demolition only during regular office hours from
Mondays to Fridays and during good weather, unless the affected families consent
otherwise;
(6) No use of heavy equipment for demolition except for structures that are
permanent and of concrete materials;
(7) Proper uniforms for members of the Philippine National Police who shall occupy
the first line of law enforcement and observe proper disturbance control
procedures; and
(8) Adequate relocation, whether temporary or permanent: Provided, however,
That in cases of eviction and demolition pursuant to a court order involving
underprivileged and homeless citizens, relocation shall be undertaken by the local
government unit concerned and the National Housing Authority with the assistance
of other government agencies within forty-five (45) days from service of notice of
final judgment by the court, after which period the said order shall be
executed: Provided, further, That should relocation not be possible within the said
period, financial assistance in the amount equivalent to the prevailing minimum

daily wage multiplied by sixty (60) days shall be extended to the affected families
by the local government unit concerned.
The Department of the Interior and Local Government and the Housing and Urban
Development Coordinating Council shall jointly promulgate the necessary rules and
regulations to carry out the above provision.
Particularly, petitioner decries that the demolition is premature as the notice given
to them was not issued thirty (30) days prior to the intended date of the same.
However, records show that the demolition fully - if not, substantially - complied
with all the parameters laid down under Section 28 (b) as above-quoted, including
the thirty (30) day prior notice rule, considering the following unrefuted
circumstances: (a) a Local Inter-Agency Committee consisting of members of the
BCDA, local government of Taguig, the Housing and Urban Development
Coordinating Council, the Presidential Commission for the Urban Poor, the People's
Organization, the Commission on Human Rights, and various barangays of Fort
Bonifacio was convened for the purpose of conducting meetings and consultations
with the affected settlers;[51] (b) after said meetings and consultations, the said
Committee came up with a financial compensation and relocation package which it
offered to those affected by the demolition and eviction of the JUSMAG Area; [52] and
(c) affected settlers were given numerous 30-day notices of the impending
demolition and eviction activities, with the warning that their failure to heed the
same would constitute a waiver of their right to claim anything under the aforesaid
financial compensation and relocation package.[53]
In fact, it is in view of the above-enumerated accomplished acts that respondent
Local Housing Board of Taguig City issued a Certificate of Compliance on Demolition
dated July 18, 2012 certifying that the BCDA "has complied with the requirement of
'Just and Humane Demolition and Eviction' prescribed under Section 28, prerelocation phase of [RA] 7279 or the Urban Development and Housing Act (UDHA)
of 1992." Hence, bereft of any clear and convincing evidence to the contrary, such
certificate should be accorded the presumption of regularity in the performance of
the official duties of respondent Local Housing Board of Taguig City. Case law states
that "[t]he presumption of regularity of official acts may be rebutted by affirmative
evidence of irregularity or failure to perform a duty. The presumption, however,
prevails until it is overcome by no less than clear and convincing evidence
to the contrary. Thus, unless the presumption in rebutted, it becomes
conclusive. Every reasonable intendment will be made in support of the
presumption and in case of doubt as to an officer's act being lawful or
unlawful, construction should be in favor of its lawfulness,"[54] as in this
case.
As a final note, attention should be drawn to the manifestation of respondents that

the demolition and eviction activities in the JUSMAG Area, on which petitioner's
claimed structures belong, had already been performed and completed on
September 21, 2012.[55] Thus, since prayers for injunctive reliefs do not lie to
restrain an act that is already fait accompli,[56] there is no other proper course of
action but to dismiss the petition.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.
Sereno, C.J., (Chairperson), Leonardo-De Castro, Bersamin,, and Caguioa, JJ.,
concur.
[1]
Rollo, pp. 3-15.
Engr. Macrohon appears to be an officer of the BCDA, although his actual

position/designation at the time the acts complained of is not ascertainable from
the records.
[2]
Entitled "AN ACT ACCELERATING THE CONVERSION OF MILITARY RESERVATIONS

INTO OTHER PRODUCTIVE USES, CREATING THE BASES CONVERSION AND
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY FOR THE PURPOSE. PROVIDING FUNDS THEREFOR AND
FOR OTHER PURPOSES," approved on March 13,1992.
[3]
[4]
See id.
Republic of the Philippines v. Sonthside Homeowners Association, Inc., 534 Phil.

8, 14 (2006).
[5]
Entitled "IMPLEMENTING THE PROVISIONS OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 7227

AUTHORIZING THE BASES CONVERSION AND DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (BCDA)
TO RAISE FUNDS THROUGH THE SALE OF METRO MANILA MILITARY CAMPS
TRANSFERRED TO BCDA TO FORM PART OF ITS CAPITALIZATION AND TO BE USED
FOR THE PURPOSES STATED IN SAID ACT," dated December 8, 1992.
[6]
Samahan ng Masang Filipino sa Makati, Inc. v. Bases Conversion Development

Authority, 542 Phil. 86, 105 (2007).
[7]
[8]
Rollo, p. 23.
See id. at 21. See also Republic of the Philippines v. Southside Homeowners
Association, Inc., supra note 5, at 14.
[9]
See http://www.bcda.gov.ph/investments_and_projects/show/44 (last accessed

March 21, 2016); See also
http://www.bcda.gov.ph/investments_and_projects/show/50 (last accessed March
21,2016).
[10]
Entitled "DECLARING CERTAIN PARCELS OF LAND AS ALIENABLE AND

DISPOSABLE IDENTIFIED AS THE DIPLOMATIC AND CONSULAR AREA SITUATED IN
FORT BONIFACIO, TAGUIG, METRO MANILA, ISLAND OF LUZON AND
TRANSFERRING TO THE BASES CONVERSION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (BCDA)
THE ADMINISTRATION THEREOF."
[11]
[12]
Id.
[13]
Rollo, p. 37
"An Act to Provide for A Comprehensive and Continuing Urban Development and
Housing Program, establish the mechanism for its implementation, and for Other
purposes," approved on March 24, 1992.
[14]
[15]
Rollo, p. 20.
[16]
Id. at 8.
[17]
Id. at 13.
[18]
Id. at 10-12.
[19]
Id. at 9-10.
[20]
Id. at 40-54.
[21]
Id. at 42-43.
[22]
Id. at 46-47.
[23]
Id. at 44-45.
[24]
Id. at 51-52.
[25]
Id. at 148-158
[26]
Id. at 148-150.
[27]
Rollo, p. 14.
Monies v. CA, 523 Phil. 98, 107 (2006), citing Longino v. General, 491 Phil. 600
616 P005)
[28]
[29]
225 Phil. 266, 276 (1986), citing 73 C.J.S. 10.
[30]
Anadon v. Herrera, 553 Phil. 759, 765 (2007).
See Samahan ng Masang Pilipino sa Makati, Inc. v. Bases Conversion

Development Authority, 542 Phil. 86, 91 (2007).
[31]
[32]
Rollo, p. 14.
[33]
Id. at 9-10.
SECTION 9. Board of Directors: Composition. The powers and functions of the

Conversion Authority shall be exercised by a Board of Directors to be composed of
nine (9) members, as follows:
(a) A full-time chairman who shall also be the president of the Conversion
Authority; and
(b) Eight (8) other members from the private sector, two (2) of whom coming from
the labor sector.
The chairman and members shall be appointed by the President with the consent of
the Commission on Appointments. Of the initial members of the Board, three (3)
including the chairman, a representative from the private sector and a
representative from the labor sector shall be appointed for a term of six (6) years,
three (3) for a term of four (4) years and the other three (3) for a term of two (2)
years. In case of vacancy in the Board, the appointee shall serve the unexpired
term of the predecessor,
"[the] Bases Conversion Development Authority (BCDA) is a government owned
and controlled corporation (GOCC) created under Republic Act No. 7227 or the
Bases Conversion and Development Act of 1992,3 as amended by Republic Act No.
7917."(Bases Conversion Development Authority v. Provincial Agrarian Reform
Officer of Pampanga, G.R. Nos. 155322-29, June 27, 2012, 675 SCRA 7, 8). Hence,
the position of BCDA President and Chief Executive is public in nature.
[35]
[36]
Topacio v. Associate Justice of the Sandiganbayan Gregory Santos Ong, 595
Phil. 491, 503 (2008).

[37]
See id.
[38]
Rollo, p. 10.
Samahan ng Masang Filipino sa Makati, Inc. v. Bases Conversion Development

Authority. See supra note 7, at 97.
[39]
[40]
Rollo, pp. 21-22.
[41]
Id. at 23.
[42]
Id. at 58-60.
[43]
Id. at 61-64.
[44]
Id. at 43.
[45]
Id. at 154. See also id. at 119-128.
Art. 536. In no case may possession be acquired through force or intimidation as

long as there is a possessor who objects thereto. He who believes that he has an
action or a right to deprive another of the holding of a thing, must invoke the aid of
the competent court, if the holder should refuse to deliver the thing.
[46]
[47]
Rollo, pp. 10-12.
[48]
G.R. No. 200903, July 22, 2014, 730 SCRA 322, 337.
[49]
Rollo, p. 70.
[50]
Id.at 70-113.
[51]
[52]
Id. at 129.
[53]
See id. See also id. at 49-51 and 155.
Bustillo v. People, 634 Phil. 547, 556 (2010), citing People v. De Guzman, G.R.
No. 106025, February 9, 1994, 229 SCRA 795, 799
[54]
[55]
Rollo, pp. 51-52.
See Bemardez v. COMELEC, 628 Phil. 720, 732 (2010), citing Caneland Sugar
Corporation v. Alon, 559 Phil. 462, 471 (2007).
[56]

G.R.
No.
209165
LNL ARCHIPELAGO MINERALS, INC., PETITIONER, VS. AGHAM PARTY LIST (REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT REP.
ANGELO
B.
PALMONES),
RESPONDENT.
April 12, 2016
EN BANC
[ G.R. No. 209165, April 12, 2016 ]
LNL ARCHIPELAGO MINERALS, INC., PETITIONER, VS.
AGHAM PARTY LIST (REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT REP.
ANGELO B. PALMONES), RESPONDENT.
DECISION
CARPIO, J.:
The Case
This is a petition for review on certiorari[1] assailing the Amended Decision dated 13
September 2013[2] of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 00012.
The Facts
Petitioner LNL Archipelago Minerals, Inc. (LAMI) is the operator of a mining claim
located in Sta. Cruz, Zambales. LAMI's mining area is covered by Mineral Production
Sharing Agreement[3] No. 268-2008-III dated 26 August 2008 by virtue of an
Operating Agreement[4] dated 5 June 2007 with Filipinas Mining Corporation.
LAMI embarked on a project to build a private, non-commercial port in Brgy.
Bolitoc, Sta. Cruz, Zambales. A port is a vital infrastructure to the operations of a
mining company to ship out ores and other minerals extracted from the mines and
make the venture economically feasible. Brgy. Bolitoc, about 25 kilometers away
from the mine site, makes it an ideal location to build a port facility. In the area of
Sta. Cruz, Shangfil Mining and Trading Corporation (Shangfil)/A3Una Mining
Corporation (A3Una) and DMCI Mining Corporation, have been operating their own
ports since 2007.
LAMI secured the following permits and compliance certificates for the port project:
(1) Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) Environmental
Compliance Certificate[5] (ECC) R03-1104-182 dated 2 May 2011 covering the
development of causeway, stockpile and related facilities on LAMI's property with an
area of 18,142 sq.m.; (2) DENR provisional foreshore lease agreement with LAMI;
[6]
(3) Philippine Ports Authority (PPA) Clearance to Develop a Port; [7] (4) PPA Permit
to Construct a Port;[8] (5) PPA Special Permit to Operate a Beaching Facility;[9] and
(6) Tree Cutting Permit/Certification[10] from the Community Environment and
Natural Resources Office (CENRO) of the DENR.
The Zambales Alliance, a group of other mining companies operating in Sta. Cruz,
Zambales which do not have their own port, namely Eramen Minerals, Inc.;
Zambales Diversified Metals Corporation; Zambales Chromite Mining Corporation,
Inc.; BenguetCorp Nickel Mines, Inc., supported the port project of LAMI and issued
Letters[11]of Intent to use the port facilities of LAMI upon completion.
The Bolitoc community - the barangay, its officials and residents -gave several
endorsements[12] supporting the project. Even the Sangguniang Bayan of Sta. Cruz
gave its consent to the construction of the port.[13]
However, LAMI allegedly encountered problems from the local government of Sta.
Cruz, headed by Mayor Luisito E. Marty (Mayor Marty). LAMI stated that Mayor
Marty unduly favored some mining companies in the municipality and allegedly
refused to issue business and mayor's permits and to receive payment of
occupation fees from other mining companies despite the necessary national
permits and licenses secured by the other mining companies.
On 24 April 2012, Mayor Marty issued an order [14] directing LAMI to refrain from
continuing with its clearing works and directed the Sta. Cruz Municipal Police Chief
Generico Binan to implement his order. On 26 April 2012, LAMI responded through
a letter[15] explaining that Mayor Marty's order was illegal and baseless. Chief Binan,
together with two of his deputies, went to LAMI's port site to demand that LAMI
cease its clearing works. LAMI's supervisor showed Chief Binan all of LAMI's
permits. In a Memorandum dated 3 May 2012, Chief Binan made a report to his
supervisor, S/Supt. Francisco DB Santiago, Jr. (S/Supt. Santiago), Zambales Police
Provincial Director, that there was no leveling of a mountain on the port site. On 6
May 2012, S/Supt. Santiago made a Special Report re: Police Assistance [16] to the
Philippine National Police (PNP) Regional Director citing the findings of Chief Bian.
Thereafter, Rep. Dan Fernandez, a member of the Committee on Ecology of the
House of Representatives, passed House Resolution No. 117 (HR 117) entitled
"Resolution Directing the Committee on Ecology to Conduct an Inquiry, in Aid of
Legislation, on the Implementation of Republic Act No. 7942, Otherwise Known as
the Philippine Mining Act of 1995, Particularly on the Adverse Effects of Mining on
the Environment." HR 117 was issued in order to conduct an alleged ocular
inspection of the port site in aid of legislation. On 21 May 2012, the Committee on
Ecology conducted an ocular inspection of the LAMI port site, as well as the other
ports adjacent to LAMI's - those of Shangfil/A3Una and D.M. Consunji, Inc. The
Committee allegedly never visited any mining site in the area of Sta. Cruz.
Meanwhile, on 30 April 2012, the DENR Environmental Management Bureau in
Region III (DENR-EMB R3) received a letter dated 27 April 2012 from Mayor Marty
inquiring if the ECC the DENR issued in favor of LAMI allowed LAMI to cut trees and
level a mountain.
On 25 May 2012, representatives from the DENR Provincial Environment and
Natural Resources Office (PENRO) in Zambales and the local government of Sta.
Cruz conducted an ECC compliance monitoring of LAMI's property. The DENR
PENRO team found that LAMI violated some of its conditions under the ECC.
Accordingly, a Notice of Violation (NOV) dated 1 June 2012 was issued against LAMI
for violation of certain conditions of the ECC with a cease and desist order from
further constructing and developing until such time that the ECC conditions were
fully complied.
On 8 June 2012, a technical conference was held where LAMI presented its reply to
the NOV. The DENR-EMB R3 ascertained that LAMI's violations of the four conditions
of its ECC constitute minor violations since they only pertain to non-submission of
documents. However, the leveling of the elevated portion of the area was a major
violation. A penalty was consequently imposed on LAMI, and the DENR-EMB R3
directed LAMI to (1) immediately cause the installation of mitigating measures to
prevent soil erosion and siltation of the waterbody, and (2) submit a rehabilitation
plan.
On 11 June 2012, LAMI wrote a letter[17] to the DENR-EMB R3 regarding the
commitments agreed upon during the technical conference. LAMI signified
compliance with the conditions of DENR-EMB R3. Attached to the letter were: (1)
Official Receipt of payment of penalties under Presidential Decree (PD) No. 1586,
(2) Matrix of Mitigation and Rehabilitation Plan, (3) Designation of Pollution Control
Officer dated 6 May 2011, and (4) Tree Cutting Permit dated 17 April 2012 issued
by DENR R3 CENRO.[18]
On 20-21 June 2012, the DENR composite team, composed of DENR-EMB R3, Mines
and Geosciences Bureau (MGB) R3 and PENRO Zambales, conducted an
investigation to determine whether mitigating measures done by LAMI were
sufficient. The composite team found that LAMI's activities in its property would not
result to any environmental damage to its surrounding communities.
Thereafter, the DENR-EMB R3 lifted the cease and desist order after LAMI was found
to have complied with the requirements. In a Letter[19] dated 24 October 2012,
Lormelyn E. Claudio (Dir. Claudio), the Regional Director of DENR-EMB R3 wrote:
xxxx
The violated ECC conditions have been rectified and clarified while the penalty
corresponding to such violation was fully paid and the required rehabilitation and
mitigating measures were already implemented as committed. As such, the matter
leading to the issuance of the NOV is now resolved.
As ECC holder, you are enjoined to ensure the effective carrying out of your
Environmental Management and Monitoring Plan.[20]
Meanwhile, earlier, or on 6 June 2012, respondent Agham Party List (Agham),
through its President, former Representative Angelo B. Palmones (Rep. Palmones),
filed a Petition[21] for the issuance of a Writ[22] of Kalikasan against LAMI, DENR, PPA,
and the Zambales Police Provincial Office (ZPPO).
Agham alleged that LAMI violated: (1) Section 68[23] of PD No. 705,[24] as amended
by Executive Order No. III,[25] or the Revised Forestry Code; and (2) Sections
57[26] and 69[27] of Republic Act No. 7942,[28] or the Philippine Mining Act of 1995
(Philippine Mining Act). Agham added that LAMI cut mountain trees and flattened a
mountain which serves as a natural protective barrier from typhoons and floods not
only of the residents of Zambales but also the residents of some nearby towns
located in Pangasinan.
On 13 June 2012, this Court remanded the petition [29] to the Court of Appeals for
hearing, reception of evidence and rendition of judgment.
On 25 June 2012, LAMI filed its Verified Return dated 21 June 2012, controverting
Agham's allegations. LAMI stated that it did not and was not violating any
environmental law, rule or regulation. LAMI argued that: (1) LAMI had the
necessary permits and authorization to cut trees in the port site; (2) LAMI had the
necessary permits to construct its port; (3) LAMI consulted with and obtained the
support of the Sangguniang Barangay and residents of Barangay Bolitoc; (4) LAMI's
port site is located on private and alienable land; (5) there is no mountain on the
port site; (6) the Philippine Mining Act is irrelevant and inapplicable to the present
case; and (7) the other allegations of Agham that LAMI violated environmental
laws, rules or regulations are likewise baseless, irrelevant and false. LAMI stated
further that there is no environmental damage of such magnitude as to prejudice
the life, health, or property of inhabitants in two or more cities and provinces.
Public respondents DENR, PPA and ZPPO, filed with the Court of Appeals their PreTrial Brief dated 1 August 2012. In the Pre-Trial Brief, public respondents stated that
they will present the following witnesses: (1) Dir. Claudio, Regional Director, DENREMB R3; two from the PPA - (2) Engineer Marieta G. Odicta (Engr. Odicta), Division
Manager, Engineering Services Division, Port District Office, Manila, Northern Luzon;
and (3) Emma L. Susara (Ms. Susara), Department Manager, Commercial Services
of the PPA (NCR); and (4) S/Supt. Santiago, Provincial Director of the ZPPO.
The witnesses of public respondents submitted their Judicial Affidavits dated 6
August 2012. The testimonies of the witnesses were offered to prove the facts and
allegations in the petition:
(1) Dir. Claudio[30] a) That the issues presented by Agham were already subject of the complaint filed by
Mayor Marty with the DENR-EMB R3;
b) That the DENR-EMB R3 issued an ECC to LAMI;
c) That the DENR-EMB R3 acted on the complaint of Mayor Marty with regard to
construction by LAMI of its port facility;
d) That the DENR-EMB R3 issued a NOV dated 1 June 2012 to LAMI;
e) That the DENR-CENRO issued a tree cutting permit to LAMI;
f) That there is no mountain within or inside the property of LAMI in Brgy. Bolitoc,
Sta. Cruz, Zambales;
g) That the cutting of the trees and the partial leveling of a landform (which is
determined to be an "elongated mound" but is alleged to be a "mountain" by the
petitioner) conducted by LAMI in its property in Brgy. Bolitoc, Sta. Cruz,
Zambales do not pose adverse environmental impact on the adjoining
communities more so to the larger areas or the entire provinces of Zambales and
Pangasinan.
(2) Eng. Odicta[31] a) That the PPA issued a permit to construct to LAMI only after due application and
submission of the required documents;
b) That other private companies, namely: DMCI Mining Corporation and
Shangfil/A3Una constructed port facilities along the Brgy. Bolitoc coastline and
contiguous to where the port facility of LAMI is located.
(3) Ms. Susara[32] a) That the PPA issued a clearance to develop and a permit to operate to LAMI only
after due application and submission of the required documents;
b) That other private port facilities, namely: DMCI Mining Corporation,
Shangfil/A3Una are operating along the Brgy. Bolitoc coastline and contiguous to
where the port facility of LAMI is located; and
c) That since the 1970's, the coastline along Brgy. Bolitoc, Municipality of Sta. Cruz,
Zambales, has been the location of port facilities necessary for mining operations
in the province of Zambales.
(4) S/Supt. Santiago[33] a) That the members and officials of the ZPPO did not violate, or threaten with
violation, petitioner's right to a balanced and healthful ecology;
b) That the members and officials of the ZPPO did not cover-up any alleged illegal
activity of LAMI; and
c) The contents of the Memorandum (Special Report re: Police Assistance) dated 6
May 2012 submitted by S/Supt. Santiago to the PNP Regional Director.
On 10 September 2012, Agham presented its first and only witness, former Rep.
Angelo B. Palmones. Rep. Palmones was cross-examined by counsel for LAMI and
counsel for public respondents DENR, PPA, and ZPPO.[34]
On 26 September 2012, public respondents presented their witnesses. [35]
On 28 September 2012, LAMI manifested that it was adopting the testimonies of
the witnesses of the public respondents. On the same hearing, LAMI presented its
witness, Felipe E. Floria, LAMI's Vice-President and General Manager.[36]
In a Decision[37] dated 23 November 2012, the Court of Appeals decided the case in
favor of petitioner. The appellate court found that the government, through the
CENRO, authorized LAMI to cut trees and LAMI strictly followed the proper
guidelines stated in the permit. The appellate court also stated that there can be no
flattening of a mountain when there is no mountain to speak of. Thus, for failing to
comply with the requisites necessary for the issuance of a Writ of Kalikasan, the
Court of Appeals resolved to deny the petition. The dispositive portion of the
Decision states:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is hereby DENIED.

SO ORDERED.[38]
Agham filed a Motion for Reconsideration with the Court of Appeals. In its Motion
for Reconsideration, Agham argued that the alleged leveling of the subject hill by
LAMI: (1) was not sanctioned by the DENR since LAMI allegedly had no ECC from
the DENR; (2) affected the ecological balance of the affected towns and provinces
since such leveling was done without the concurrence of its residents; and (3)
instigated the gradual eradication of the strip of land mass in Sta. Cruz, Zambales
that serves as protective barrier from floods brought about by the swelling or
surging of the coastal water moving inward reaching other towns of Zambales and
Pangasinan.[39]
On 4 February 2013, LAMI filed its Comment/Opposition to the Motion for
Reconsideration. Agham then filed its Reply dated 21 February 2013.
In a Resolution dated 6 March 2013, the Court of Appeals declared that Agham's
Motion for Reconsideration was submitted for resolution. Subsequently, Agham filed
a Supplemental Reply dated 29 April 2013 reiterating the same arguments.
In a Resolution[40] dated 31 May 2013, the Court of Appeals set Agham's Motion for
Reconsideration for hearing on 13 June 2013. At the hearing, all parties were given
time to argue their case. Thereafter, the Motion for Reconsideration was submitted
for resolution.
Agham then filed a Manifestation dated 17 June 2013 summarizing its arguments.
On 4 July 2013, LAMI filed a Motion to Expunge with Ad Cautelam
Comment/Opposition. On 11 July 2013, the Court of Appeals, for the last and third
time, submitted the Motion for Reconsideration for resolution.
In an Amended Decision dated 13 September 2013, the Court of Appeals reversed
and set aside its original Decision dated 23 November 2012. The dispositive portion
of the Decision states;
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Decision dated November 23, 2012 is
hereby RECONSIDERED and SET ASIDE and, in lieu thereof, another judgment is
rendered GRANTING the petition for WRIT OF KALIKASAN as follows, to wit:
(1) respondent LNL Archipelago Minerals, Inc. (LAMI) is directed to PERMANENTLY
CEASE and [DESIST] from scraping off the land formation in question or from
performing any activity/ies in violation of environmental laws resulting in
environmental destruction or damage;
(2) the respondent LAMI as well as the Secretary of Department of Environment

and Natural Resources and/or their representatives are directed to PROTECT,
PRESERVE, REHABILITATE and/or RESTORE the subject land formation including the
plants and trees therein;
(3) the Secretary of DENR and/or his representative is directed to MONITOR strict
compliance with the Decision and Orders of the Court; and make PERIODIC
REPORTS on a monthly basis on the execution of the final judgment.
SO ORDERED.[41]
Hence, the instant petition.
The Issues
The issues for our resolution are (1) whether LAMI violated the environmental laws
as alleged by Agham, and (2) whether LAMI flattened any mountain and caused
environmental damage of such magnitude as to prejudice the life, health or
property of inhabitants in two or more cities or provinces.
The Court's Ruling
Petitioner contends that it has the necessary permits and authorization to cut trees
on the port site, controverting the allegation of Agham that it violated Section 68 of
the Revised Forestry Code, as amended. Petitioner also insists that it did not violate
nor is it violating the Mining Act as alleged by Agham. Petitioner argues that it is
not conducting any mining activity on the port site since the mine site is about 25
kilometers away from the port site. Further, petitioner adds that after filing its
Verified Return dated 21 June 2012, Agham never mentioned again the alleged
violation of the Revised Forestry Code, as amended, and the Philippine Mining Act.
Instead, Agham changed its position and later claimed that LAMI was flattening a
mountain on the port site which was allegedly illegal per se. Petitioner insists that
Agham did not even present evidence to establish any environmental damage which
is required for the issuance of the privilege of the Writ of Kalikasan.
Respondents, on the other hand, assert that even if the subject land formation is
not a mound, hill or mountain, the fact remains that the scraping and leveling done
by petitioner caused serious environmental damage which affects not only the
municipality of Sta. Cruz, Zambales but also the nearby towns of Zambales and
Pangasinan.
The present case involves the extraordinary remedy of a Writ of Kalikasan which is
under the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases.[42] Section 1, Rule 7, Part III
of the said Rules provides:
Section 1. Nature of the writ. - The writ is a remedy available to a natural or
juridical person, entity authorized by law, people's organization, non-governmental
organization, or any public interest group accredited by or registered with any
government agency, on behalf of persons whose constitutional right to a balanced
and healthful ecology is violated, or threatened with violation by an unlawful act or
omission of a public official or employee, or private individual or entity, involving
environmental damage of such magnitude as to prejudice the life, health or
property of inhabitants in two or more cities or provinces.
The Writ of Kalikasan, categorized as a special civil action and conceptualized as an
extraordinary remedy,[43] covers environmental damage of such magnitude that will
prejudice the life, health or property of inhabitants in two or more cities or
provinces. The writ is available against an unlawful act or omission of a public
official or employee, or private individual or entity.
The following requisites must be present to avail of this remedy: (1) there is an
actual or threatened violation of the constitutional right to a balanced and healthful
ecology; (2) the actual or threatened violation arises from an unlawful act or
omission of a public official or employee, or private individual or entity; and (3) the
actual or threatened violation involves or will lead to an environmental damage of
such magnitude as to prejudice the life, health or property of inhabitants in two or
more cities or provinces.
In the present case, Agham, in its Petition for a Writ of Kalikasan, cited two laws
which LAMI allegedly violated: (1) Section 68 of the Revised Forestry Code, as
amended; and (2) Sections 57 and 69 of the Philippine Mining Act.
Section 68 of the Revised Forestry Code, as amended, states:
Sec. 68. Cutting, Gathering and/or collecting Timber, or Other Forest Products
Without License. Any person who shall cut, gather, collect, remove timber or other
forest products from any forest land, or timber from alienable or disposable public
land, or from private land, without any authority, or possess timber or other forest
products without the legal documents as required under existing forest laws and
regulations, shall be punished with the penalties imposed under Articles 309 and
310 of the Revised Penal Code: Provided, That in the case of partnerships,
associations, or corporations, the officers who ordered the cutting, gathering,
collection or possession shall be liable, and if such officers are aliens, they shall, in
addition to the penalty, be deported without further proceedings on the part of the
Commission on Immigration and Deportation.
xxxx
There are two distinct and separate offenses punished under Section 68 of PD 705:
(1) Cutting, gathering, collecting and removing timber or other forest products from
any forest land, or timber from alienable or disposable public land, or from private
land without any authorization; and
(2) Possession of timber or other forest products without the legal documents
required under existing forest laws and regulations. [44]
In the present case, LAMI was given a Tree Cutting Permit [45] by the CENRO dated
17 April 2012. In the permit, LAMI was allowed to cut 37 trees with a total volume
of 7.64 cubic meters within the port site, subject to the condition that the trees cut
shall be replaced with a ratio of 1-30 fruit and non-bearing fruit trees. Thereafter,
the Forest Management Service and Forest Utilization Unit, both under the DENR,
issued a Post Evaluation Report[46] dated 3 May 2012 stating that LAMI properly
followed the conditions laid down in the permit. The relevant portions of the Post
Evaluation Report state:
x x x the following findings and observations are noted:
1. That the tree cutting implemented/conducted by the company was confined
inside Lot No. 2999, Cad 316-D situated at Barangay Bolitoc, Sta. Cruz, Zambales
and within the area previously granted for tree cutting;
2. It was found that the thirty seven (37) trees of various lesser- known species
and fruit bearing trees with a total volume of 7.64 cubic meters as specified in the
permit were cut as subject trees are located within the directly affected areas of the
port facility project of the company;
3. The other trees previously inventoried and are not directly affected by the
project within the same lot are spared; and
4. There are forty four (44) various species of miscellaneous trees counted and left
with a computed volume of 6.04 cubic meters.
Relative the above findings and in compliance with the terms and conditions of the
permit issued, the company should be reminded to replace the trees cut therein as
specified in support with the environmental enhancement program of the DENR.
xxxx
Since LAMI strictly followed the permit issued by the CENRO and even passed the
evaluation conducted after the issuance of the permit, then clearly LAMI had the
authority to cut trees and did not violate Section 68 of the Revised Forestry Code,
as amended.
Next, Agham submitted that LAMI allegedly violated Sections 57 and 69 of the
Philippine Mining Act.
Sections 57 and 69 of the Philippine Mining Act state:
Section 57. Expenditure for Community Development and Science and Mining
Technology - A contractor shall assist in the development of its mining community,
the promotion of the general welfare of its inhabitants, and the development of
science and mining technology.
Section 69. Environmental Protection - Every contractor shall undertake an
environmental protection and enhancement program covering the period of the
mineral agreement or permit. Such environmental program shall be incorporated in
the work program which the contractor or permittee shall submit as an
accompanying document to the application for a mineral agreement or permit. The
work program shall include not only plans relative to mining operations but also to
rehabilitation, regeneration, revegetation and reforestation of mineralized areas,
slope stabilization of mined-out and tailings covered areas, aquaculture, watershed
development and water conservation; and socioeconomic development.
These two provisions are inapplicable to this case. First, LAMI is not conducting any
mining activity on the port site. LAMI's mine site is about 25 kilometers away from
the port site. Second, LAMI secured all the necessary permits and licenses for the
construction of a port and LAMI's activity was limited to preparatory works for the
port's construction. The Philippine Mining Act deals with mining operations and
other mining activities. Sections 57 and 69 deal with the development of a mining
community and environmental protection covering a mineral agreement or permit.
Here, Agham reasoned that LAMI was destroying the environment by cutting
mountain trees and leveling a mountain to the damage and detriment of the
residents of Zambales and the nearby towns of Pangasinan. Agham simply
submitted a picture taken on 4 June 2012 where allegedly the backhoes owned by
LAMI were pushing the remnants of the mountain to the sea.
This explanation, absent any concrete proof, is untenable.
Clearly, Agham did not give proper justifications for citing Sections 57 and 69 of the
Philippine Mining Act. Agham did not even present any evidence that LAMI violated
the mining law or any mining undertakings in relation to LAMI's construction of a
port facility. Agham only alleged in very general terms that LAMI was destroying the
environment and leveling a mountain without conducting any scientific studies or
submitting expert testimonies that would corroborate such allegations.
Section 2(c), Rule 7, Part III of the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases
provides:
Section 2. Contents of the petition. - The verified petition shall contain the
following:
(c) The environmental law, rule or regulation violated or threatened to be violated,
the act or omission complained of, and the environmental damage of such
magnitude as to prejudice the life, health or property of inhabitants in two or more
cities or provinces.
The Rules are clear that in a Writ of Kalikasan petitioner has the burden to prove
the (1) environmental law, rule or regulation violated or threatened to be violated;
(2) act or omission complained of; and (3) the environmental damage of such
magnitude as to prejudice the life, health or property of inhabitants in two or more
cities or provinces.
Even the Annotation to the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases states that
the magnitude of environmental damage is a condition sine qua non in a petition for
the issuance of a Writ of Kalikasan and must be contained in the verified petition.
Agham, in failing to prove any violation of the Revised Forestry Code, as amended,
and the Philippine Mining Act, shifted its focus and then claimed that LAMI allegedly
flattened or leveled a mountain.
The mountain, according to Agham, serves as a natural protective barrier from
typhoons and floods to the residents of Zambales and nearby towns of Pangasinan.
Thus, Agham argues that once such natural resources are damaged, the residents
of these two provinces will be defenseless and their life, health and properties will
be at constant risk of being lost.
However, Agham, in accusing that LAMI allegedly flattened a mountain, did not cite
any law allegedly violated by LAMI in relation to this claim. Agham did not present
any proof to demonstrate that the local residents in Zambales, and even the nearby
towns of Pangasinan, complained of any great danger or harm on the alleged
leveling of the land formation which may affect their lives, health or properties.
Neither was there any evidence showing of a grave and real environmental damage
to the barangay and the surrounding vicinity.
To belie Agham's contentions, the records, from the testimonies of those experts in
their fields, show that there is in fact no mountain in Brgy. Bolitoc, Sta. Cruz,
Zambales.
First, in the Judicial Affidavit[47] dated 6 August 2012, the Regional Director of DENR
EMB R3, Dir. Claudio, categorically declared that there is no mountain on LAMI's
property. The relevant portions state:
32. Q: One of the complaints of Mayor Marty in his letter dated 27 April 2012, x x x,
is that LAMI is "leveling a mountain" in its property in Barangay Bolitoc, Sta. Cruz,
Zambales. Is there really a mountain in the property of LAMI in the said place?
A: None, sir. The subject landform is not considered as a mountain based on
commonly accepted description of a mountain as having 300 meters to 2,500
meters height over base. The highest elevation of the project area is 23 meters.
33. Q: Do you have any proof that the landform in LAMI's property is not a
mountain?
A: Yes, sir. The Mines and Geosciences Bureau (MGB), Regional Office No. Ill,
through the OIC of the Geosciences Division, issued a Memorandum dated June 26,
2012 proving that there is no mountain in LAMI's property. The proper description
of the landform, according to the said memorandum, is an "elongated mound" [48]
Second, LAMI, through the Judicial Affidavit[49] dated 3 August 2012 of Felipe E.
Floria, LAMI's Vice-President and General Manager, was able to establish that Brgy.
Bolitoc, Sta. Cruz had no mountain. The relevant portions provide:
126. Q: Why do you say that this elevated portion is not a "mountain"? A: The port site where the
alleged mountain is located is only 1.8 hectares of alienable and disposable land. It is
private property, lawfully possessed by LAMI, with the latter exercising rights based on its
occupation thereof. The mound and/or ridge within the private property is only about 23
meters high. The base or footing of the mound therein which the Petitioner insists is a
mountain is only 1.5 hectares, and the height is approximately 23 meters. I have been
advised that a mountain, as described by the United Nations Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre ("UNEP-WCMC"), must be, at least, of a height
greater than 300 meters or 984 feet in addition to other requirements on slope and local
elevation range. In other countries, the United Kingdom for example, the minimum height
requirement is 2,000 ft or 609.6 meters.[50]
Third, several government entities and officials have declared that there is no
mountain on the port site: (1) in a Letter[51] to LAMI signed by the Sangguniang
Bayanmembers of Sta. Cruz dated 4 June 2012, the Sangguniang Bayan members
stated that there is no mountain in the area; (2) in a Memorandum [52] dated 4 June
2012, the CENRO concluded that the "mountain" is a "hill falling under Block I,
Alienable and Disposable land per LC Map 635"; and (3) in a Special Report [53] re:
Police Assistance dated 6 May 2012, the Provincial Director of PNP Zambales
reported to the PNP Regional Director, citing the findings of the local chief of police,
that no leveling of a mountain transpired in the area.
Last, in an Inspection Report[54] dated 26 June 2012, the Mines and Geosciences
Bureau, Geosciences Division of the DENR concluded that the "mountain" is only an
elongated mound. The findings and conclusion of the report provide:
FINDINGS
1. The Bolitoc LAMI Port Facility is approximately centered at the intersection of
geographic coordinates 1545'00.4" north latitude and 11953' 19.9" east
longitude, x x x. It is bounded on the north by the West Philippine Sea (Bolitoc
Bay), on the west and east by the continuation of the elevated landform, and to the
south by an unnamed creek and a concrete barangay road connecting the Brgy.
Bolitoc to the Zambales National Highway.
Brgy. Bolitoc also hosts the port facilities of the DMCI and the Shangfil Corporation
both of which occupy the former loading site of the defunct Acoje Mining
Corporation.
2. The landform of interest is characterized by a roughly east-west trending
elevated and elongated landmass. Within the LAMI site, the elevated landform
measures 164 meters in length and about 94 meters in width and is almost parallel
to the coastline. It has a maximum elevation located at its eastern end of 26
meters above mean sea level more or less. Its western end has an elevation of 23
meters above mean sea level more or less xxx. The landform is about 16 meters
higher than the barangay road and nearby houses xxx.
From the LAMI area, the landform continues eastwards to the DMCI and the
Shangfil Port facilities and also westwards to the vicinity of Brgy. Bolitoc proper.
3. The area is underlain by interbedded calcareous sandstone, shale, and siltstone
of the Cabaluan Formation (formerly Zambales Formation), xxx. Rock outcrops
show the sedimentary sequence displaying almost horizontal to gently dipping beds
cut by a minor fault. These rocks weather into a 1 -2 meter silty clay.
DISCUSSION
Considering elevated landform of interest measures 164 meters in length and about
94 meters in width disposed in an elongate manner with a maximum elevation of
26 meters more or less above mean sea level and is about 16 meters higher than
the barangay road and nearby houses and using the Glossary of Landforms and
Geologic Terms x x x by Hawley and Parsons, 1980 above that the elevated
landform is neither a mountain or hill, but instead it is considered
elongated landmass/or elongated mound.
CONCLUSION
Based on the above geological and landform (geomorphic)
classification, considering its elevation of 23 to 26 meters above mean sea
level and which is 16 meters above the barangay road and vicinity, the
elevated landform present in the LAMI port facility is neither a hill or
mountain. Its elevation of 16 meters above its vicinity is lower than a hill
(30 meters). Its height above its vicinity can be possibly categorized as a
mound which is defined by the Dictionary of Geological terms (1976) prepared by
the American Geological Institute as which defines a mound as "a low hill of earth,
natural or artificial." In the United Kingdom, mounds are also called hillocks or
knolls. The term elongated is prefixed as a modifier to describe its east-west
disposition. Hence, the elevated landform of interest is considered as
elongated mound.[55] (Emphasis supplied)
On the other hand, the lone witness of Agham, former Rep. Palmones, admitted in
the 10 September 2012 hearing conducted by the Court of Appeals that he was
incompetent to prove that the elevated ground located in Brgy. Bolitoc is a
mountain. The relevant portions[56] of Rep. Palmones' testimony provide:
Atty. Gallos: Mr, Congressman, you conducted an ocular inspection in Brgy. Bolitoc
in Sta. Cruz, Zambales on May 21? Cong. Palmones: Yes.
xxxx
Atty. Gallos: That was the first time you were in Brgy. Bolitoc? Cong. Palmones:
Yes.
Atty. Gallos: That was also the first and the last ocular inspection that you did so far
in Brgy. Bolitoc? Cong. Palmones: Yes.
xxxx
Atty. Gallos: What is the name of this mountain?
Cong. Palmones: I really don't know the name of the mountain, Your
Honor.
Atty. Gallos: What is the elevation or height of this mountain?

Cong. Palmones: I really don't know the elevation of that mountain, Your
Honors.
Atty. Gallos: What is the base of this mountain?
Cong. Palmones: I really don't know, Your Honors.
Atty. Tolentino: Your Honor, the witness is incompetent to answer the
questions.
Cong. Palmones: I'm not competent to answer that question.
Atty. Gallos: Your Honor, that's exactly our point. He is claiming that there
is a mountain but he cannot tell us the height, the slope, the elevation, the
base, Your Honor. So you admit now that you do not know, you do not have
the competence to state whether or not there is a mountain?
Cong. Palmones: I really don't know what is the technical description of a
mountain but based on the information that we got from the community
during the consultation it's full of vegetation before it was leveled down by
the operation, Your Honors. (Emphasis supplied)
Agham, in its Motion for Reconsideration with the Court of Appeals, then asserted
that even if the subject land formation is not a mound, hill or mountain, the fact
remains that the scraping and leveling done by petitioner caused serious
environmental damage which affects not only Sta. Cruz, Zambales but also the
nearby towns of Zambales and Pangasinan.
The Court of Appeals, in granting the Motion for Reconsideration embodied in its
Amended Decision dated 13 September 2013, held that what LAMI did was not to
simply level the subject land formation but scrape and remove a small mountain
and, thereafter, reclaim a portion of the adjacent waters with the earth it took
therefrom, making out of the soil gathered to construct a seaport. The Court of
Appeals stated that the scraping off or the cutting of the subject land formation by
LAMI would instigate the gradual eradication of the strip of land mass in Brgy.
Bolitoc which serves as protective barrier to floods brought about by the swelling or
surging of the coastal water moving inward reaching other towns of Zambales and
Pangasinan. The Court of Appeals added that the port site is prone to frequent visits
of tropical depression and that the coastal portions of the "Sta. Cruz Quadrangle Zambales and Pangasinan province" are touted to be highly susceptible to landslide
and flooding.
We do not subscribe to the appellate court's view.
First, the Court of Appeals did not provide any basis, in fact and in law, to support
the reversal of its original decision. Agham, in its Motion for Reconsideration, did
not present new evidence to refute its claim that LAMI leveled a "mountain" or that
there was an environmental damage of considerable significance that will harm the
life, health and properties of the residents of the municipality of Sta. Cruz and its
neighboring towns or cities, or even the provinces of Zambales and Pangasinan. The
pleadings and documents submitted by Agham were just a reiteration of its original
position before the original Court of Appeals' decision was promulgated on 23
November 2012.
It is well-settled that a party claiming the privilege for the issuance of a Writ of
Kalikasan has to show that a law, rule or regulation was violated or would be
violated. In the present case, the allegation by Agham that two laws - the Revised
Forestry Code, as amended, and the Philippine Mining Act - were violated by LAMI
was not adequately substantiated by Agham. Even the facts submitted by Agham to
establish environmental damage were mere general allegations.
Second, Agham's allegation that there was a "mountain" in LAM's port site was
earlier established as false as the "mountain" was non-existent as proven by the
testimonies of the witnesses and reports made by environmental experts and
persons who have been educated and trained in their respective fields.
Third, contrary to Agham's claim that LAMI had no ECC from the DENR, the DENR
restored LAMI's ECC. After LAMI was issued a Notice of Violation of its ECC dated 1
June 2012 by the DENR-EMB R3, LAMI complied with all the requirements and its
ECC had been reinstated. In the Letter[57] dated 24 October 2012, Dir. Claudio
wrote:
xxxx
Regarding the alleged cutting of trees and leveling of the mountain, we have
verified that:
1. There is no illegal cutting of trees since a Tree Cutting Permit was issued by the
Community Environment and Natural Resources Office (CENRO). Monitoring of the
compliance with the conditions of the said Permit was also undertaken by the
CENRO; and
2. There is no leveling of a mountain. As certified by the Mines and Geosciences
Bureau Region 3, the landform in the area is an elongated mound which is 164
meters in length and 94 meters in width and its maximum elevation is 26 meters
above mean sea level.
Further, we recognize your efforts in revegetating the exposed side slopes of the cut
portion of the mound and the construction of drainage system and silt traps to
prevent the siltation of the bay.
The violated ECC conditions have been rectified and clarified while the penalty
corresponding to such violation was fully paid and the required rehabilitation and
mitigating measures were already implemented as committed. As such, the matter
leading to the issuance of the NOV is now resolved.
As ECC holder, you are enjoined to ensure the effective carrying out of your
Environmental Management and Monitoring Plan.
Even Rep. Dan S. Fernandez, the Chairman of the Committee on Ecology of the
House of Representatives, acknowledged that LAMI had fully complied with its ECC
conditions. In a Letter[58] dated 26 February 2013 addressed to the DENR Secretary,
Rep. Fernandez wrote:
xxxx
On 21 February 2013, the Committee on Ecology received a letter from Director
Lormelyn E. Claudio, the Regional Director for Region III of the Environment
Management Bureau of the DENR. The letter ascertains that, among other things,
based on the investigation and monitoring conducted led by Dir. Claudio, LAMI is, to
date, in compliance with its environmental commitments as required under the ECC
and said Order.
In view thereof, the Committee would like to express its appreciation for the apt
and prompt action on the matter. We expect that the subject company's conformity
to environmental laws, as well as its activities' impact on the environment, will
remain closely monitored and evaluated.
xxxx
Last, the alleged scraping off or leveling of land at LAMI's port site is deemed
insignificant to pose a detrimental impact on the environment.
Dir. Claudio testified at the hearing conducted by the Court of Appeals on 26
September 2012 that the cut and fill operations of LAMI only affected the port site
but not the surrounding area and that the environmental effect was only minimal
and insignificant. The relevant portions of Dir. Claudio's testimony provide:
A/Sol. Chua Cheng: Madam Witness, you made mention that the cut and fill
operations involved the... or the causeway created during the cut and fill operation
is 82 meters in length and 8 meters in width. What is the overall environment effect
of this cut and fill operation in Barangay Bolitoc?

Dir. Claudio.: It is minimal, insignificant and temporary in nature, Sir, because
as I mentioned, only 11,580 cubic meters had been stripped off and the tree cutting
which had been issued with a permit is only less than about 37 trees based on the
Post Evaluation Report done by the CENRO, Sir.
A/Sol. Chua Cheng: What about the effect of such cut and fill operations as regards
the two provinces, Pangasinan and Zambales, does it have any effect or what is the
extent of the effect?
Dir. Claudio: It is just localized; it is just confined within the project
area because we required them to put up the drainage system, the drainage, the
canals and the siltation ponds and the laying of armour rocks for the sea wall and
the construction of causeway, Sir, to avoid erosion and sedimentation. We also
required them to rehabilitate the exposed slopes which they already did.
xxxx
A/Sol. Chua Cheng: Only in the project area specifically located only in Brgy.
Bolitoc?
Dir. Claudio: Brgy. Bolitoc, Sta. Cruz, Zambales, Sir. It does not in any way
affect or cannot affect the Province of Pangasinan as alleged, Sir.[59]
(Emphasis supplied)
Even the Geoscience Foundation, Inc., which conducted a scientific study on the
port site regarding the possible damage to the environment from the construction
of the port facility, found that the landform was too small to protect against
typhoons, monsoons and floods due to heavy rains and storm surges. Its
Report[60] on the Topographical, Geomorphological and Climatological
Characterization of the LAMI Port undertaken in September 2012 stated:
6.0 Findings in Relation to the Petition for Writ of Kalikasan
xxxx
1. The LAMI Port is partly situated in a hill and not a mountain. The topographic and
geologic maps of NAMRIA and the MGB do not show the presence of a mountain
where the port is partly located. The detailed topographic survey moreover
indicates that this hill had an original elevation of 23 m.MSL in the portion where it
was excavated to accommodate the access road leading to the wharf.
Mountains attain much higher elevations than 23 m.MSL. Kendall et al. (1967),
defines a mountain as having a height of at least 900 meters and are usually
characterized by a vertical zonation of landscape and vegetation due to increasing
elevations.
2. No leveling of a mountain was done. The construction of the access road required
a V-cut through the hill that lowered it from 23 m.MSL to 7.5 m.MSL. This elevation
is still much higher than the flat land surrounding the hill. The hill had an original
length of 600 meters through which the V-cut, which has an average width of 26.5
meters, was excavated. Only a small portion of the hill was therefore altered.
The topographic survey further reveals that the total volume of earth material
removed is 24,569 cubic meters, which would fit a room that has a length, width
and height of 29 meters. This amount of earth material does not constitute the
volume of a mountain.
3. The hill is too small and not in the right location to protect against typhoons. The
hill cannot serve as a natural protective barrier against typhoons in Zambales and
some towns of Pangasinan because it is too small compared to the magnitude of
typhoons. Typhoons approach the country from east and move in a west to
northwest direction through Zambales Province as clarified in Figure 7. They are
even able to cross the Sierra Madre Range and the Zambales Range before reaching
Zambales Province. Since the port is situated at the western coastline of Zambales,
it would be the last thing a typhoon would pass by as it moves through Zambales.
4. The hill is too small to protect against the Southwest Monsoon. The hill does not
shield any area from the heavy rains that batter the country during the Southwest
Monsoon. It is too small to alter the effect of the Southwest Monsoon in the way
that the Sierra Madre Range forces the Northwest Monsoon to rise over it and
release much of its moisture as orographic precipitation on the windward side of the
range such that the leeward side is drier.
5. The hill is not in the right location to protect against flooding due to heavy rains.
The hill does not protect against the floods that occur from heavy rains. Since
Zambales regionally slopes down to the west, flood water during heavy rains will
move from east to west following the flow direction of rivers in the area. Flood
water from the Zambales Range will inundate the coastal plain first before reaching
the coastline where the hill is situated. Figure 11 depicts the flow direction of flood
water in the municipality.
6. The hill is too small to protect against floods due to storm surges. Storm surges
appear as large waves that are caused by the pushing of the wind on the surface of
the sea or ocean during storm events. Since the hill has a present length of only
420 meters, it is too small to prevent flooding due to storm surges. The large waves
will just skirt the hill and sweep through the low-lying coastland to the west and
east of the hill.
The hill shields against the direct impact of large, south-moving waves to several
homes located immediately south of the hill. Since the V-cut of the access road is
small compared to the rest of the hill and terminates at a relatively high 7.5 m.MSL,
this protection offered by the hill is not significantly diminished. [61]
Further, the DENR composite team, in its Report of Investigation [62] conducted on
20-21 June 2012 on LAMI's port site to ensure that LAMI undertook mitigating
measures in its property, found that LAMI's activities posed only a minimal or
insignificant impact to the environment. The relevant portions of the Report state:
Findings and Observations:
The composite team gathered data and the following are the initial observations:
1. Site preparation which includes site grading/surface stripping, low ridge cut and
fill and reclamation works were observed to have been undertaken within the
project area;
2. A total volume of approximately 11,580 cubic meters of soil cut/stripped from
low ridge was noted being used for causeway construction. Part of the discarded
soil with a volume of 5,843 cubic meters was already used for causeway
preparation while the remaining 5,735 cubic meters was noted still on stockpile
area;
3. Discarded soil generated from ridge cut and fill consists of clay with sandstone
and shale;
4. The partial low ridge cut and fill poses minimal or insignificant impact to the
environment due to threats of storm surges, strong winds and flooding because the
protective natural barriers against northeast monsoon are the mountain ranges in
the eastern part of Zambales and Pangasinan which are geologically and historically
effective as in the case of the adjoining and operational ports of the DMCI and
Shang Fil.
5. The height of the low ridge is still maintained at an elevation of 23.144 meters
above sea level while the constructed access road to the causeway has an elevation
of 7.46 meters with a width of 8 meters and length of 80-100 meters only.
Remarks and Recommendation:
The construction of the access road on the low ridge does not pose adverse
environmental impact to the adjoining communities more so to the larger
areas or the entire province of Zambales and Pangasinan.
It was determined as a result of our verification and based on the above findings
supported with field GPS reading that there had been no leveling of the
mountain undertaken in the project site as there is no mountain existing
inside the area covered by the ECC issued by EMB-Region 3. The landform
claimed by Mayor Marty to be a mountain is actually an elongated low ridge with a
peak of approximately 23 meters above sea level which is located in a private land
falling under Block 1, Alienable and Disposable Land per LC Map 635 with Lot No.
2999 originally owned by Mr. Severo Monsalud which was transferred to Sta. Cruz
Mineral Port Corporation with a Contract of Lease with LAMI (data provided by
CENRO Masinloc through a Memorandum dated June 4, 2012). The proponent
(LAMI) only implemented road cutting of low ridge in the middle to make an access
way to the proposed marine loading facility. More so, tree cutting done by LAMI is
covered by a Permit to Cut issued by DENR-Region 3-CENRO, Masinloc which is
responsible for the inventory and monitoring of cut trees.
x x x x[63] (Emphasis supplied)
Thus, from all the foregoing, we agree with the appellate court, in its original
Decision dated 23 November 2012, when it denied the petition for a Writ
ofKalikasan:
As between the too general and very hypothetical allegation of large-scale
environmental damage at one hand, and the remarks of government experts on the
other, We are inclined to give more credit to the latter. Below is the further
articulation of our stance:
Presumption of regularity
It is a legal presumption, born of wisdom and experience, that official duty has
been regularly performed. Therefore, the fact that the "remarks and
recommendation" of the composite team from EMB R3, MGB R3, and PENRO
Zambales were made in the exercise of their government function, the presumption
of regularity in the performance of such official duty stands. It is incumbent upon
petitioner to prove otherwise, a task which it failed to do here.
Expert findings are afforded great weight
The findings of facts of administrative bodies charged with their specific field of
expertise, are afforded great weight by the courts, and in the absence of substantial
showing that such findings are made from an erroneous estimation of the evidence
presented, they are conclusive, and in the interest of stability of the governmental
structure, should not be disturbed, x x x.[64]
In sum, contrary to the findings of the appellate court in its Amended Decision
dated 13 September 2013, we find that LAMI did not cause any environmental
damage that prejudiced the life, health or property of the inhabitants residing in the
municipality of Sta. Cruz, the province of Zambales or in the neighboring province
of Pangasinan. Agham, as the party that has the burden to prove the requirements
for the issuance of the privilege of the Writ of Kalikasan, failed to prove (1) the
environmental laws allegedly violated by LAMI; and (2) the magnitude of the
environmental damage allegedly caused by LAMI in the construction of LAMI's port
facility in Brgy. Bolitoc, Sta. Cruz, Zambales and its surrounding area. Thus, the
petition for the issuance of the privilege of the Writ of Kalikasan must be denied.
WHEREFORE, we GRANT the petition. We REVERSE and SET ASIDE the Amended
Decision dated 13 September 2013 of the Court of Appeals and REINSTATE AND
AFFIRM the original Decision dated 23 November 2012 of the Court of Appeals in
CA-G.R. SP No. 00012 which DENIED the petition for the issuance of the privilege
of the Writ of Kalikasan.
SO ORDERED.
Sereno, C.J., Velasco, Jr., Leonardo-De Castro, Brion, Peralta, Bersamin, Del
Castillo, Perez, Mendoza, Reyes, Perlas-Bernabe, Leonen, and Caguioa, JJ., concur.
Jardeleza, J., no part. prior OSG action.
NOTICE OF JUDGMENT
Sirs/Mesdames:
original of which was received by this Office on April 26, 2016 at 10:22 a.m.
Very truly yours,
(SGD)
Clerk of Court
[1]
Under Rule 45 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure.
Rollo, pp. 115-134. Penned by Associate Justice Danton Q. Bueser, with

Associate Justices Amelita G. Tolentino and Ramon R. Garcia concurring.
[2]
[3]
Id. at 395-418.
[4]
Id. at 419-429.
[5]
Id. at 449-453.
[6]
Id. at 454-455.
[7]
Id. at 1146.
[8]
Id. at 1186.
[9]
Id. at 459-460.
[10]
Id. at 461.
[11]
Id. at 586-589.
[12]
Id. at 550-553; dated 18 May 2012.
Sangguniang Bayan Resolution No. 99-2224, series of 1999, id. at 469-470;

Letter dated 4 June 2012 signed by all members of the Sangguniang Barangay, id.
at 630-631; Sangguniang Bayan Resolution No. 12-84 dated 22 October 2012, id.
at 2303-2305.
[13]
[14]
Id. at 463.
[15]
Id. at 464-468.
[16]
Id. at 2199-2200.
[17]
Id. at 1021.
[18]
Id. at 1022-1025.
[19]
Id. at 2249-2250.
[20]
Id. at 2250.
[21]
Docketed as G.R. No. 201918; id. at 227-237.
Rule 7, Part III, A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC or the Rules of Procedure for Environmental
Cases; approved on 13 April 2010.
[22]
Sec. 68. Cutting, Gathering and/or collecting Timber, or Other Forest Products
Without License.
Any person who shall cut, gather, collect, remove timber or other forest products
from any forest land, or timber from alienable or disposable public land, or from
private land, without any authority, or possess timber or other forest products
without the legal documents as required under existing forest laws and regulations,
shall be punished with the penalties imposed under Articles 309 and 310 of the
Revised Penal Code: Provided, That in the case of partnerships, associations, or
corporations, the officers who ordered the cutting, gathering, collection or
possession shall be liable, and if such officers are aliens, they shall, in addition to
the penalty, be deported without further proceedings on the part of the Commission
on Immigration and Deportation.
[23]
xxxx
Revising Presidential Decree No. 389, Otherwise Known as the Forestry Reform
Code of the Philippines; took effect on 19 May 1975.
[24]
Amending Section 68 of Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 705, as amended,

Otherwise Known as the Revised Forestry Code of the Philippines, for the Purpose of
Penalizing Possession of Timber or Other Forest Products Without the Legal
Documents Required by Existing Forest Laws, Authorizing the Confiscation of
Illegally Cut, Gathered, Removed and Possessed Forest Products, and Granting
Rewards to Informers of Violations of Forestry Laws, Rules and Regulations; signed
on 25 July 1987.
[25]
Section 57. Expenditure for Community Development and Science and Mining
Technology - A contractor shall assist in the development of its mining community,
the promotion of the general welfare of its inhabitants, and the development of
science and mining technology.
[26]
Section 69. Environmental Protection - Every contractor shall undertake an

environmental protection and enhancement program covering the period of the
mineral agreement or permit.
[27]
Such environmental program shall be incorporated in the work program which the
contractor or permittee shall submit as an accompanying document to the
application for a mineral agreement or permit. The work program shall include not
only plans relative to mining operations but also to rehabilitation, regeneration,
revegetation and reforestation of mineralized areas, slope stabilization of mined-out
and tailings covered areas, aquaculture, watershed development and water
conservation; and socioeconomic development.
An Act Instituting a New System of Mineral Resources Exploration, Development,
Utilization, and Conservation; approved on 3 March 1995.
[28]
[29]
Docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 00012.
[30]
Rollo, pp. 934-949.
[31]
Id. at 1241-1247.
[32]
Id. at 1060-1068.
[33]
Id. at 1043-1055.
[34]
Id. at 1311-1498.
[35]
Id. at 1499-1689.
[36]
Id. at 1691-1786.
Id. at 137-158. Penned by Associate Justice Danton Q. Bueser, with Associate

Justices Amelita G. Tolentino and Ramon R. Garcia concurring.
[37]
[38]
[39]
Id. at 158.
Id. at 2075.
[40]
Id. at 2075-2076.
[41]
Id. at 133.
[42]
A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC; approved on 13 April 2010.
[43]
Paje v. Casio, G.R. No. 207257, 3 February 2015.
Villarin v. People, 672 Phil. 155 (2011), citing Aquino v. People, 611 Phil. 442,
450 (2009).
[44]
[45]
Rollo, p. 461.
[46]
Id. at 1009.
[47]
Id. at 934-949.
[48]
Id. at 944.
[49]
Id. at 807-844.
[50]
Id. at 828.
[51]
Id. at 630-631.
[52]
Id. at 645-646.
[53]
Id. at 2199-2200.
[54]
Id. at 1010-1012.
[55]
Id. at 1011-1012.
[56]
Id. at 1403-1405, 1474-1477.
[57]
Id. at 2249-2250.
[58]
Id. at 2252.
[59]
Id. at 1650-1653.
[60]
Id. at 2207-2234.
[61]
Id. at 2225-2226.
[62]
Id. at 1028-1031.
[63]
Id. at 1029-1031.
[64]
Id. at 155-156. Citations omitted.

A.C.
COBALT
No.
RESOURCES,
10781
INC.,
[Formerly
COMPLAINANT,
VS.
CBD
ATTY.
Case
RONALD
No.
AGUADO,
10-2764]
RESPONDENT.
April 12, 2016
EN BANC
[ A.C. No. 10781 [Formerly CBD Case No. 102764], April 12, 2016 ]
COBALT RESOURCES, INC., COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY.
RONALD AGUADO, RESPONDENT.
DECISION
PER CURIAM:
This is an administrative complaint for disbarment filed by Cobalt Resources, Inc.
(CRI) against respondent Atty. Ronald C. Aguado (Atty. Aguado) before the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for violation of Rules 1.01 and 1.02 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility and the lawyer's oath.
The Antecedents
In its Complaint,[1] CRI alleged that on March 5, 2010, a group of armed men, clad
in vests bearing the mark "PASG" and pretending to be agents of the Presidential
Anti-Smuggling Group (PASG), hi-jacked its delivery van which was then loaded
with cellular phones worth P1.3 million; that Dennis Balmaceda (Balmaceda), the
driver of the delivery van, and his companions were all forcibly taken away at gun
point and were dropped at the Country Hill and Golf Club; that Balmaceda called
Antonio Angeles (Angeles), the Security Director of CRI, who immediately reported
the incident to the Philippine National Police-Criminal Investigation Detection Unit
(PNP-CIDU); that with the use of Global Positioning Satellite (GPS) Tracking Device
installed in the cellular phones, Angeles and the PNP-CIDU tracked down the
location of the cellular phones to be in front of Pegasus Bar along Quezon Avenue,
Quezon City; that the PNP-CIDU, together with Angeles proceeded to Pegasus Bar
and found three (3) vehicles parked in front of the bar: (1) Toyota Fortuner with
Plate No. UNO-68 owned by Atty. Aguado, (2) Chevrolet Optra with Plate No. ZDW764 and (3) a motorcycle with Plate No. NK-1180; that when the PNP-CIDU
approached the vehicles, Anthony Palmes (Palmes) ran but he was chased by the
police officers and was arrested; that Atty. Aguado who was then standing in the
reception area of Pegasus Bar was not arrested as none of the police officers knew,
at that time, of his participation in the crime; that the PNP-CIDU searched the
vehicles and found the cellular phones, the Identification Card (ID) showing Atty.
Aguado as Legal Consultant of the PASG, the Mission Order identifying Atty. Aguado
as the Assistant Team Leader, and a vest bearing the mark PASG.
CRI further averred that the men who hijacked its delivery van used the fake
mission order when it flagged down the delivery van; that the mission order
identified Atty. Aguado as the assistant team leader and authorized the armed men
to seize CRTs cellular phones; that the PASG issued a certification stating that the
mission order was fake; that Atty. Aguado carried an ID bearing his picture and
name which showed that he was a PASG legal consultant; and that this ID was
likewise fake as evidenced by a certification issued by the PASG.
Based on the Sinumpaang Salaysay,[2] dated September 8, 2010, executed by
Palmes, CRI concluded that it was Atty. Aguado who prepared the fake mission
order and masterminded the crime as he was the one who conceived it and laid
down the nitty-gritty details of its execution; and that it was; he who recruited the
armed men who actually executed the hijacking.
Eventually, two separate Informations for Robbery[3] and Caraapping[4] were filed
against Atty. Aguado and several others.
The IBP directed Atty. Aguado to submit his answer but, despite several extensions,
he failed to do so.
The IBP then set the case for mandatory conference.
In his Conference Brief,[5] Atty. Aguado denied the allegations. He averred that "on
March 5, 2010, at about 11:00 to 12:00 in the afternoon," [6] his Toyota Fortuner
with Plate No. UNO-68 was carnapped along Scout Mandarin while in the custody of
his driver; that he reported the incident to the police authorities; that on March 7,
2010, he was awakened by relatives informing him that his name was on the front
page of several tabloids in a story connecting him to the alleged hijacking; and that
he was indicted in the case because of the ID found hanging in his carnapped
vehicle.
In its Report and Recommendation,[7] dated May 3, 2011, the IBP-Commission on
Bar Discipline (CBD) found Atty. Aguado liable for unlawful, dishonest, immoral, and
deceitful conduct in falsifying the ID and mission order showing him as the Legal
Consultant and the Assistant Team Leader, respectively, of the PASG. The IBP-CBD
recommended that he be suspended for two (2) years. It, however, deferred the
issue of Atty. Aguado's purported participation in the alleged hijacking incident as
the issue pertained to a judicial function.
On March 20, 2013, the IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the report
of the CBD, as follows:
RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby unanimously ADOPTED and
APPROVED, the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner in
the above-entitled case, herein made part of this Resolution as Annex "A", and
finding the recommendation fully supported by the evidence on record and the
applicable laws and rules and considering that Respondent committed unlawful,
dishonest, immoral and deceitful conduct by falsifying the ID and Mission Order,
Atty. Ronaldo Aguado is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for two
(2) years.[8]
Not satisfied, CRI filed a motion for reconsideration [9] praying that the May 3, 2011
report of the IBP-CBD be set aside and that a new resolution ordering the
disbarment of Atty. Aguado be issued. CRI claimed that Atty. Aguado deserved the
ultimate penalty of disbarment as the falsification of public documents was
sufficiently established and, as the CBD knew, he masterminded the hijacking using
his profession to commit the crime.
On July 25, 2013, Atty. Aguado also filed a motion for reconsideration [10] of the
March 20, 2013 Resolution praying that it be set aside and a new one be issued
dismissing the complaint. He averred that the charges of usurpation of authority
and falsification filed against him had been dismissed by the Office of the City
Prosecutor of Quezon City; that he could not be presumed to be the author of the
falsification because he was never in possession of the falsified ID and mission
order; and that he never used, took advantage or profit therefrom. Atty. Aguado
asserted that this case should, at the very least, be suspended pending the
resolution of the robbery and carnapping charges against him.

In a Resolution,[11] dated September 27, 2014, the IBP Board of Governors denied
both motions and affirmed its March 20, 2013 Resolution.
Pursuant to Section 12(c), Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court, CRI filed a petition for
review[12] before the Court. CRI was firm in its stand that Atty. Aguado be meted
out the penalty of disbarment for his falsification of a PASG mission order and ID
and for his involvement in the hijacking of the CIR delivery van and its cargo.
Similarly, Atty. Aguado filed a petition for review insisting on his innocence and
praying for the dismissal of the complaint.
The Court's Ruling
The Court finds merit in the petition of CRI.
It must be emphasized that a disbarment proceeding, being administrative in
nature, is separate and distinct from a criminal action filed against a lawyer and
they may proceed independently of each other.[13] A finding of guilt in the criminal
case does not necessarily mean a finding of liability in the administrative case. [14] In
the same way, the dismissal of a criminal case on the ground of insufficiency of
evidence against an accused, who is also a respondent in an administrative case,
does not necessarily exculpate him administratively because the quantum of
evidence required is different. In criminal cases, proof beyond reasonable doubt is
required.[15] "In administrative cases for disbarment or suspension against lawyers,
the quantum of proof required is clearly preponderant evidence and the burden of
proof rests upon the complainant."[16] Preponderance of evidence means "evidence
which is more convincing to the court as worthy of belief than that which is offered
in opposition thereto."[17]
Clearly, Atty. Aguado committed the act complained of as it was established that he
was in possession of a falsified ID showing him as a legal consultant of the PASG
and mission order identifying him as the Assistant Team Leader of the antismuggling operation. Although Atty. Aguado claimed in his Conference Brief that he
was indicted merely on the basis of an ID found hanging in his carnapped Toyota
Fortuner,[18] his counsel, Atty. Letecia Amon (Atty. Amon), during the mandatory
conference held on February 25, 2011, acknowledged that the ID and mission
order were found in the Toyota Fortuner owned by Atty. Aguado, thus:
ATTY. HARON:
Is she willing to admit that respondent is the same person referred to in the document called
mission order marked as Annex "F" issued by the PASG.
ATTY. AMON:
I have no exact knowledge on that, Your Honor.
ATTY. HARON:
I'm showing counsel for respondent with a copy of a mission order marked as Annex "F"....
COMM. CACHAPERO:
Machine copy.
ATTY. HARON:
This is the copy.
COMM. CACHAPERO:
Take a look, is that a machine copy?
ATTY. HARON:
Yes, Your Honor. Annex "F" states that Atty. Ronald C. Aguado is the assistant team leader
of the team by mission order.
COMM. CACHAPERO:
He is only asking, the respondent is the one who owns that document. He is not yet asking
whether that document is authentic or not.
ATTY. AMON:
Yes, Your Honor, as written here.
COMM. CACHAPERO:
Yes, he is the one.
ATTY. HARON:
Would the respondent also like to admit that the identification card and the mission
order were found inside his Toyota Fortuner, Plate No. UNO-68.
ATTY. AMON:
Of which he is the owner, yes.

ATTY. HARON:
Admitted also, Your Honor.
ATTY. HARON:
Would the respondent also like to admit the certifications Annexes "G" and "H" issued by
the PASG are genuine and duly executed. I'm showing counsel copies of the certifications,
Your Honor, marked as Annexes "G" and "H" which bears the seal of that office, Your
Honor.
COMM. CACHAPERO:
What is your proposal Atty. Haron?
x x x.[19] [Emphasis supplied]
Moreover, the Sinumpaang Salaysay[20] of Palmes explicitly described Atty. Aguado's
participation in the crime as follows:
xxx
2. Alam ko kung sinu-sino ang mga taong kasama sa pagplano at pagsasagawa ng
nasabing 'hijacking'. Bagamat may partisipasyon ako sa krimen, hindi ko alam na
ang gagawing paghuli sa mga nasabing cellphone ay labag sa batas dahil ako ay
pinaniwala na ang gagawin naming paghuli sa mga cellphone ng Cobalt ay isang
lehitimong operasyon ng PASG.
3. Bago pa man naganap ang nasabing hijacking ay dati akong empleyado ng
Cobalt na nakatalaga sa Delivery Section/Pull Out Service. Ngunit hindi nagtagal ay
nag-resign ako.
4. Noong ikalawang lingo ng Pebrero, nilapitan ako ni Jaime "James" Abedes at
sinabi sa akin ng kung pwede ay i-monitor ko daw ang ruta ng delivery van ng
Cobalt at ako ay bibgyan niya ng "budget" upang ang kanyang grupo ay
makapagsagawa ng 'seizure operations.'
5. Noong una ay nag-alangan akong sumangayon sa mungkahi ni James ngunit ako
ay pinapanatag niya na lahat ng dokumento at papeles ay kumpleto. Sabi pa ni
James, "Si Atty. Aguado ang magbibigay ng complete documents at Mission Order
dahil naka-direkta siya sa PASG Malacanang para ma-flag down ang delivery van".
6. Ako ay naniwala sa kanyang sinabi dahil sa pagbanggit niya na may kasama
kaming abogado. Dahil dito ay pumayag ako sa mungkahi ni James.
7. Kinabukasan ay nagkita kami ni James sa Caltex Pioneer corner Shaw Boulevard.

Nalaman ko kay James na may hawak siyang Security Guard doon. Pinakilala niya
ako kay Eliseo De Rosas alias Nonoy na isa ring tauhan ni James. Siya ay may
gamit na Honda na motorsiklo na kulay berde na may plakang 1180 NK. Noong
araw din na iyon ay nagtungo kami sa Brixton Street upang i-monitor ang
warehouse ng Cobalt dahil may warehouse ang Cobalt sa Brixton Street.
8. Pagkatapos naming pumunta sa Brixton Street ay nagtungo naman kami sa P.
Tuazon Street kung saan may mga clients ang Cobalt, at doon naming nakita ang
delivery van na Mitsubishi L-300 ng Cobalt.
9. Sinimulan namin ni Nonoy ang pagmonitor ng ruta ng delivery van ng Cobalt. Sa
aming ginawang pag-monitor ay napansin naming madalas magpakarga ng gas ang
nasabing delivery van sa Petron Station sa Ortigas Avenue corner B. Serrano Street.
Isang lingo kaming nag-monitor ni Nonoy sa ruta ng Cobalt.
Ipinaalam naming kay James ang nakakalap naming impormasyon. Noong natiyak
naming ang ruta ng delivery van ay nagpaschedule si James ng 'meeting' kay Atty.
Aguado.
10. Ika-22 ng Pebrero 2010 alas-6 ng gabi sa McDonald's Quezon Avenue ay nag
meeting kami. Ang mga kasama sa meeting ay si James, Atty. Aguado, Joe
Almonte, at Nonoy. Noong kami ay nandoon ay lumipat ng lamesa si Atty. Aguado,
James at Joe Almonte at sila ay nagusap.
11. Pagkatapos ng usapan nila ay pumunta sa amin si James at sinabi sa amin kung
ano ang kanilang napagusapan. Sinabi sa amin ni James na mag-iisue daw ng
Mission Order si Atty. Aguado. Si Atty. Aguado na rin daw ang magbubuo ng grupo
ng mga lalake upang i-flag down ang delivery van ng Cobalt.
12. Noong ika-25 ng Pebrero 2010 alas 7 ng gabi, ay muli kaming nagkita nila
James, Nonoy at Joe Almonte sa McDonald's Quezon Avenue. Pagsapit ng alas-8 ng
gabi ay tumawag si Atty. Aguado na nasa Starbucks Cafe sa Tomas Morato Avenue
daw siya naka-puwesto. Kaya't kaming apat ay sumunod sa Starbucks. Pagdating
naming sa Starbucks ay nandoon nga si Atty. Aguado at may kasama siyang isang
pulis.
13. Hindi nagtagal ay umalis sila Atty. Aguado at James sakay ng Toyota Fortuner
na may plakang UNO-68. Sinabi sa amin ni James na sila ay magsasagawa ng
"ocular" ng lugar kung saan gagawin ang pag-flag down ng delivery van. Nang sila
ay magbalik, kami ay sinabihan na gagawin namin ang operasyon sa umaga ng
kinabukasan (ika-26 ng Pebrero, Biernes).
Ayon pa sa kanila, ako raw ay pupuwesto sa Petron Station sa may Boni Serrano
corner Ortigas Avenue ng alas-8 ng umaga upang doon abangan ang pagdaan ng
delivery van. Samantalang, ang mga taong magsasagawa ng pag flag down
(pawang mga tao ni Atty. Aguado) ay pupuwesto na rin sa may Benitez Street.
Kapag nakita ko na raw ang delivery van ay agad akong tumawag kay James upang
ipagbigay alam ang pagdaan nito at i-alert ang mga nasabing mga lalake,
pagkatapos ay tumungo raw ako sa Benitez Street upang siguraduhin na tama ang
delivery van na ipa-flag-down.
Pagkatapos ng meeting ng gabi na iyon ay isa-isa na kaming nagsi-uwian.
14. Kaya't kinabukasan, ika-26 ng Pebrero, alas-8 ng umaga ay nagtungo ako sa
nasabing Petron Station. Ngunit tumawag si James na hindi raw matutuloy ang
operation dahil kulang sa tao si Atty. Aguado.
15. Kami (ako, Joe Almonte at Nonoy) ay muling pinulong ni James sa McDonald's
Quezon Avenue noong ika-i ng Marso alas-7 ng gabi. Bandang alas-8 ng gabi ay
dumating na rin si Atty. Aguado. Sila Atty. Aguado, James at Joe Almonte [ay] nagusap sa labas ng Smoking Area samantalang kami ni Nonoy ay nanatili sa loob.
16. Nang matapos ang usapan ay sinabi sa amin ni James na nag-set ulit ng
operation si Atty. Aguado kinabukasan, ika-2 ng Marso, Martes, ngunit hintayin daw
naming ang feedback mula kay Atty. Aguado dahil kelangan daw ng gamit ang mga
tao ni Atty. Aguado.
17. Muli akong nagtungo kinabukasan, ika-2 ng Marso, alas- 8 ng umaga, ngunit
maya-maya lamang ay tumawag sa akin si James at sinabi niya sa akin na hindi na
naman daw tuloy ang operation dahil hindi nakakuha ng gamit ang mga tao ni Atty.
Aguado.
Sa puntong ito ay sinabi ko na kay James na sana sigurado ang mga papeles ni
Atty. Aguado dahil ayaw ko ng illegal na trabaho. Sinabi naman sa akin ni James na
kumpleto naman daw ang mga papeles at legal ang gagawing operation.
18. Ika-4 ng Marso 2010, ay tumawag sa akin si James at sinabi niya sa akin na
tuloy na daw ang operation kinabukasan (ika- 5 ng Marso). Sinabi rin niya sa akin
na alas-8 ng umaga ay kailangan daw na naka-puwesto na ako sa Petron Station.
19. Kaya noong ika-5 ng Marso 2010, alas-8 ng umaga, ako ay pumuwesto na sa
Petron Gasoline Station sa Boni Serrano corner Ortigas Avenue sakay ng isang
motorsiklo. Bandang alas-8:3O ng umaga ay dumating naman si James sakay ng
isang Chevrolet na may plakang ZDW 764 at may kasama pa siya na pinakilala sa
aking "Larry."
Bandang alas-9 ng umaga ay dumating ang Toyota Fortuner ni Atty. Aguado. Nakita
ko na sakay ng nasabing Toyota Fortuner si Atty. Aguado at Joe Almonte. Hindi sila
bumaba bagkus ay nagpakarga lamang ito ng gasolina sa nasabing Petron Station.
Hindi nagtagal ay umalis na rin sila. Sumunod namang umalis si James at Larry
sakay ng Chevrolet.
20. Bandang alas-9:3O ng umaga, nakita ko na dumating ang delivery van ng
Cobalt sa Petron upang ito ay magpakarga ng gasolina. Tumawag ako kay James
gamit ang aking cellphone at sinabi ko, "Nandito na ang delivery van na white, may
plakang NKQ 734." Sumagot si James, "ok nakapuwesto na kami. Andito na kami
sa area"
21. Agad akong umalis patungo sa Benitez Street upang abangan ang pagdaan ng
delivery van upang ma-flag down ito. Gamit ang aking motorsiklo, ako ay dalidaling nagtungo sa Benitez Street.
Pagdating ko doon ay nakita ko ang nasabing Chevrolet ni James at isang L-300 van
na kulay blue-green na may plakang DFN-733. Nadatnan ko rin ang tatlong lalake
na pawang armado at nakasuot ng tsalekong may tatak na PASG at nag-aabang sa
gilid ng daan. Mayroon din akong napansin na nakasakay sa loob ng nasabing bluegreen na L-300 van ngunit hindi ko na nabilang ang dami nila.
22. Ako ay pumunta sa Chevrolet (driver side), at binuksan naman ni James ang
bintana nito. Sinabi ko ulit sa kanya na parating na ang delivery van. Sumagot siya,
"Sige. Timbrehan mo lang sila pag malapit na. Hintayin mo relay kung saan ka
susunod." Pagkatapos noon ay umalis na sila.
23. Pagkaalis nila, kami at nang tatlong nasabing lalake ay nag-abang sa pagdaan
ng delivery van. Nang makita ko itong paparating, agad kong sinabi "approaching
na. yang puti, yang puti." Pagkatapos noon ay agad pinara ng isa sa mga nasabing
lalakeng nakasumbrero ang delivery van. Sumenyas ito sa driver ng delivery van na
itabi ito sa gilid. Pilit binuksan ng tatlong lalake ang magkabilang pintuan ng
delivery van at nang mabuksan ang mga nasabing pintuan ay agad hinila palabas
ang tatlo nitong pahinante at agad silang pinosasan.
xxxx
From the foregoing, it can be clearly deduced that Atty. Aguado had participation in
the crime as charged in the complaint, from the planning stage up to its execution.
These falsified documents found in his possession, as certified found in his
possession, as certified as evidenced by the PASG, were used to facilitate the
commission of the crime. The well-settled rule is that "in the absence of satisfactory
explanation, one found in possession of and who used a forged document is the
forger and therefore guilty of falsification."[21] Atty. Aguado failed to rebut the
allegations. Other than the police blotter showing that he reported the carnapping
of his vehicle, Atty. Aguado presented no other convincing evidence to support his
denial of the crime. He also failed to show any ill motive on the part of Palmes in
testifying against him whom he claimed to have met only in February 2010.
Moreover, his story of the carnapping of his Fortuner cannot be given credence
considering his inconsistent statements on the matter. In this regard, the Court
quotes a portion of the Report and Recommendation of Commissioner Oliver
Cachapero. Thus:
He, too, blabbered about the supposed carnapping of his Fortuner car on the same
day the hijacking was staged by supposed PASG personnel suggesting that he was
a victim and not a perpetrator. However, his allegations in this regard is put in
serious doubt. In the QC PD alarm sheet, Respondent reported that the carnapping
took place at 2:30 of March 5, 2010 while in his sworn statement, he claimed that
his car was carnapped at 4:31 p.m. the precise time the supposed carnapping was
staged is too vital that Respondent could not have overlooked the same in his
narration of facts in his counter-affidavit or in his statement before the police
authorities expecially because he supposedly reported the incident on the very
same day it happened. But as correctly observed by the Complainant, even if the
report on the time of the carnapping incident would have been properly made, the
hijacking took place much earlier and therefore the same does not negate the
commission of the crime by the Respondent. Also, the reporting did not prove the
fact of carnapping especially where, as in this case, no eyewitness account was
presented, no suspect apprehended, and no criminal case was filed. [22]
The Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) explicitly mandates:
Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful
conduct.
Rule 1.02 - A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance of the law
or at lessening confidence in the legal system.
It must be emphasized that a membership in the Bar is a privilege laden with
conditions,[23] and granted only to those who possess the strict intellectual and
moral qualifications required of lawyers as instruments in the effective and efficient
administration of justice.[24] As officers of the courts and keepers of the public's
faith, lawyers are burdened with the highest degree of social responsibility and so
mandated to behave at all times in a manner consistent with truth and honor.
[25]
They are expected to maintain not only legal proficiency but also this high
standard of morality, honesty, integrity and fair dealing.[26]
Atty, Aguado has committed acts that showed he was unfit and unable to faithfully
discharge his bounden duties as a member of the legal profession. Because he
failed to live up to the exacting standards demanded of him, he proved himself

unworthy of the privilege to practice law. As vanguards of our legal system,
lawyers, are expected at all times to uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal
professor and to refrain from any act or omission which might diminish the trust
and confidence reposed by the public in the integrity of the legal profession. [27]
In several cases, the Court, after finding the lawyer guilty of gross dishonesty,
imposed the supreme penalty of disbarment for engaging in unlawful, dishonest,
and deceitful acts by falsifying documents. In Brennisen v. Atty. Contawi,[28] the
Court disbarred the lawyer when he falsified a special power of attorney so he could
mortgage and sell his client's property. In Embido v. Atty. Pe, Jr.,[29] the penalty of
disbarment was meted out against the lawyer who authored the falsification of an
inexistent court decision.
WHEREFORE, Atty. Ronald C. Aguado is DISBARRED for gross misconduct and
violation of Rules 1.01 and 1.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, and his
name is ordered STRICKEN OFF the roll of attorneys.
Let copies of this decision be furnished the Office of the Bar Confidant to be made
part of his personal records; the Integrated Bar of the Philippines; and the Office of
the Court Administrator for circulation to all courts.
SO ORDERED.
Sereno, C. J., Carpio, Velasco, Jr., Leonardo-De Castro, Brion, Bersamin, Del
Castillo, Perez, Mendoza, Reyes, Perlas-Bernabe, Leonen, Jardeleza, and Caguioa,
JJ., concur.
Peralta, J., on leave.
NOTICE OF JUDGMENT
Sirs/Mesdames:
Very truly yours,

Clerk of Court
[1]
Rollo, pp. 28-32.
[2]
Id. at 39-42.
[3]
Id. at 435-436.
[4]
Id. at 437-438.
[5]
Id. at 70-72.
[6]
Id. at 70.
[7]
Id. at 315-318.
[8]
Id. at 314.
[9]
Id. at 211-216.
[10]
Id. at 218-223.
[11]
Id. at 363.
[12]
Id. at 291-304.
[13]
Yu v. Palaa, 580 Phil. 19, 26 (2008).
[14]
Bengco v. Bernardo, 687 Phil. 7, 17 (2012).
[15]
Jimenez v. Jimenez, 517 Phil. 68 (2006).
Spouses Amatorio v. Yap, A.C. No. 5914, March 11, 2015, quoting Cruz v.
Centron, 484 Phil. 671, 675 (2004).
[16]
[17]
Aba v. De Guzman, Jr., 678 Phil. 588, 601 (2011).
[18]
Conference Brief, rollo, p. 71.
[19]
Transcript of Stenographic Notes, dated February 25, 2011. Rollo, pp. 162-164.
[20]
Id. at 39-42.
[21]
Rural Bank of Silay, Inc. v. Pilla, 403 Phil. 1, 9 (2001).
[22]
Rollo, pp. 7-8.
[23]
Sebastian v. Atty. Calls, 372 Phil. 673, 680 (1999).
Re: Petition of Al Argosino To Take The Lawyer's Oath, 336 Phil. 766, 769
(1997).
[24]
[25]
Agno v. Atty. Cagatan, 580 Phil. 1, 17 (2008).
[26]
Yu v. Atty, Palaa, supra note 13, at 24.
[27]
Heirs of Alilano v. Examen, A.C. No. 10132, March 24, 2015.
[28]
686 Phil. 342 (2012).
[29]
A.C. No. 6732, October 22, 2013, 708 SCRA 1.

A.C.
ALEX
No.
NULADA,
COMPLAINANT,
VS.
ATTY.
8172
ORLANDO
S.
PAULMA,
April 12, 2016
EN BANC
[ A.C. No. 8172, April 12, 2016 ]
RESPONDENT.
ALEX NULADA, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. ORLANDO S.

PAULMA, RESPONDENT.
RESOLUTION
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:
The instant administrative case arose from a verified complaint[1] for disbarment by
reason of dishonesty and conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude filed by
Complainant Alex Nulada (complainant) against respondent Atty. Orlando S. Paulma
(respondent).
The Facts
Complainant alleged that on September 30, 2005, respondent issued in his favor a
check in the amount of P650,000.00 as payment for the latter's debt. Because of
respondent's standing as a respected member of the community and his being a
member of the Sangguniang Bayan of the Municipality of Miagao,[2] Province of
Iloilo, complainant accepted the check without question.[3]
Unfortunately, when he presented the check for payment, it was dishonored due to
insufficient fluids. Respondent failed to make good the amount of the check despite
notice of dishonor and repeated demands, prompting complainant to file a criminal
complaint for violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang (BP) 22[4] against respondent,
[5]
before the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor, Province of Iloilo, docketed as I.S.
No. 2006-637,[6] which issued a Resolution[7] dated May 26, 2006 recommending
the filing of the appropriate information against respondent before the Municipal
Trial Court of Miagao, Province of Iloilo (MTC).[8] Subsequently, said information was
docketed as Criminal Case No. 2604.[9]
After due proceedings, the MTC rendered a Decision [10] dated October 30, 2008
finding respondent guilty of violation of BP 22 and ordering him to pay the amount
of P150,000.00 as fine, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of failure to pay.
Furthermore, he was ordered to pay: (1) the sum of P650,000.00 representing the
amount of the check with interest pegged at the rate of twelve percent (12%) per
annum computed from the time of the filing of the complaint; (2) filing fees in the
amount of P10,000.00; and (3) attorney's fees in the amount of P20,000.00 plus
appearance fees of P1,500.00 per hearing.[11]
Records show that respondent appealed his conviction to the Regional Trial Court of
Guimbal, Iloilo, Branch 67 (RTC), docketed as Criminal Case No. 346. [12] In a
Decision[13] dated March 13, 2009, the RTC affirmed in toto the MTC ruling. On April
16, 2009, the RTC Decision became final and executory.[14]
Prior to the promulgation of the RTC Decision, or on February 12, 2009,

complainant filed this administrative complaint before the Court, through the Office
of the Bar Confidant.
In his defense,[15] respondent denied that he committed dishonesty against
complainant, as prior to September 30, 2005, he informed the latter that there
were insufficient funds to cover the amount of the check. Respondent claimed that
he merely issued the check in order to accommodate a friend in whose favor he
obtained the loan, stressing that he did not personally benefit from the proceeds
thereof.[16] Unfortunately, said friend had died and respondent had no means by
which to pay for the amount of the check.[17] He also claimed that complainant
threatened him and used his unfunded check to the latter's personal advantage. [18]
Thereafter, the Court, in its Resolution dated November 14, 2011, [19] referred this
administrative case to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for its
investigation, report, and recommendation.
The IBP's Report and Recommendation
After conducting mandatory conferences, the Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD)
of the IBP issued a Report and Recommendation[20] dated June 26, 2013,
recommending that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for a period
of six (6) months for violation of the lawyer's oath and the Code of Professional
Responsibility (CPR), as well as for having been found guilty of a crime involving
moral turpitude.[21]
It found that the offense for which respondent was found guilty of, i.e., violation of
BP 22, involved moral turpitude, and that he violated his lawyer's oath and the CPR
when he committed the said offense. Stressing the importance of the lawyer's oath,
the IBP held that by his conviction of the said crime, respondent has shown that he
is "unfit to protect the administration of justice or that he is no longer of good
moral character"[22] which justifies either his suspension or disbarment.[23]
Subsequently, or on October 10, 2014, the IBP Board of Governors issued a Notice
of Resolution[24] adopting and approving with modification the IBP's Report and
Recommendation dated June 26, 2013, suspending respondent from the practice of
law for a period of two (2) years for having violated the lawyer's oath and the CPR,
as well as for having been found guilty of a crime involving moral turpitude. [25]
The issue advanced for the Court's resolution is whether or not respondent should
be administratively disciplined for having been found guilty of a crime involving

moral turpitude.
The Court's Ruling
The Court sustains the findings and conclusions of the CBD of the IBP, as approved,
adopted, and modified by the IBP Board of Governors.
Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court provides:
Section 27. Disbarment or suspension of attorneys by Supreme Court; grounds
therefor. - A member of the bar may be disbarred or suspended from his office as
attorney by the Supreme Court for any deceit, malpractice, or other gross
misconduct in such office, grossly immoral conduct, or by reason of his conviction of
a crime involving moral turpitude, or for any violation of the oath which he is
required to take before admission to practice, or for a willful disobedience of any
lawful order of a superior court, Or for corruptly or willfully appearing as an
attorney for a party to a case without authority to do so. The practice of soliciting
cases at law for the purpose of gain, either personally or through paid agents or
brokers, constitutes malpractice.
Canon 1 of the CPR mandates all members of the bar "to obey the laws of the land
and promote respect for law x x x." Rule 1.01 thereof specifically provides that "[a]
lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct." By
taking the lawyer's oath, a lawyer becomes a guardian of the law and an
indispensable instrument for the orderly administration of justice. [26] As such, he
can be disciplined for any conduct, in his professional or private capacity, which
renders him unfit to continue to be an officer of the court. [27]
In Enriquez v. De Vera,[28] the Court discussed the purpose and nature of a violation
of BP 22 in relation to an administrative case against a lawyer, as in this case, to
wit:
[BP] 22 has been enacted in order to safeguard the interest of the banking system
and the legitimate public checking account users. The gravamen of the offense
defined and punished by [BP] 22 [x x x] is the act of making and issuing a
worthless check, or any check that is dishonored upon its presentment for payment
and putting it in circulation; the law is designed to prohibit and altogether eliminate
the deleterious and pernicious practice of issuing checks with insufficient funds, or
with no credit, because the practice is deemed a public nuisance, a crime against
public order to be abated.
xxxx
Being a lawyer, respondent was well aware of the objectives and coverage of [BP]
22. If he did not, he was nonetheless presumed to know them, for the law was
penal in character and application. His issuance of the unfunded check involved
herein knowingly violated [BP] 22, and exhibited his indifference towards the
pernicious effect of his illegal act to public interest and public order. He thereby
swept aside his Lawyer's Oath that enjoined him to support the Constitution and
obey the laws.[29]
Clearly, the issuance of worthless checks in violation of BP Blg. 22 indicates a
lawyer's unfitness for the trust and confidence reposed on him, shows such lack of
personal honesty and good moral character as to render him unworthy of public
confidence, and constitutes a ground for disciplinary action. [30]
In this case, respondent's conviction for violation of BP 22, a crime involving moral
turpitude, had been indubitably established. Such conviction has, in fact, already
become final. Consequently, respondent violated the lawyer's oath, as well as Rule
1.01, Canon 1 of the CPR, as aptly found by the IBP and, thus, must be subjected
to disciplinary action.
In Heenan v. Espejo,[31] the Court suspended therein respondent from the practice
of law for a period of two (2) years when the latter issued checks which were
dishonored due to insufficiency of funds. In A-1 Financial Services, Inc. v. Valerio,
[32]
the same penalty was imposed by the Court to respondent who issued worthless
checks to pay off her loan. Likewise, in Dizon v. De Taza,[33] the Court meted the
penalty of suspension for a period of two (2) years to respondent for having issued
bouncing checks, among other infractions. Finally, in Wong v. Moya II,
[34]
respondent was ordered suspended from the practice of law for a period of two
(2) years, because aside from issuing worthless checks and failure to pay his debts,
respondent also breached his client's trust and confidence to his personal
advantage and had shown a wanton disregard of the IBP's Orders in the course of
its proceedings. Accordingly, and in view of the foregoing instances when the erring
lawyer was suspended for a period of two (2) years for the same violation, the
Court finds it appropriate to mete the same penalty to respondent in this case.
As a final word, it should be emphasized that membership in the legal profession is
a privilege burdened with conditions.[35] A lawyer is required to observe the law and
be mindful of his or her actions whether acting in a public or private capacity.
[36]
Any transgression of this duty on his part would not only diminish his reputation
as a lawyer but would also erode the public's faith in the legal profession as a
whole.[37] In this case, respondent's conduct fell short of the exacting standards
expected of him as a member of the bar, for which he must suffer the necessary
consequences.
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Orlando S. Paulma is hereby SUSPENDED from
the practice of law for a period of two (2) years, effective upon his receipt of this
Resolution. He is warned that a repetition of the same or similar act will be dealt
with more severely.

Let a copy of this Resolution be entered in Atty. Paulma's personal record with the
Office of the Bar Confidant, and copies be served to the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines and the Office of the Court Administrator for circulation to all the courts
in the land.
SO ORDERED.
Sereno, C. J., Carpio, Velasco, Jr., Leonardo-De Castro, Brion, Bersamin, Del
Castillo, Perez, Mendoza, Reyes, Leonen, Jardeleza, and Caguioa, JJ., concur.
NOTICE OF JUDGMENT
Sirs/Mesdames:
Very truly yours,

Clerk of Court
[1]
Dated January 7, 2009. Rollo, pp. 1-5.
[2]
Spelled as "Miag-ao" in some parts of the rollo.
[3]
Rollo, p. 2.
Entitled "AN ACT PENALIZING THE MAKING OR DRAWING AND ISSUANCE OF A

CHECK WITHOUT SUFFICIENT FUNDS OR CREDIT AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES,"
approved on April 3, 1979.
[4]
[5]
Rollo, p. 2.
[6]
See id, at 78.
Id. at 78-80. Issued by 3rd Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Globert J. Justalero and
approved by Provincial Prosecutor Bernabe D. Dusaban.
[7]
[8]
Id. at 79.
[9]
See id. at 6.
[10]
Id. at 6-19. Penned by Designated Judge Ernesto A. Templanza. Sr.
[11]
Id. at 18-19.
[12]
See id. at 72.
[13]
Id. at 72-73. Penned by Judge Domingo D. Diamante.
See Entry of Final Judgment signed by Clerk of Court VI Atty. Aemos Jonathan A.
Galuego; id. at 30. It appears from the records that respondent elevated the
criminal case before the Court of Appeals (C A) through filing of two (2) separate
motions for extensions to file petition, which were, however denied by the CA, in its
Resolution dated October 1, 2009 for failure to: (a) pay full amount of docket and
lawful fees; and (b) file the petition within the extended period (see id. at 74-75).
Said CA Resolution became final and executory on October 2, 2010 (see Entry of
Judgment signed by Division Clerk of Court May Faith L. Trumata-Rebotiaco; id. at
116).
[14]
[15]
See Counter-Affidavit dated September 2, 2011; id. at 43-46.
[16]
Id. at 43-44.
[17]
Id. at 44.
[18]
Id. at 45.
[19]
Id. at 48. Signed by Division Clerk of Court Wilfredo V. Lapitan.
[20]
Id. at 122-125. Issued by IBP Commissioner Roland B. Beltran.
[21]
See id. at 125.
[22]
Id. at 124.
[23]
See id.
Id. at 121, including dorsal portion thereof. Issued by National Secretary Nasser
A. Marohomsalic.
[24]
[25]
See Resolution No. XXI-2014-737 in CBD Case No. 12-3357; id.
Foronda v. Alvarez, Jr., AC No. 9976, June 25, 2014, 727 SCRA 155, 164,
citing Manzano v. Soriano, 602 Phil. 419, 426-427 (2009).
[26]
[27]
Id., citing de Chavez-Bianco v. Lumasag, Jr., 603 Phil. 59, 65 (2009).
See A.C. No. 8330, March 16, 2015, citing Ong v. Delos Santos, A.C. No. 10179,
March 4, 2014, 717 SCRA 663, 668-669.
[28]
[29]
See id.
Wong v. Moya II, 590 Phil. 279, 289 (2008), citing Cuizon v. Macalino, All Phil.
569, 575 (2004).
[30]
[31]
A.C. No. 10050, December 3, 2013, 711 SCRA 290.
[32]
636 Phil. 627 (2010).
[33]
A.C. 7676, June 10, 2014, 726 SCRA 70.
[34]
Supra note 30.
[35]
Id. at 290.
[36]
Enriquez v. De Vera, supra note 28.
[37]
Ong v. Delos Santos, supra note 28, at 671.

G.R.
No.
175736
&
175898
JOSE RIZAL L. REMO, REYNALDO G. PANALIGAN, TITA L. MATULIN, ISAGANI CASALME, CIPRIANO P. ROXAS, CESARIO
S. GUTIERREZ, CELSO A. LANDICHO, AND EDUARDO L. TAGLE, PETITIONERS, VS. ADMINISTRATOR EDITA S. BUENO,
NATIONAL ELECTRIFICATION ADMINISTRATION (NEA) BOARD OF ADMINISTRATORS AND MEMBER-CONSUMERS OF
BATELEC
II,
RESPONDENTS.
[G.R.
NO.
175898]
JOSE RIZAL L. REMO, REYNALDO G. PANALIGAN, TITA L. MATULIN, ISAGANI CASALME, CIPRIANO P. ROXAS, CESARIO
S. GUTIERREZ, CELSO A. LANDICHO, AND EDUARDO L. TAGLE, PETITIONERS, VS. ADMINISTRATOR EDITA S. BUENO,
SEC. RAPHAEL LOTILLA, WILFREDO BILLENA, JOSE VICTOR LOBRIGO, EVANGELITO ESTACA AND MARILYN
CAGUIMBAL,
RESPONDENTS.
April 12, 2016
EN BANC
[ G.R. No. 175736 & 175898, April 12, 2016 ]
JOSE RIZAL L. REMO, REYNALDO G. PANALIGAN, TITA L.
MATULIN, ISAGANI CASALME, CIPRIANO P. ROXAS, CESARIO
S. GUTIERREZ, CELSO A. LANDICHO, AND EDUARDO L.
TAGLE, PETITIONERS, VS. ADMINISTRATOR EDITA S. BUENO,
NATIONAL ELECTRIFICATION ADMINISTRATION (NEA)
BOARD OF ADMINISTRATORS AND MEMBER-CONSUMERS OF
BATELEC II, RESPONDENTS.
[G.R. NO. 175898]
JOSE RIZAL L. REMO, REYNALDO G. PANALIGAN, TITA L.
MATULIN, ISAGANI CASALME, CIPRIANO P. ROXAS, CESARIO
S. GUTIERREZ, CELSO A. LANDICHO, AND EDUARDO L.
TAGLE, PETITIONERS, VS. ADMINISTRATOR EDITA S. BUENO,
SEC. RAPHAEL LOTILLA, WILFREDO BILLENA, JOSE VICTOR
LOBRIGO, EVANGELITO ESTACA AND MARILYN CAGUIMBAL,
RESPONDENTS.
DECISION
Before the Court are the consolidated cases G.R. No. 175736 and G.R. No. 175898,
filed by the same petitioners against slightly different sets of respondents.
G.R. No. 175736 is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 with prayers
for the issuance of a temporary restraining order (status quo ante) and/or
preliminary mandatory injunction. Petitioners therein question the Decision[1] of
the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 96486 (the questioned Court of Appeals
Decision).
G.R. No. 175898 is a petition for indirect contempt under Section 3(a), Rule 71 of
the Rules of Court. '
Petitioners Jose Rizal L. Remo, Reynaldo G. Panaligan, Tita L. Matulin, Isagani
Casalme, Cipriano P. Roxas, Cesario S. Gutierrez, Celso A. Landicho, and Eduardo L.
Tagle (petitioners) are members of the Board of Directors of the Batangas II Electric
Cooperative, Inc. (BATELEC II).
Public respondent Edita S. Bueno is impleaded as the Administrator of the National
Electrification Administration (NEA), an agency created under Presidential Decree
No. 269, as amended by Presidential Decree No. 1645.
The members of the Board of Administrators of NEA, at the time of the filing of the
petition, were Department of Energy Secretary Raphael Lotilla as Chairman, and
Wilfredo Billena, Jose Victor Lobrigo, and Edita Bueno.
The member-consumers of BATELEC II are the private respondents.
The Court of Appeals, in CA-G.R. SP No. 96486, summarized the facts in the
following manner:
The antecedent facts show that on May 12, 2005, an administrative complaint for
gross mismanagement and corruption was lodged before the Board of
Administrators, National Electrification Administration] (NEA) by bonafide members
of BATELEC II against petitioners and other members of the Board of Directors of
the cooperative.
In a Manifestation and Motion dated April 12, 2006, respondents informed the
Office of the Administrative Committee of NEA (Adcom) that they are adopting their
Joint Answers filed in two other administrative cases as part of their arguments and
evidence in this case. In their Joint Answers, respondents averred among others
that the complaints were never subscribed and sworn to before an administering
officer, nonpayment of filing fees as well as non-submission of a certification against
non-forum shopping and, hence, prayed for dismissal. On May 25, 2006, an Order
was issued giving the complainant members of the cooperative a period of fifteen
(15) days to submit the needed documents in these cases. Respondents moved for
a reconsideration of the Order dated May 25, 2006 but the same was denied on
June 29, 2006 after the submission of the required documents. Another pleading
captioned Motion for Reconsideration and Clarification was filed by respondents
which was denied on July 25, 2006.
Meanwhile and undaunted, respondents filed before [the Court of Appeals] on
September 21, 2006 a Petition for Certiorari with a plea for Temporary Restraining
Order and Preliminary Injunction [CA-G.R. SP No. 96486], alleging therein that the
NEA acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction
in not dismissing the complaint in NEA Adm. Case No. 01-05-05 and in accepting
token compliance made more than a year after the complaint was filed.
On October 5, 2006, NEA found substantial evidence to hold the respondents
administratively liable. The dispositive portion of its decision [the NEA decision]
reads:
"WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is hereby ordered:
(1) That pursuant to Section 10, Chapter II of Presidential Decree No. 269, as
amended by Section 5(e) of Presidential Decree 1645, Respondents Reynaldo
Panaligan, Isagani Casalme, Cesario Gutierrez, Celso Landicho, Tita Matulin, Jose
Rizal Remo, Cipriano Roxas and Eduardo Tagle, all incumbent members of the Board
of Directors of BATELEC II, are REMOVED as members of the Board of Directors
with disqualification to run for the same position in any future district election of the
cooperative, effective immediately;
(2) That Respondents Ruben Calinisan, Gerardo Hernandez, Ireneo Montecer, and
Tirso Ramos, who are no longer members of the Board of Directors of BATELEC II,
are DISQUALIFIED to run for the same position in any future district election of the
cooperative effective immediately; and
(3) That the penalty as recommended above shall be without prejudice to future
criminal and/or civil actions that may be taken against the responsible members of
the Board by BATELEC II. Accordingly, the present BATELEC II Board of Directors,
are directed to file the appropriate criminal and/or civil action against all of the
respondent members of the Board of Directors of BATELEC II.
xxxx
On October 9, 2006, the Administrator of NEA, Edita S. Bueno ordered seven of the
Board of Directors of BATELEC II namely Atty. Natalio M. Panganiban, Mr. Leovino
O. Hidalgo, Mr. Gonzalo O. Batugon, Mr. Ruperto H. Manalo, Mr. Adrian G. Ramos,
Mr. Dakila P. Atienza, and Mr. Michael Angelo C. Rivera to reorganize and elect a
new set of officers for the cooperative effective immediately and ruled that the
vacancies in the Board by reason of the NEA Decision x x x shall not be included in
the count for the determination of a quorum in the BATELEC II Board.
On October 10, 2006 (not October 9, 2006 as alleged in the Petition) therein
respondents moved for a reconsideration of the Decision dated October 5, 2006
arguing that NEA erred in holding respondents guilty of grave misconduct, in
making its decision immediately executory, in rendering the decision despite the
pendency of a motion to defer proceeding/Petition for Certiorari and Adm. Case
Nos. 01-02-06 and 02-02-06, and in directing the filing of criminal and/or civil
actions against them.
Without awaiting the resolution of their Motion for Reconsideration, respondents
filed before [the Court of Appeals a Petition for Certiorari, which was docketed as
CA-G.R. SP No. 96486] on the following grounds:
"A. That the Public Respondent Edita Bueno committed grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when she ordered the execution of the
assailed decision of the NEA Board of Administrators to which she is a member,
during the pendency of a Motion for Reconsideration directed against the said
decision; and
B. That the Public Respondent Edita Bueno committed grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when she declared in her assailed order
that the majority of the Board of Directors of BATELEC II, whom she prematurely
ordered removed shall not be considered in the count for the determination of a
quorum.[2] (Citations omitted.)
On October 10, 2006, in compliance with the October 9, 2006 NEA Order, the
following resolution was issued:
BATELEC II RESOLUTION #001
SERIES: 2006
WHEREAS, a letter dated 09 October 2006 from NEA was received by the
undersigned, a portion of which reads as follows:
"We hereby order the seven (7) above-named Board of Directors to reorganize and
accordingly elect a new set of officers for the cooperative effective immediately "
WHEREAS, in faithful compliance of the above and in order to protect and promote
the general welfare and interest of the cooperative, an election was held today,
October 10, 2006 and the duly elected set of officers are as follows:
President
Vice President
Secretary
Treasurer
- Ruperto H. Manalo
- Atty. Natalio M. Panganiban
- Dakila P. Atienza
- Leovino O. Hidalgo
xxxx
Adapted this 10th day of October 2006 at Lipa City, Batangas.
[Signed by Manalo, Panganiban, Atienza, Hidalgo, Gonzalo O. Bantugon (Director),
Adrian G. Ramos (Director), and Michael Angelo C. Rivera (Director).]
Erwin M. Layog, Notary Public (October 12, 2006) [3]
On October 11, 2006, respondent Bueno wrote to the Board of Directors through
Manalo confirming Board Resolution No. 001, Series of 2006, reorganizing and
accordingly electing a new set of officers for the electric cooperative Board of
Directors.[4]
On October 16, 2006, the Court of Appeals issued a Temporary Restraining Order
(TRO),[5] effective for sixty (60) days, ordering the respondents and their
representatives to cease and desist from enforcing or otherwise giving effect to the
October 5, 2006 Decision of the NEA in NEA ADM. Case No. 01-05-05.
Meanwhile, the petitioners, on December 7, 2006, filed with the Court of Appeals a
Motion to Cite Respondents in Contempt of Court. [6]
On December 15, 2006, the Court of Appeals rendered its Decision in CA-G.R. SP
No. 96486 and held that there was no abuse of discretion on respondent Bueno's
part when she issued her October 9, 2006 order, as such was done in the legitimate
exercise of her mandate under Presidential Decree No. 269 and pursuant to Section
15 of the New Administrative Rules of Procedures of the NEA and its Administrative
Committee. The fallo of the decision provides:
WHEREFORE, in light of the foregoing, the instant petition is DISMISSED for lack of
merit. The temporary restraining order issued on October 16, 2006 is hereby
declared LIFTED and of no further effect. [7]
Undaunted, the petitioners brought their case before this Court via a petition for
review on certiorari with prayers for the issuance of a temporary restraining order
(status quo ante) and/or preliminary mandatory injunction.
On December 29, 2006, this Court issued a Status Quo Ante Order,[8] and
reiterated in a Resolution issued on July 31, 2007. The pertinent part of the Status
Quo Ante Order reads as follows:
Meanwhile, a STATUS QUO ANTE ORDER is hereby ISSUED, effective
immediately and continuing until further orders from this Court, ordering You,
parties, your agents, representatives, or persons acting in your place or stead, to
maintain the STATUS QUO prevailing before the issuance of the Order dated
October 5, 2006 of public respondent National Electrification Administration.
Petitioners then filed with this Court a Manifestation and Motion [9] dated January 9,
2007, informing this Court that when they tried to enter the premises of BATELEC II
to assume their respective posts, they were refused entry by the security guards,
who were allegedly acting upon the orders of NEA's project supervisor Evangelisto
Estaca and Acting General Manager Marilyn Caguimbal. Petitioners averred that the
respondents appointed caretaker-directors to take the posts petitioners had vacated
despite the Status Quo Ante Order. The petitioners further averred that the
respondents' actions made them guilty of indirect contempt as described under
Section 3 (a), Rule 71 of the Rules of Court.
Thus, petitioners, on the same day, filed a verified petition for indirect
contempt,[10] asking this Court to cite respondents for indirect contempt for their
clear disobedience of, or resistance to, a lawful order of this Court, and have them
imprisoned and fined according to the Rules of Court. The petition for indirect
contempt was docketed as G.R. No. 175898 and was consolidated with G.R. No.
175736.
Petitioners submit the following:
ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS
1. THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED GRAVE AND PALPABLE ERROR
IN ITS INTERPRETA TION OF SECTION 15 OF THE NEW
ADMINISTRATIVE RULES OF NEA IN RELATION TO SECTION 58 OF
PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 269, THUS ITS ERRONEOUS RULING
THAT NEA BOARD OF ADMINISTRATOR'S DECISION IS EXECUTORY

EVEN PENDING A MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION SEASONABL Y
FILED;
2. THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED GRAVE AND PALPABLE LEGAL
ERROR IN ITS INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 24 (D) OF
PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 269, WHICH MADE IT TO RULE THAT
SEVEN (7) OF THE FIFTEEN MAN BOARD OF DIRECTORS CAN
CONSTITUTE A QUORUM TO ELECT OFFICERS AND CONDUCT
BUSINESS OF THE COOPERATIVE[.][11]
PETITIONERS' ARGUMENTS:
1. THE DECISION OF THE NEA CANNOT BE MADE EXECUTORY PENDING A
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION, HENCE THE MOVE OF THE PUBLIC
RESPONDENT TO EXECUTE THE QUESTIONED DECISION OF NEA DURING
THE PENDENCY THEREOF IS A GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING
TO LACK OR IN EXCESS OF JURISDICTION, WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN
CHECKED BY THE COURT OF APPEALS.[12]
Petitioners argue that administrative rules cannot "supplant the dictates and
meaning of the law which it seeks to implement."[13] The law in question is
Presidential Decree No. 269,[14] which created the NEA.
Petitioners allege that the New Administrative Rules of Procedures of The National
Electrification Administration and Its Administrative Committee (the NEA Rules of
Procedures)[15] supplanted the clear meaning and intent of Presidential Decree No.
269 when it expressly disallowed judicial review of its decisions by stating in its
rules that its decisions are immediately executory.
SECTION 15. Execution of Decision. The Decision of the NEA shall be
immediately executory although the respondent(s) is not precluded from filing a
Motion for Reconsideration unless a restraining order or an injunction is issued by
the Court of Appeals in which case the execution of the Decision shall be held in
abeyance.[16]
Petitioners contend that Section 15 should be invalidated for being in direct
contravention of the law which it seeks to implement. Petitioners claim that even
grantingarguendo that NEA's decision may be considered immediately executory,
still the Court of Appeals gravely erred in declaring that its execution is proper even
during the pendency of a motion for reconsideration. [17]
Petitioners contend that Section 15 of the NEA Rules of Procedures allows the filing
of the motion for reconsideration, which motion is specifically required by Section
58 of Presidential Decree No. 269, before any judicial review may be sought. As
such, the same can be considered as an exception to the immediately executory
nature of the NEA decision. Petitioners argue that Section 15 recognizes the
jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals to issue a TRO and/or Preliminary Injunction to
stay the execution of its decision. However, the aggrieved party cannot go to the
Court of Appeals to seek the issuance of a TRO and/or preliminary injunction
without first filing a motion for reconsideration as required by Section 58 of
Presidential Decree No. 269. As such, if the pendency of a motion for
reconsideration cannot hold the execution of the questioned decision of the NEA, its
rule allowing the effects of the TRO and/or Preliminary Injunction to stay the
execution of its questioned decision is rather illusory as it can never be actualized,
thereby making the questioned rule absurd, vis-a-vis the requirements of Section
58 of Presidential Decree No. 269.[18]
Petitioners argue that it is basic in this jurisdiction that the filing of a motion for
reconsideration stays the execution of the decision.[19]
Petitioners further claim that, even applying by analogy the decisions of the
National Labor Relations Commission or other administrative bodies, which by law
makes their decisions final and executory, still their decisions are stayed pending a
motion for reconsideration, as the only remedy left for the aggrieved party is a
Petition forCertiorari under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, where they
can apply for the issuance of a TRO and/or Preliminary Injunction. Such stay of
execution pending a motion for reconsideration is allowed and recognized pursuant
to a section of Rule 65 specifically requiring for the filing of a Motion for
Reconsideration, just like in the proceedings before the NEA. [20]
2. WITH THE PENDENCY OF A MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION, THE DECISION
OF THE PUBLIC RESPONDENT NEA CAN NEVER BE CONSIDERED FINAL,
HENCE THE OFFICE OF HEREIN PETITIONERS CANNOT STILL BE
CONSIDERED VACANT AND THEIR NUMBER CONSTITUTING THE MAJORITY
OF THE BOARD CANNOT BE UNDETERMINED IN DETERMINING THE
QUORUM.[21]
Petitioners assert that the motion for reconsideration they filed on October 10, 2006
relative to the October 5, 2006 decision of the NEA Board of Administrators remains
pending and unresolved. As such, the questioned decision has not yet attained
finality and therefore cannot yet be executed. Petitioners note that respondent
Bueno issued her Order after a mere passage of four days from the date that the
questioned decision was issued by the NEA Board of Administrators. [22]
Regarding the declaration of the Court of Appeals that seven of the fifteen (15)man Board can constitute a quorum, citing Section 24 of Presidential Decree No.
269 as its basis, petitioners aver that it cannot hold water as Section 24 provides
that "[a] majority of the board of directors in office shall constitute a quorum."
Petitioners further aver that BATELEC II has fifteen (15) members of the Board of
Directors; thus, the presence of eight of its directors is necessary to constitute a
quorum in any of its meetings. The eight members of the Board of Directors who
have been summarily ordered dismissed by respondent Bueno have remained in
office as their motion for reconsideration has not yet been acted upon. Besides, at
the time that their office was declared vacant by respondent Bueno on October 9,
2006, their period to file a motion for reconsideration had not yet lapsed, as they
had indeed filed the same on October 10, 2006. Petitioners conclude that the
respective positions of herein petitioners cannot be considered vacant, and as such,
their number, constituting the majority of the members of the Board of Directors
cannot just easily be ignored.[23]
Petitioners allege that the decision of the Court of Appeals in declaring as valid the
removal of the eight directors as early as October 5, 2006, when the questioned
decision was issued, is rather misplaced under an erroneous application of the
questioned rules of NEA which directly contravene the express provision of
Presidential Decree No. 269. As such, its eventual declaration that only seven of the
15 directors were in office on October 9, 2006, suffers legal infirmity for having
been based on an erroneous premise.[24]
Petitioners pray for the reversal of the Court of Appeals' decision and a declaration
that its interpretation of Section 15 of the NEA Rules of Procedures is contrary to
the dictates of Presidential Decree No. 269. Petitioners further pray for the
annulment of the Order of the NEA dated October 5, 2006 and that of respondent
Bueno dated October 9, 2006 for being violative of the law and applicable rules,
including Rule 52, Section 4 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. Finally, petitioners
pray for a declaration that Section 15 of the NEA Rules of Procedures is unlawful as
it directly violates Sections 58 and 59 of Presidential Decree No. 269, which it seeks
to implement.[25]
In its Comment,[26] the NEA presented its version of the facts:
On May 12, 2005, a complaint, which was sufficient in form and substance, was
filed by member-consumers of BATELEC II against the Petitioners before the
National Electrification Administrative Committee and was docketed as NEA
Administrative Case No. 01-05-05.
On August 29, 2006, Petitioners in the instant case filed its Petition
for Certiorari with prayer for the Issuance of Temporary Restraining Order/ or
Preliminary Injunction before the third (3rd) Division of the Honorable Court [of]
Appeals docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 95902 ["First Petition"]. This is a special civil
action for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, assailing the NEA Orders
dated 25 May 2006 and 14 July 2006 in the NEA Administrative Case No. 01-05-05
on ground of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
On September 7, 2006, the First Petition x x x was DISMISSED by the Honorable
Third Division of the Court of Appeals for non-compliance of Petitioners of the Rules
on Non-forum Shopping in violation of Section 3, Rule 46 in relation to Section 1,
Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure and in violation of Section 13, Rule 13
of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
Unable to acquire the desired result, Petitioners on September 21, 2006, filed
[their] Petition for Certiorari with Prayer for the Issuance of Temporary Restraining
Order/ or Preliminary Injunction before the [14th] Division of the Honorable Court
of Appeals docketed as CA-G.R. No. 96214 [the "Second Petition"]. This is a special
civil action under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court assailing the three (3) NEA Orders
dated [May 25, 2006, June 25, 2006, and July 29, 2006, respectively] in NEA
Administrative Case No. 01-05-05 on the ground of grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
On October 2, 2006, the Honorable Fourteenth Division of the Court of Appeals in
CA-G.R. No. 96214 issued a Resolution which HELD IN ABEYANCE the prayer for
issuance of the Temporary Restraining Order of Petitioners.
On October 5, 2006, the NEA promulgated its Decision in the NEA Administrative
Case No. 01-05-05 x x x.
xxxx
The above NEA Decision is premised on the following [findings of fact] by the NEA
Administrative Committee (ADCOM) as supported by substantial evidence which
resulted to their dismissal and perpetual disqualification as members of the Board
of Directors of BATELEC II, to wit:
1. The herein Petitioners were charged by the member-consumers of BATELEC
II for gross mismanagement of the cooperative and corruption for awarding
the SEVENTY-FIVE MILLION PESOS (Php 75,000,000.00) computerization
contract without the requisite bidding to an undercapitalized bidder (I-SOLV
Technologies), whose paid-up capitalization is SIXTY-TWO THOUSAND FIVE
HUNDRED PESOS (Php 62,500,00) only;
2. The herein Petitioners unjustifiably authorized the unprogrammed purchase

often (10) units boom trucks at 100% overprice after an apparently rigged
bidding;
3. As regards the Php 75 Million computerization project, the herein Petitioners
were found to have grossly mismanaged the cooperative which resulted to
the huge financial losses of BATELEC II;
4. In spite of NEA Administrator Bueno's letter advisory dated August 2, 2006,
to conduct a comprehensive system study prior to the implementation of the
computerization project, herein Petitioners as members of the Board of
Directors in open defiance to said letter implemented the Php 75 million
computerization project;
5. Contrary to NEA Rules, regulations, and policies and without the NEA
Approval as required by Section 24(a) of P.D. No. 269 as amended by Section
7 of P.D. No. 1645, the herein Petitioners defiantly implemented the
computerization program.
xxx [Petitioners on October 12, 2006, filed a Petition for Certiorari with Prayer for
the Issuance of Temporary Restraining Order/or Preliminary Injunction before the
Special Second Division of the Honorable Court of Appeals docketed as CA-G.R. SP
No. 96486 [THIRD PETITION] . This is a Special Civil Action forCertiorari under Rule
65 of the Rules of Court this time assailing the Order of Execution by public
respondent Bueno pursuant to the above NEA Decision dated October 5, 2006 on
the ground of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
[27]
The NEA contends that on November 17, 2006, petitioners registered BATELEC II to
the Cooperative Development Authority (CDA)[28] "in their vile attempt to escape the
imposition of administrative sanctions of NEA" based on its Administrative Case No.
01-05-05. However, the Court of Appeals found that the NEA did not commit grave
abuse of discretion in immediately executing its decision. It is the third petition filed
that is the subject of this appeal by certiorari.
PUBLIC RESPONDENT NEA'S ARGUMENTS:
A. ON PROCEDURAL GROUNDS:
I.
THE PETITION DOES NOT REFLECT

THE TRUE FACTS WHEN [IT] STATED THAT NEA
HURRIEDLY ISSUED ITS DECISION ORDERING

THE REMOVAL OF THE PETITIONERS.[29]
The NEA avers that the ADM. Case No. 01-05-05 was filed on May 12, 2005 by
member-consumers of BATELEC II against the petitioners before the NEA
Committee, while the decision was promulgated on October 5, 2006. On the other
hand, the move of the petitioners herein to register BATELEC II with the
Cooperative Development Authority (CDA) was done on November 17, 2006, which
was primarily designed to escape the imposition of administrative sanctions by NEA.
[30]
The BATELEC II Certificate of Registration[31] with the CDA stated that BATELEC
II "shall operate within its original franchise areas" and it is entitled to rights and
privileges granted by Republic Act No. 6938, Cooperative Code of the Philippines,
and Republic Act No. 6939, an act creating the CDA, and other laws. On December
2006, theCDA Board of Administrators issued Resolution No. 311, S-2006,
which states that the Board resolved to set aside the effectivity of the Certificate of
Registration issued to BATELEC II ""pending a conduct of an exhaustive
investigation to ascertain whether or not fraud or misrepresentation was
committed by the ousted members of the BATELEC II Board of Directors
when they applied for permanent registration with the CDA."[32]
2. THE PETITION DOES NOT REFLECT
THE TRUE FACTS WHEN [PETITIONERS]
STATED THAT NEA THRU ADMINISTRATOR
EDITA S. BUENO ISSUED AN ORDER
OF EXECUTION DATED 9 OCTOBER
2006 DESPITE PENDENCY OF THEIR
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF
THE DECISION DATED 5 OCTOBER 2006.[33]
The NEA argues that petitioners are estopped and can neither allege nor assail in
this petition the fact that respondent Bueno issued an Order of Execution dated
October 9, 2006 because they filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 and
justified the fact of elevating the matter directly to the Court of Appeals without
waiting for the resolution of their motion for reconsideration and should be deemed
to have abandoned the latter.
III.
PETITIONERS VIOLATED SECTION 2,

RULE 42 OF THE 1997 RULES OF COURT ON NON-FORUM
SHOPPING RIGHT FROM THE VERY START OF FILING THIS
INSTANT PETITION FOR REVIEW ON CERTIORARI
UNDER RULE 45.[34]
The NEA alleges that there are commonalities or similarities of the three petitions
successively filed with three different Divisions of the Court of Appeals, one of
which was elevated and now pending before the Supreme Court by way of Petition
for Review under Rule 45. The cases are:
1) CA-G.R. No. 95902 - August 29, 2006 - dismissed on September 7, 2006;[36]
2) CA-G.R. No. 96214 - September 21, 2006 - dismissed; and
3) CA-G.R. SP No. 96486 - Decision is now the subject matter of this petition.
The NEA claims that the ultimate purpose or objective of petitioners in all their
petitions was to prevent their eventual removal as members of the board of
BATELEC II. Petitioners misled the Court of Appeals and made a mockery of the
judicial system by splitting interrelated and inseparable issues but seeking a
common objective or relief (restraining the NEA from removing them as members
of the Board of BATELEC II) from the different fora (the Court of Appeals and the
Supreme Court). This was a clear case of forum shopping. They filed the
Certification of Non-Forum Shopping but circumvented the rule. There is forum
shopping when the litigant sues the same party against whom another action or
actions for the alleged violation of the same right and the enforcement of die same
relief is/are still pending.
I.
PETITIONERS' FILING OF THE PETITION

FOR CERTIORARI UNDER RULE 65 AT THE
HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS WILL
NOT STOP THE RUNNING OF THE
REGLEMENTARY PERIOD TO FILE AN
APPEAL UNDER RULE 43.[37]
The NEA asserts that the wrong mode of appeal in the Court of Appeals cannot be
corrected by another wrong remedy. The October 5, 2006 NEA decision is final and
executory and should have been appealed. Resultantly, this Petition for Review
under Rule 45 before this Honorable Court must be dismissed.
NEA points at that petitioners should have from the very start availed of the
ordinary appeals from quasi-judicial bodies to the Court of Appeals under Rule 43 of
the Rules of Court and not an extraordinary remedy of Petition for Certiorari under
Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Court on account that a plain and speedy remedy is
available.
For NEA, the Court of Appeals in fact, found no grave abuse of discretion. NEA
contends that there is an available, plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the
ordinary course of law which should have been used by petitioners under Rule 43,
so the NEA Decision dated October 5, 2006 and its Order of Execution dated
October 6, 2006 are not correctible by Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65. The
NEA Rules of Procedures proscribe the filing of Petition for Certiorari.[38] A special
civil action ofcertiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court is a special remedy
which cannot be a substitute for lapsed or forgotten appeal. The mere filing of a
Petition for Review onCertiorari under Rule 43, provided it has form and substance,
would stay the execution of judgment, whereas a Petition for Certiorari under Rule
65 would stay the execution unless a temporary restraining order or preliminary
injunction is issued. The October 5, 2006 Decision of the NEA Board of
Administrators is now finis for failure of petitioners to appeal within 15 days from
receipt. This petition for review under Rule 45 must be dismissed.
B. PUBLIC RESPONDENT NEA'S ARGUMENTS
ON SUBSTANTIVE GROUNDS
I.
THERE IS NO GRAVE AND PALPABLE

ERROR COMMITTED BY THE
HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS WHEN
IT APPLIED SECTION 15 OF THE NEW
ADMINISTRATIVE RULES OF NEA
IN RELATION TO SECTION 58 OF
PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 269.[39]
The NEA asserts that there is no conflict between the NEA Rules of Procedures and
the provisions of law, but a mere confusion on the part of petitioners on which
remedy they should avail of. Section 58, Chapter IV of Presidential Decree No. 269
does not expressly preclude the NEA from immediately executing its Administrative
Decision pending a Motion for Reconsideration. The NEA Rules of Procedures did not
rise above Presidential Decree No. 269. The NEA Charter allows for judicial review
and there is no dispute about that. Presidential Decree No. 269, as amended, does
not prohibit the NEA from promulgating Rules which would allow immediate
execution of its decision pending a Motion for Reconsideration, unless otherwise
stayed by the Court of Appeals. The filing of a Motion for Reconsideration is not a
requisite for judicial review. Petitioners availed of the wrong remedy of Petition
for Certiorari, which necessarily requires the filing of a Motion for Reconsideration.
Petitioners obstinately misread the provisions in order to suit their own favor, but
they contradict themselves as they had already availed of and obtained the TRO
from the Court of Appeals for 60 days restraining the effect of the adverted NEA
Decision.
In order to defeat the principle of presumption of regularity of official acts or orders
of government officials and its agents, petitioners should have clear and factual
grounds convincing enough to show that there was grave abuse of discretion
committed by the NEA amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. This they failed
to show as correctly ruled by the Special Second Division of the Court of Appeals.
The NEA Decision removed the petitioners; hence, the remaining board members
constituted the "board of directors in office," and majority of seven constitutes a
quorum. The issues in this petition for review were already resolved on the merits
by the Court of Appeals.
II.
THERE IS NO GRAVE AND PALPABLE

ERROR COMMITTED BY THE HONORABLE
COURT OF APPEALS IN APPLYING SECTION
24(D) OF PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 269[40]
The NEA alleges that petitioners misread Section 24(D) of Presidential Decree No.
269 regarding what constitutes a quorum, considering that as of the time the
questioned letter dated October 9, 2006 was issued, the October 5, 2006 Decision
removing the petitioners as members of the Board of Directors was being executed.
The NEA asserts that in effect, petitioners were no longer "Board of Directors in
office" and that only the seven remaining directors shall be considered as such. The
NEA argues that logically, a majority of seven shall constitute a quorum. The NEA
states that when the Court of Appeals issued the TRO on October 16, 2006,
restraining the October 5, 2006 NEA decision for sixty (60) days, the petitioners
were temporarily installed back as members of the Board of Directors for 60 days
until the TRO was automatically dissolved and the Petition for Certiorari was
dismissed. This, according to the NEA, is why petitioners filed this Petition for
Review before this Court, raising issues which have already been resolved on the
merits by the Court of Appeals.
III.
PETITIONERS' ALLEGATION OF QUESTION

OF LAW IN THIS INSTANT PETITION IS
UNFOUNDED BUT A PRETEXT IN ORDER
TO TAKE SIEGE OVER BATELEC II.[42]
BATELEC II is one of the largest, if not the largest electric cooperative in the
country, with more than 190,000 member-consumers and an average of Php300
million monthly gross revenue. The law mandates the NEA to supervise and control
the operation of BATELEC II. As a cooperative, the ownership of BATELEC II does
not belong to its Board of Directors but to its member-consumers, under the NEA's
supervision and control.
The NEA is mandated to take cognizance over all administrative cases against
erring Board of Directors and General Managers of electric cooperatives.
Presidential Decree No. 269, as amended by Presidential Decree No. 1645,
empowers the NEA to discipline and even remove erring Board of Directors that
electric cooperatives found to be administratively liable. The NEA Charter empowers
the NEA to promulgate its own rules of procedure and policies. Thus, the NEA
issued and published its Rules of Procedures. The Board of Directors hastily sought
refuge to the CDA without the requisite protocol of subjecting such choice in a
referendum by the general assembly of member-consumers. They did this to
escape administrative liability and still remain in power over the affairs of BATELEC
II.
The NEA avers that in administrative proceedings, the Rules of Court are not strictly
followed.
GROUNDS TO LIFT STATUS QUO ANTE ORDER
1. There is an urgent need to lift the status quo ante order and to dismiss the
petition.
The continued presence of the petitioners as members of the Board of Directors
poses a great threat to BATELEC IPs welfare and to the operation of the electric
cooperative as a whole considering that member-consumers and employees have
lost confidence on petitioners who continue to squander the cooperative funds. Just
like when they filed for the TRO issued by the Court of Appeals, petitioners came
before this Court with unclean hands, seeking for protection or relief of TRO or
injunction, in order to escape liability and be able to continue their caprices as they
remain in control of the affairs and funds of BATELEC II. As a result of the TRO
issued by the Court of Appeals on October 16, 2006 in CA-G.R. SP No. 96486,
petitioners "took siege" of the Cooperative by conducting "massive suspension" of
its employees and officers resulting to a "magnified unrest" in the Cooperative.
These acts are indicia of petitioners' bad faith.[43]
Even during the effectivity of the Court of Appeals-issued TRO, petitioners withdrew
Php256,000.00 from BATELEC II funds without being supported by a valid voucher
and not used for the benefit of the cooperative. Therefore, the NEA, pursuant to its
regulatory power, without necessarily violating the TRO, to protect the interests of
the member-consumers of BATELEC II and to protect the cooperative from running
bankrupt, exercised its enforcement powers provided under Section 5 of

Presidential Decree No. 1645 by immediately installing a Project Supervisor who will
act as overseer over and above the Board of Directors.
BATELEC II employees conducted a strike calling for the removal of the petitioners
due to rampant abuse of power and malversation or conversion of cooperative
funds. Petitioners sought relief of injunction in order to escape penalty from the
very offense or violation they have committed against the cooperative. The very
purpose of the NEA order or Decision commanding for petitioners' removal as
members of the Board of Directors of BATELEC II was for the protection of the
Electric Cooperative's funds and its member-consumers. [44]
In its COMMENT,[45] the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) wrote:
1. The Court of Appeals correctly ruled that the Decision of the NEA Board of
Administrators is immediately executory despite a Motion for Reconsideration duly
filed, pursuant to Section 15 of the New Administrative Rules of NEA.
xxxx
In this jurisdiction, well-settled is the rule that the procedure to be followed before
administrative agencies is generally not that prescribed for ordinary civil actions.
The procedure may be prescribed in the statute creating the agency, or in the rules
promulgated by the agency itself.
xxxx
Indeed by its very nature as an administrative agency exercising quasi-judicial
functions, NEA is not strictly bound by the rules of procedure in ordinary civil
actions. In fact, PD 269, which created the NEA, empowered NEA to adopt its own
rules to govern the conduct of hearings and investigations of cases brought before
it. Besides, the provisions of PD 269 reveal the intention of its framers for NEA to
adopt xxx relaxed rules of procedure.[46]
The OSG avers that Section 15 of the New Administrative Rules of Procedures of the
NEA and its Administrative Committee is within the power of the NEA to enact. It is
valid and not contrary to Presidential Decree No. 269. "Contrary to petitioners'
contention, Section 15 did not preclude a judicial review of NEA decisions. That a
decision is immediately executory does not prevent a party from questioning the
decision before a court of law."[47]
Section 15 is only a take-off from Section 60 of Presidential Decree No. 269.
SECTION 60. No Stay. The institution of a writ of certiorari or other special

remedies in the Supreme Court shall in no case supersede or stay any order, ruling,
or decision of the NEA unless the Court shall so direct, and the appellant may be
required by the Court to give bond in such form and of such amount as may be
deemed proper.
It is clear from the foregoing that the NEA decisions may not be stayed by the
institution of remedies before this Court (now before the Court of Appeals),
[48]
unless the Court shall so direct. This implies no less than that NEA decisions are
immediately executory. Therefore, if the law itself creating the NEA, through
Section 60, sanctions the immediately executory nature of NEA decisions, it may
not be said that Section 15 of the NEA Rules "rises above its source," as petitioners
contend. If petitioners find the rule absurd, they should question the legality of the
law itself.[49]
Finally, petitioners' assertion that in our jurisdiction the filing of a motion for
reconsideration stays the motion for execution of the decision, citing Section 4, Rule
52 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, is misplaced. The Court of Appeals correctly
ruled that the Decision of the NEA Board of Administrators is immediately executory
despite a Motion for Reconsideration duly filed, pursuant to Section 15. [50] That a
decision is immediately executory does not prevent a party from questioning the
decision before a court of law.
2. The Court of Appeals correctly, ruled that the remaining seven of the fifteen
members of the BATELEC II Board of Directors can constitute a quorum. [51]
The OSG claims that since there is now no existing restraining order to hold in
abeyance the implementation of said Decision, petitioners are considered removed
from office as directors of BATELEC II. As a result of the removal of petitioners,
there remain only seven members of the BATELEC II Board of Directors in office, a
majority of whom constitutes a quorum to do business.
3. The Court of Appeals correctly held that respondent NEA Administrator Edita
Bueno did not act with grave abuse of discretion in issuing the subject
October 9, 2006 letter.[52]
The OSG reasons that there was no showing that respondent Bueno supposedly
exercised her power in a despotic, capricious or whimsical manner.
In their Joint Reply[53] to NEA and OSG, petitioners declare that there is no forum
shopping in this case. This is a petition for review of the Court of Appeals Decision
on pure questions of law. The Court of Appeals has not dismissed the other cases
before it on such ground.

To show non-forum shopping, petitioners explain that CA-G.R. No. 95902 was filed
to question the action of NEA under May 25, 2006 order, violating its own rules of
procedures which requires the payment of filing fee and the submission of a
certificate of non-forum shopping before it can take cognizance of any complaint.
This was filed against the administrative cases filed by the Municipal Mayors under
NEA ADM. Case No. 02-02-06 and another administrative case filed by the
Employees Association docketed as NEA ADM. Case No. 01-02-06. CA-G.R. No.
96214 is the second petition filed for the Administrative case filed by the MemberConsumers under NEA ADM. Case No. 01-05-05. Finally, CA-G.R. SP No. 96486 was
filed relative to the decision of Administrator Edita S. Bueno, regarding NEA ADM.
Case No. 01-05-05, which prematurely executes the decision of the NEA Board of
Administrators dated October 5, 2006.
Petitioners cannot file an appeal pending a Motion for Reconsideration. This case
and CA-G.R. SP No. 96486 center on an interlocutory order of respondent Bueno
dated October 9, 2006 executing the decision of the Board of Administrators on
October 5, 2006. This order cannot be a subject of appeal, but only corrected by a
petition forcertiorari under Rule 65. This is why petitioners filed the case before the
Court of Appeals, which is now the subject of this petition for review. When the
motion for reconsideration was filed on October 12, 2006 no appeal could be made
on the questioned decision pending such motion as the same would be premature.
Furthermore, considering that one of the issues in this case is the propriety of the
NEA Administrative Rules for its direct violation of Presidential Decree No. 269
which it seeks to implement, the provision of such rules proscribing the filing of a
petition for certiorari cannot apply as it would undermine the jurisdiction of this
Court to decide on such legal question.
Petitioners conclude that the Court of Appeals decision upholding the order of the
NEA pursuant to Section 15 of the NEA Administrative Rules is improper and
violated Presidential Decree No. 269.
THE COURT OF APPEALS' RULING
The Court of Appeals found petitioners' stance that the NEA decision cannot be
executed pending a motion for reconsideration to be without merit. The Court of
Appeals said that petitioners' position is not supported by Section 15, Rule V of the
New Administrative Rules of Procedures of the NEA and its Administrative
Committee, the very Section they are relying on, as the said provision states that
decisions of the NEA are immediately executory.[54]
The Court of Appeals also found nothing irregular with respondent Bueno's orders to
have the remaining members of the board of BATELEC II reorganize and elect a
new set of officers. Citing Section 24(d) of Presidential Decree No. 269, the Court of
Appeals said that a mere majority of directors in an office is sufficient to constitute
a quorum and since the petitioners were removed from office, they could no longer
claim any right over their positions when respondent Bueno issued such directive.
[55]
The Court of Appeals held as follows:
In sum, We hold that public respondent Edita Bueno did not commit abuse of
discretion much less grave in issuing the assailed letter of October 9, 2006. Grave
abuse of discretion implies capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment
amounting to lack of jurisdiction or arbitrary and despotic exercise of power
because of passion or personal hostility. The word "capricious," usually held in
tandem with the term "arbitrary," conveys the notion of willful and unreasoning
action. Thus, when seeking the corrective remedy of certiorari, a clear showing of
caprice and arbitrariness in the exercise of discretion is imperative. It is also
required that the grave abuse of discretion must be so patent and gross as to
amount to an evasion or refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law. [56] (Citations
omitted.)
In denying petitioners' motion to cite respondents in contempt of court, the Court of
Appeals quoted Section 4, Rule 71 of the Rules of Court and held that a charge of
indirect contempt should be commenced through a verified petition and not by a
mere motion.[57]
On February 7, 2007, the NEA issued Guidelines[58] in the implementation of the
Supreme Court Status Quo Ante Order in G.R. No. 175736. It states that "All
members of the Board of Directors shall be allowed entry to the premises of
BATELEC II during Board meetings duly called for the purpose and upon proper
notice."
Public respondents filed their MEMORANDUM[59] on June 4, 2007.
On June 12, 2007, the Court resolved to grant petitioners' Manifestation and Motion
dated March 31, 2007 praying, among others, for the enforcement of the Status
Quo Ante Order anew and ordering the Chief of the Philippine National Police, the
Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, and the Director of the
National Bureau of Investigation or other law enforcement agencies to serve and
ensure the enforcement of the subject order.
Petitioners filed a Very Urgent Ex Parte Manifestation and Motion [60] on June 25,
2007 stating that respondents were trying to pre-empt the Status Quo Ante Order
dated December 29, 2006 by calling for the replacement of petitioners, directors of
BATELEC II, through self-serving proclamations and calling for another election,
even before the actual and effective implantation of the subject Status Quo
Ante Order. Petitioners prayed anew for the enforcement of said Status Quo
Ante order, and for an order clearly defining and enumerating all the actions that
need to be enforced by the law enforcement agencies.
This was followed by an Addendum to the Very Urgent Ex Parte Manifestation and
Motion[61] alleging that respondents have refused to follow the Status Quo
AnteOrder and to reinstate petitioners as directors, and even called for a special
election to replace such directors who were ordered reinstated by this Court. Such
special election was approved by the "minority" Board of Directors, without the
participation of the eight members of the BATELEC II Board constituting the
majority, through its Board Resolution No. 3, Series of 2007. Petitioners prayed that
"such illegal call for an election be expressly included in the list of the activities that
was restrained by this Most Honorable Court in a STATUS QUO ANTE that was
issued last December [29, 2006] and confirmed NUNC PRO TUNC in an order dated
January 16, 2007."[62]
On July 31, 2007, acting on the ADDENDUM TO THE VERY URGENT EX-PARTE
MANIFESTATION AND MOTION, the Court
resolved as follows:
1)
2)
3)
4)
To reiterate the status quo ante order issued on December 29, 2006;
To deputize x x x the Chief,of the Philippine National Police and National Bureau of
Investigation to enforce the aforesaid status quo ante order to ensure the faithful compliance
therewith;
To require the respondents to comment within ten (10) days from notice on the
aforementioned ADDENDUM x x x; and
To enjoin the respondents as of August 4, 2007 from calling/ conducting any election of
Directors to the Board of BATELEC II.[63]
On August 1, 2007, a Motion for Intervention with Prayer to Admit Attached

Comment in Intervention[64] was filed by Rupert H. Manalo, Natalio M. Panganiban,
Dakila P. Atienza, Leovino S. Hidalgo, Adrian C. Ramos, Michael Angelo C. Rivera,
and Gonzalo O. Bantugon (Movants-Intervenors) in their capacity as incumbent
Board of Directors of BATELEC II. Movants-Intervenors allege that they are the
remaining directors of BATELEC II after the October 5, 2006 NEA decision removed
petitioners as members of the Board of Directors. They claim that the act of not
impleading them as respondents in the two petitions filed by petitioners with the
Court of Appeals and this Court is arbitrary and whimsical and betray petitioners'
agenda, tainted with malice and bad faith, to deny them the full opportunity to
address squarely the issues raised in their Petitions.
Movants-Intervenors claim an outstanding legal interest in the subject matter of the
controversy which can be characterized as direct and immediate in the sense that
they will stand to lose or benefit in any Decision that this Court will render, in their
capacity as Board of Directors, as the Decision will determine if there will be a
reorganization and election of officers in BATELEC II. There is no denying that
petitioners are seeking the nullification of the NEA's Decision dated October 5,
2006. Assuming ex gratia argumenti that this Court would rule in favor of the
petitioners, this would in effect render nugatory the valid reorganization and
election of new officers undertaken by the remaining members of the Board of
Directors of BATELEC II.
Movants-Intervenors allege that majority of the members of the Board of Directors
in office is sufficient to constitute a quorum according to Section 24 of Presidential
Decree No. 269 and Section 4, Article V of BATELEC IPs By-laws. The latter reads as
follows:
ARTIKULO V - PULONG LUPON
SEKSIYON 4. ANG NAKAKARAMI SA LUPON AY BUBUO NG [KORUM], pasubali, na
kung sa nakakarami sa lupon ay dumalo sa naturang pulong, ang nakakarami sa
dumalong lupon ay maaaring magtindig ng pulong sa pana-panahon; at sa pasubali
pa rin, na pagtatalastasan ng kalihim ang mga hindi dumalong kagawad ng lupon
ng tungkol sa oras at pook ng naturang ititindig na pulong.
Ang mga Gawain ng nakakaraming dumalong kagawad ng lupon sa isang pulong na
may korum ay siyang magiging Gawain ng lupon, maliban kung may naiibang
itinakda sa alituntuning panloob nito.[65]
Movants-Intervenors allege that petitioners Gutierrez, Panaligan, Remo and
Casalme are only holding their positions in a hold-over capacity in view of the
expiration of their respective terms of office. The Status Quo Ante Order cannot
stop the expiration of the term of office of petitioners or the holding of District
elections. The petitioners' act of registering with the CDA on November 17, 2006
violated the Status Quo Ante Order since the status quo prior to the October 5,
2006 Decision was that BATELEC II was not yet registered with the CDA. The laws
were therefore not observed in said CDA registration.[66]
Movants-Intervenors submit that they were not impelled or motivated to delay the
speedy disposition of the instant case but basically just wanted to protect their legal
interest - that when they reorganized and elected a new set of officers on October
12, 2006 pursuant to the October 5, 2006 decision of NEA and the October 9, 2006
directive of respondent Bueno, their number validly constituted a quorum, and that
their acts as the incumbent Board of Directors were valid.
Movants-Intervenors interpose additional facts, claiming that on May 12, 2005,

concerned member-consumers of BATELEC II filed with the NEA an administrative
complaint[67] against petitioners as members of the Board of Directors of BATELEC II
based on the Comprehensive Audit Report of NEA dated March 18, 2005 covering
the period April 1, 2004-September 30, 2004 for gross mismanagement and
corruption, for awarding without bidding the Seventy-Five Million Pesos
(P75,000,000.00) contract of the computerization project of BATELEC II to I-SOLV
Technologies, Inc. with Sixty-Two Thousand Five Hundred Pesos (P62,500.00) paidup capital, and authorizing, after a questionable bidding process, the purchase
often (10) units of boom trucks at an amount of Six Million One Hundred Thousand
Pesos (P6,100,000.00).
Movants-Intervenors aver that on November 17, 2006, petitioners registered
BATELEC II with the CDA without the knowledge of movants-intervenors,
employees, and members-consumers. This registration was meant to remove the
regulatory and supervisory power of the NEA over BATELEC II. Aside from the fact
that the registration was done by petitioners who were already dismissed by the
NEA as members of the Board of Directors of BATELEC II at the time of registration,
it did not also go through the procedure as required by law.[68]
Movants-Intervenors allege that on February 8, 2007, a mediation proceeding was
conducted at Southern Police Headquarters Region 4 headed by Gen. Nicassio
Radovan and on February 9, 2007, respondent Bueno issued Guidelines in the
Implementation of the Status Quo Ante Order.[69]
In their COMMENT IN INTERVENTION,[70] movants-intervenors aver that:
1. The Court of Appeals did not err in ruling that the 5 October 2006 Decision of
the National Electrification Administration (NEA) is executory even pending a
Motion for Reconsideration filed by petitioners.[71]
Movants-Intervenors claim that petitioners' assertion that the Court of Appeals

erred in its interpretation of Section 15 of the NEA Rules in relation to Section 58 of
Presidential Decree No. 269 is devoid of merit. A cursory reading of Section 15 of
the NEA Rules is very categorical, too plain to be mistaken that NEA's Decision is
immediately executory regardless of the pendency of a Motion for Reconsideration
filed by petitioners. The rule is also clear that although the NEA Decision is
immediately executory this should not prejudice petitioners from filing a Motion for
Reconsideration, which remedy in fact they availed of. Movants-Intervenors point
out that not only Section 58 but also Section 59 of Presidential Decree No. 269
provides judicial review of the NEA's Decision.
Movants-Intervenors lament the absurdity in petitioners' claim that "[w]hile the law
allows judicial review of its decision, NEA under its issued rules expressly disallowed
the same by stating in its rules that its decision is immediately executory." They
assert that petitioners believe that while their Motion for Reconsideration of the NEA
Decision is pending, they should remain as members of the Board until the time
their Motion for Reconsideration attains finality. Contrary to petitioners' claim,
Section 15 of the NEA Rules is not inconsistent with Section 58 of Presidential
Decree No 269; hence, the Court of Appeals correctly interpreted those two
provisions of law. The former law did not supplant the latter law; the two
complement each other.[72]
Movants-Intervenors allege that while petitioners' motion for reconsideration was
pending resolution at the NEA, they availed of another remedy and that is a petition
for review on certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court with the Court of
Appeals assailing the NEA Decision. In doing so, petitioners are deemed to have
abandoned their Motion for Reconsideration and cannot fault the NEA from no
longer acting on the same.
2. The Court of Appeals did not err in interpreting Section 24(d) of PD No. 26
and ruling that the remaining members of the Board of Directors of BATELEC
can constitute a quorum to elect officers and conduct business in the
cooperative.[73]
As regards petitioners' claim that since their Motion for Reconsideration is pending,
their office cannot be considered vacant and they are still considered the majority in
determining quorum of the Board of Directors of BATELEC II, movants-intervenors
aver that petitioners were validly terminated under the assailed NEA Decision which
is immediately executory and was not stalled by the Motion for Reconsideration.
The NEA is a quasi-judicial body not strictly bound by technical rules of procedure
and administrative agencies are endowed with delegated rule-making powers.
NEA's function as the supervisory and regulatory agency of electric cooperatives like
BATELEC II is invested with public interest.
The NEA filed its COMMENT and MANIFESTATION WITH MOTION FOR RECALL on
August 13, 2007.[74]
The NEA contends that petitioners' prayer to remove Evangelito S. Estaca as project
supervisor of BATELEC II in its Addendum to the very urgent manifestation and
motion is off-tangent, if not a usurpation of NEA's power to exercise supervision
and control over electric cooperatives, and out of context in the October 5, 2006
NEA Decision and the December 29, 2006 Minute Resolution.
The NEA further contends that Estaca's appointment was by virtue of Office Order
No. 2006-131, Series of 2006.[75] It is an administrative remedial measure and

instrument for the abatement of "mass actions" of employees and memberconsumers, who are more or less 190,000, that were disrupting the operation of
the distribution utility. Aside from reinstating petitioners as Directors, NEA
voluntarily complied with the Status Quo Ante Order in its NEA-GUIDELINES dated
February 7, 2007. The NEA is not prohibited from appointing a project supervisor in
the exercise of its administrative remedial measure. The project supervisor is
vested to exercise management control.
G.R. No. 175898
In their VERIFIED PETITION FOR INDIRECT CONTEMPT[76] filed on January 10,
2007, petitioners claim that the Status Quo Ante Order was served on respondents
and their counsel by the process server of the Supreme Court on December 29,
2006. However, on January 2, 2007, petitioners requested the Chief of Police of Lipa
City to cause the service of the said order to the representative of the NEA in the
person of Project Supervisor Estaca who was holding office in the BATELEC II
Compound.
After said service of order, petitioners Remo, Gutierrez, Tagle, Roxas, and Casalme,
armed with the Order, attempted to enter the premises of BATELEC II to assume
their respective posts, but they were refused entry by the security guards of the
compound, who in turn said they were given specific orders by NEA, through its
Project Supervisor Estaca as well as by the Acting General Manager of BATELEC II,
Marilyn Caguimbal, not to let petitioners in. Their pictures were even posted near
the gate of the compound so as to ensure said orders. Petitioners attached
photographs of these events as annex "B" and the collective affidavit of petitioners
as annex "A."[77]
RESPONDENT MARILYN CAGUIMBAL'S
COMMENT TO THE PETITION filed on
February 27, 2007[78]
Respondent Caguimbal asserts that she never intended to bring disrepute or
disrespect to the Court through a willful and obstinate disobedience of its Status
Quo AnteOrder of December 29, 2006. Respondent Caguimbal contends that
petitioners' charge is unkind and wanting of basis in fact and in law and the
accusation is plainly predicated on hearsay information and self-serving
conclusions. The Petition and their Collective Affidavit are devoid of any evidence to
prove the fact that respondent Caguimbal had indeed ordered the security guards
not to honor the Court's order. Petitioners' allegations and submissions merely
indicate a supposed discussion that transpired between them and the security
guards; out of the said exchange sprung the identity of the alleged architects of the
contumacious act.
Claiming that mere allegation is not evidence, respondent Caguimbal strongly takes
exception to petitioners' asseverations and vile allusions that she antedated the
questionable appointment of caretaker directors in order to defy this Court's Status
Quo Ante Order. Save for a self-serving and non sequitur conclusion that the
antedating evidenced by the "Stamp receipt of the said order which reflects the
date of its promulgation,"[79] there is nothing that supports their claim of datemeddling. Neither BATELEC II nor respondent Caguimbal were impleaded as partyrespondents in G.R. No. 175736. Consequently, the Status Quo Ante Order is
inapplicable to her, as neither she nor the company she serves was personally
directed to implement said Order.
Respondent Caguimbal undertook measures in good faith and having in mind the
need to avoid occurrence of any untoward incident that may arise from the
implementation of the Status Quo Ante Order. The tension between the petitioners
and employees and members of BATELEC II had been on an all-time high. Members
of BATELEC II were the complainants against petitioners who ultimately caused the
latter's removal from their posts as directors of BATELEC II.
On November 24, 2006, a violent encounter between the petitioners and the
employee-members of BATELEC II ensued. This culminated in the filing of criminal
charges against said petitioners. At the time petitioners attempted to enter the
premises, there was no scheduled board meeting. Under NEA Bulletin No. 35 dated
June 18, 1990, members of the Board of Directors of an electric cooperative should
not hold regular office hours in the cooperative. Petitioners had no right to demand
that they be allowed entry into the premises on the ostensible reason that they
were imposing the Status Quo Ante Order of this Court. The NEA guidelines state
how they are to assume their post, and it clearly does not entail them entering the
premises at will, to the detriment of the peace and order situation in the BATELEC II
compound.
Respondent Caguimbal claimed good faith, a sincere desire to forestall any
unpleasant incident in the implementation of this Court's Status Quo Ante Order,
and total lack of intention to impede, obstruct or degrade the administration of
justice.
The COMMENT[80] of public respondents Department of Energy Secretary Raphael
Lotilla, NEA Administrator Bueno, NEA Board Member Wilfredo Villena, NEA Board
Member Jose Victor Lobrigo, and Project Supervisor Evangelito Estaca was filed on
April 10, 2007.
Public respondents aver that they may not be held guilty of indirect contempt and
the petition should be dismissed. NEA Bulletin No. 35 limits and delineates the
Board members' authority to avoid conflicts with REC management and staff. Thus,
as Board members of BATELEC II, petitioners can only exercise authority when the
Board is in session and when any of them has a special assigned duty.
Public respondents further aver that petitioners failed to show that the Board had a
session on January 2, 2007 requiring their attendance. Similarly, petitioners did not
allege that any of them had a special assigned duty justifying their presence in
BATELEC II premises. Considering that Board members are specifically prohibited
from involving themselves in management functions, intruding in the day-to-day
management and operations of the cooperative and holding regular office hours
therein, the status quo prevailing prior to October 5, 2006 is that petitioners as
members of BATELEC II Board of Directors may enter the premises only when there
is a board session or when a Board member has a special assigned duty.
PETITIONERS' MEMORANDUM[81]
In Petitioners' Memorandum filed on May 21, 2007, the issues according to
petitioners are as follows:
1. May the Honorable Court of Appeals be permitted to allow an administrative
office created by law to declare its decision as final and executory despite the
provision of the same law subjecting its decisions to judicial review?
2. May the Honorable Court of Appeals be permitted to allow a Public Officer to
execute a decision while the same is pending consideration of its office?
3. May the Honorable Court of Appeals be permitted to allow a minority of the
Board of Directors of a Cooperative to constitute a quorum, while an order
dismissing the majority of the Board is still under reconsideration? [82]
In the Consolidated Memorandum[83] filed by the Office of the Solicitor

General on September 21, 2007, they claim that public respondents may not be
held guilty of indirect contempt and the petition should be dismissed. Petitioners'
allegations are bare and unsubstantiated. The Court's Status Quo Ante Order issued
in G.R. No. 175736 was specifically addressed to the parties in that case, namely,
herein petitioners, Administrator Edita S. Bueno, NEA Board of Administrators and
Member-Consumers of BATELEC II. Respondents Caguimbal and Estaca are not
parties to the said case and they did not act in any of the parties' place or stead.
On January 7, 2007, the day petitioners claim that the Status Quo Ante order was
being served on BATELEC II, respondent Estaca did not receive the Order on the
belief that he did not have authority to do so as he was not a party to the case
wherein it was issued, and consequently, he was not among those enjoined by the
Honorable Court's Order to maintain the status quo. Estaca was designated by the
NEA Board of Administrators, through its Resolution No. 124 [84] passed in-its
November 30, 2006 meeting, as BATELEC II Project Supervisor pursuant to Section
7 of Presidential Decree No. 1645 and NEA BATELEC II Loan and Mortgage
Agreements. As such, his functions are only the following:
1. Oversee the operations and management of BATELEC II;
2. Review, approve/disapprove Board Resolutions and Policies; and
3. Sign checks, withdrawal slips and other banking transactions.
Estaca's honest belief that he had no authority to receive the Order based on his
specific functions enumerated above, coupled with the fact that he is not a party to
the case where the Status Quo Ante Order was issued, negate any intention on his
part to disobey the Honorable Court's Order.
As regards respondents NEA Administrator Edita Bueno, DOE Secretary Raphael
Lotilla, Wilfredo Billena and Jose Victor Lobrigo, petitioners failed to demonstrate
how they are guilty of disobeying or resisting the Court's Status Quo Ante Order, or
that they even knew of the January 2, 2007 incident.
As a collegial body, respondents-members of the NEA Board of Administrators did
not perform any act that would contravene the Status Quo Ante Order. Aside from
the alleged refusal of respondent Estaca to receive the service of the said Order,
nowhere in the petition were there alleged circumstances that would show that the
other respondents willfully disregarded the Honorable Court's Order that would tend
to bring its authority and the administration of law into disrepute or impede the
administration of justice. It appears that the acts of respondents Caguimbal and
Estaca were deemed by petitioners to be the acts of the other respondents, which is
illogical and unfair.
The OSG attached as Annex "D" a copy of the letter dated December 28, 2006 of
respondents Caguimbal and Estaca to Mayor Felipe A. Marquez of Rosario,
Batangas, informing him of the NEA directive to designate caretaker-directors to
take the place of the eight (8) ousted members of the BATELEC II Board of
Directors, herein petitioners, pending the scheduled election and organization of the
Multi-sectoral Electrification Advisory Council. The claim that said letter was
antedated was preposterous.
On February 20, 2013, Movants-Intervenors filed a motion asking this Court to
clarify the scope of the Status Quo Ante Order, i.e., if the proscription on the
calling/conduct of an election for BATELEC IPs Board of Directors includes a
proscription on the appointment and designation of a member to the BATELEC II
Board. This Court's resolution dated July 23, 2013 reads in part:
"Status Quo Ante" is a Latin term for "the way things were before." An order of this
nature is imposed to maintain the existing state of things before the controversy. In
this case, the STATUS QUO ANTE ORDER was issued to maintain the condition
prevailing before the National Electrification Administration issued the assailed
Order dated October 5, 2006. This naturally includes changes in the composition of
the Board of BATELEC II, whether by election, appointment, or designation.
Acting on the Motion for Clarification dated February 4, 2013, filed by MovantIntervenors, this Court holds that the Status Quo Ante Order includes a proscription
on the appointment or designation of a member to the BATELEC Board. [85]
THIS COURT'S RULING
The petition in G.R. No. 175736 is devoid of merit as the Court of Appeals did not
commit reversible error in its assailed Decision. Thus, petition is hereby DENIED.
The petition in G.R. No. 175898 for indirect contempt has no leg to stand on and
is based on empty and baseless averments and is hereby DISMISSED.
DISCUSSION
The Court of Appeals did not commit reversible error in holding that there was no
abuse of discretion on respondent Bueno's part when she issued her October 9,
2006 order, as such was done in the legitimate exercise of her mandate under
Presidential Decree No. 269, and pursuant to Section 15 of the NEA Rules of
Procedures.
In fuitherance of its authority to adopt its own rules of procedure, the NEA Board of
Administrators approved on May 19, 2005 the Rules of Procedure. Pertinent
provisions of the NEA Rules of Procedures are quoted below:
THE NEW ADMINISTRATIVE RULES OF PROCEDURES OF THE NATIONAL
ELECTRIFICATION ADMINISTRATION and its ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE
Rule V: SECTION 15. Execution of Decision. The Decision of the NEA shall be
immediately executory although the respondent(s) is not precluded from filing a
Motion for Reconsideration unless a restraining order or an injunction is issued by
the Court of Appeals in which case the execution of the Decision shall be held in
abeyance.[86]
On the other hand, the NEA Decree, Presidential Decree No. 269 (1973) contains
the following provisions:
SECTION 24. Board of Directors. (a) The business of a cooperative shall be
managed by a board of not less than five directors, each of whom shall be a
member of the cooperative or of another which is a member thereof. The by-laws
shall prescribe the number of directors, their qualifications other than those
prescribed in this Decree, the manner of holding meetings of the board and of
electing successors to directors who shall resign, die or otherwise be incapable of
acting. The by-laws may also provide for the removal of directors from office and
for the election of their successors. Directors shall not receive any salaries for their
services as such and, except in emergencies, shall not receive any salaries for their
services to the cooperative in any other capacity without the approval of the
members. The by-laws may, however, prescribe a fixed fee for attendance at each
meeting of the board and may provide for reimbursement of actual expenses of
such attendance and of any other actual expenses incurred in the due performance
of a director's duties.
(b) The directors of a cooperative named in any articles of incorporation,
consolidation, merger or conversion shall hold office until the next annual meeting
of the members and until their successors are elected and qualify. At each annual
meeting of, in case of failure to hold the annual meeting as specified in the by-laws,
at a special meeting called for that purpose, the members shall elect directors to
hold office until the next annual meeting of the members, except as otherwise
provided in this Decree. Each director shall hold office for the term for which he is
elected and until his successor is elected and qualifies.
(c) Instead of electing all the directors annually, the by-laws may provide that each
year half of them or one-third of them, or a number as near thereto as possible,
shall be elected on a staggered term basis to serve two-year terms or three-year
terms, as the case may be.
(d) A majority of the board of directors in office shall constitute a quorum.
(e) The board shall exercise all of the powers of a cooperative not conferred upon or
reserved to the members by this Decree or by its articles of incorporation or bylaws.
SECTION 49. NEA Rules and Regulations. The NEA shall establish appropriate
rules and regulations to carry out the provisions of this Chapter IV, including rules
for the conduct of NEA investigations, proceedings and hearing; and shall timely
publish the same when adopted or amended to the end that all persons affected
thereby shall be given reasonable notice thereof.
SECTION 58. Reconsideration. Any interested party may request the
reconsideration of any order, ruling, or decision of the NEA by means of a petition
filed not later than fifteen (15) days after the date of the notice of the order, ruling,
or decision in question. The grounds on which the request for reconsideration is
based shall be clearly and specifically stated in the petition. Copies of said petition
shall be served on all parties interested in the matter. It shall be the duty of the
NEA to decide the same within thirty (30) days, either denying the petition or
revoking or modifying the order, ruling, or decision under consideration. If no
petition for reconsideration is filed, no review by the Supreme Court as hereinafter
provided shall be allowed.
SECTION 59. Court Review. The Supreme Court is hereby given jurisdiction to
review any order, ruling, or decision of the NEA and to modify or set aside such
order, ruling, or decision when it clearly appears that there was no evidence before
the NEA to support reasonably such order, ruling, or decision, or that the same is
contrary to law, or that it was without the jurisdiction of the NEA. The evidence
presented to the NEA, together with the record of the proceedings before the NEA,
shall be certified by the NEA to the Supreme Court. Any order, ruling, or decision of
the NEA may likewise be reviewed by the Supreme Court upon writ of certiorari in
proper cases. The procedure for review, except as herein provided, shall be
prescribed by rules of the Supreme Court. Any order, ruling, or decision of the NEA
may be reviewed on the application of any person or public service entity aggrieved
thereby and who was a party in the subject proceeding, by certiorari in appropriate
cases or by a petition for review, which shall be filed within thirty (30) days from
the notification of the NEA order, decision or ruling on reconsideration. Said petition
shall be placed on file in the office of the Clerk of the Supreme Court who shall
furnish copies thereof to the NEA and other interested parties.
We are one with all the respondents, and, more importantly, the Court of Appeals,
in ruling against the strained interpretation petitioners assign to Section 15 of the
NEA Rules of Procedures so as to make it inconsistent with Presidential Decree No.
269.
That NEA has quasi-judicial functions is recognized by Rule 43 of the 1997 Revised
Rules of Civil Procedure, regarding appeals from the Court of Tax Appeals and
Quasi-Judicial Agencies to the Court of Appeals:
SEC. 1. Scope. This Rule shall apply to appeals from judgments or final orders of
the Court of Tax Appeals and from awards, judgments, final orders or resolutions of
or authorized by any quasi-judicial agency in the exercise of its quasi-judiciki

functions. Among these agencies are the Civil Service Commission, Central Board of
Assessment Appeals, Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of the President,
Land Registration Authority, Social Security Commission, Civil Aeronautics Board,
Bureau of Patents, Trademarks and Technology Transfer, National Electrification
Administration, Energy Regulatory Board, National Telecommunications
Commission, Department of Agrarian Reform under Republic Act No. 6657,
Government Service Insurance System, Employees Compensation Commission,
Agricultural Inventions Board, Insurance Commission, Philippine Atomic Energy
Commission, Board of Investments, Construction Industry Arbitration Commission,
and voluntary arbitrators authorized by law.
In United Coconut Planters Bank v. E. Ganzon, Inc.,[87] we held that:
A quasi-judicial agency or body is an organ of government other than a court and
other than a legislature, which affects the rights of private parties through either
adjudication or rule-making. The very definition of an administrative agency
includes its being vested with quasi-judicial powers. The ever increasing variety of
powers and functions given to administrative agencies recognizes the need for the
active intervention of administrative agencies in matters calling for technical
knowledge and speed in countless controversies which cannot possibly be handled
by regular courts. A "quasi-judicial function" is a term which applies to the
action, discretion, etc., of public administrative officers or bodies, who are
required to investigate facts, or ascertain the existence of facts, hold
hearings, and draw conclusions from them, as a basis for their official
action and to exercise discretion of a judicial nature. (Citations omitted.
Emphasis added.)
The October 9, 2006 Order of respondent Bueno implementing the October 5, 2006
Decision of the NEA Board of Administrators was found by the Court of Appeals to
be a valid exercise of both the NEA's Administrator, in charge of the supervision and
control aspect, and the Board, in charge of the quasi-judicial function. There was no
grave abuse of discretion on respondent Bueno's part. Neither do we find error in
the Court of Appeals' appreciation of the facts and the applicable rules and laws.
Very recently, this Court had occasion to review the powers and functions of the
NEA. In Zambales II Electric Cooperative, Inc. Board of Directors v. Castillejos
Consumers Association, Inc.[88] we held:
A. The NEA's creation and disciplinary jurisdiction
The present NEA was created in 1973 under P.D. No. 269 to administer the
country's total electrification on an area coverage basis, by organizing, financing
and regulating electric cooperatives throughout the country. The NEA's enforcement
powers under P.D. No. 269, however, was limited.
In 1979, P.D. No. 1645 amended P.D. No. 269 and broadened the NEA's
regulatory powers, among others. Specifically, the amendments emphatically
recognized the NEA's power of supervision and control over electric
cooperatives; and gave it the power to conduct investigations, and impose
preventive or disciplinary sanctions over the board of directors of regulated
entities. Section 10 of P.D. No. 269, as amended by P.D. No. 1645 reads:
Section 10. Enforcement Powers and Remedies. In the exercise of its power
of supervision and control over electric cooperatives and other borrower,
supervised or controlled entities, the NEA is empowered to issue orders, rules
and regulations and motu-prop[r]io or upon petition of third parties, to
conduct investigations, referenda and other similar actions in all matters
affecting said electric cooperatives and other borrower, or supervised or
controlled entities.
If the electric cooperative concerned or other similar entity fails after due notice to
comply with the NEA orders, rules and regulations and/or decisions, or with any of
the terms of the Loan Agreement, the NEA Board of Administrators may avail of any
or all of the following remedies:
xxxx
(e) Take preventive and/or disciplinary measures including suspension
and/or removal and replacement of any or all of the members of the Board
of Directors, officers or employees of the Cooperative, other borrower
institutions or supervised or controlled entities as the NEA Board of
Administrators may deem fit and necessary and to take any other remedial
measures as the law or the Loan Agreement may provide. (Emphasis
supplied.)
Likewise, Section 24 of P.D. No. 269, as amended by P.D. No. 1645, stressed that
the board of directors of a regulated electric cooperative is subject to the NEA's
control and supervision. That provision reads:
Section 24. Board of Directors. (a) The Management of a Cooperative shall
be vested in its Board, subject to the supervision and control of the
NEA which shall have the right to be represented and to participate in all Board
meetings and deliberations and to approve all policies and resolutions. [Emphasis
supplied]
The NEA's disciplinary jurisdiction over the petitioners stems from its power of
supervision and control over regulated electric cooperatives and over the
board of directors who manage their operation.
In the exercise of this broad power, the NEA may take preventive and/or
disciplinary measures including the suspension, removal and replacement of any or
all of the members of the board of directors, officers or employees of the
cooperative.
xxxx
At any rate, the Court judicially notices that on February 4, 2013, Congress enacted
R.A. No. 10531, known as the National Electrification Administration Reform Act of
2013. Aware of the effects of restructuring the electric power industry under the
EPIRA on electric cooperatives under P.D. No. 269, as amended, and on the
responsibilities of the appropriate government agencies, like the NEA and the CDA,
Congress enacted R.A. No. 10531 with a declared threefold state policy: first, to
empower and strengthen the NEA; second, to empower and enable electric
cooperatives (organized under P.D. No. 269 and its amendments, and the Philippine
Cooperative Code of 2008; and related laws) to cope with the changes brought
about by the EPIRA; and third, to promote the sustainable development in the rural
areas through rural electrification.
Towards these ends, Congress further authorized the NEA to "supervise the
management and operations of all electric cooperatives." Pursuant to its power of
supervision, Congress granted it the following powers:
xxxx
(a) issue orders, rules and regulations, motu proprio or upon petition of third
parties, to conduct investigations, referenda and other similar actions on all
matters affecting the electric cooperatives;
(b) issue preventive or disciplinary measures including, but not limited to,
suspension or removal and replacement of any or all of the members of the board
of directors and officers of the electric cooperative, as the NEA may deem fit and
necessary and to take any other remedial measures as the law or any agreement or
arrangement with the NEA may provide, to attain the objectives of this Act: and
[Emphasis supplied]
Also, R.A. No. 10531 reiterated Section 57 of the EPIRA, giving the electric
cooperative the option either to remain as a non-stock, nonprofit cooperative or
convert into and register as a stock cooperative under the CDA or a stock
corporation under the SEC in accordance with the law's IRR. Unlike the EPIRA's IRR,
the IRR of R.A. No. 10531, which was drafted in coordination with the NEA and the
CDA, among others, contains a more detailed enumeration of the requirements for
conversion to be determined by the NEA itself. This enumeration still includes the
conduct of a referendum.
More importantly, R.A. No. 10531 expressly provides that the NEA's power of
supervision applies whether an electric cooperative remains as a non-stock
cooperative or opts to register with the CDA as a stock cooperative. This only
means that even assuming arguendo that the petitioners validly registered ZAMECO
II with the CDA in 2007, the NEA is not completely ousted of its supervisory
jurisdiction over electric cooperatives under the RA. No. 10531. This law may be
considered as curative statute that is intended to address the impact of a
restructured electric power industry under the EPIRA on electric cooperatives, which
has not been fully addressed by the Philippine Cooperative Code of 2008. (Citations
omitted.)
Even more recently, in Philippine Federation of Electric Cooperatives (PHILFECO) v.
Ermita,[89] the Court clarified NEA's role, and held:
Republic Act No. 10531 does not distinguish between the electric cooperatives
registered with the CDA, the NEA or the SEC, inasmuch as Section 5 expressly
subjects all electric cooperatives to the supervisory powers of the NEA. The
deliberation on the proposed bill made this legislative intention clear x x x.
xxxx
x x x As it now stands, the NEA is vested with the appropriate power of supervision
and control over all electric cooperatives regardless of the manner of their creation
and their option to be registered with the CDA or the SEC.
Supervision and Control are defined under the Administrative Code of 1987,
Executive Order No. 292 (1987), to wit:
BOOK IV
Chapter 7 - Administrative Relationships
SECTION 38. Definition of Administrative Relationship. Unless otherwise
expressly stated in the Code or in other laws defining the special relationships of
particular agencies, administrative relationships shall be categorized and defined as
follows:
(1) Supervision and Control. Supervision and control shall include authority to
act directly whenever a specific function is entrusted by law or regulation to a
subordinate; direct the performance of duty; restrain the commission of acts;
review, approve, reverse or modify acts and decisions of subordinate officials or
units; determine priorities in the execution of plans and programs; and prescribe
standards, guidelines, plans and programs. Unless a different meaning is explicitly
provided in the specific law governing the relationship of particular agencies, the
word "control" shall encompass supervision and control as defined in this
paragraph.
(2) Administrative Supervision. (a) Administrative supervision which shall govern
the administrative relationship between a department or its equivalent and
regulatory agencies or other agencies as may be provided by law, shall be limited to
the authority of the department or its equivalent to generally oversee the
operations of such agencies and to insure that they are managed effectively,
efficiently and economically but without interference with day-to-day activities; or
require the submission of reports and cause the conduct of management audit,
performance evaluation and inspection to determine compliance with policies,
standards and guidelines of the department; to take such action as may be
necessary for the proper performance of official functions, including rectification of
violations, abuses and other forms of maladministration; and to review and pass
upon budget proposals of such agencies but may not increase or add to them;
(b) Such authority shall not, however, extend to: (1) appointments and other
personnel actions in accordance with the decentralization of personnel functions
under the Code, except appeal is made from an action of the appointing authority,
in which case the appeal shall be initially sent to the department or its equivalent,
subject to appeal in accordance with law; (2) contracts entered into by the agency
in the pursuit of its objectives, the review of which and other procedures related
thereto shall be governed by appropriate laws, rules and regulations; and (3) the
power to review, reverse, revise, or modify the decisions of regulatory agencies in
the exercise of their regulatory or quasi-judicial functions; and
(c) Unless a different meaning is explicitly provided in the specific law governing the
relationship of particular agencies, the word "supervision" shall encompass
administrative supervision as defined in this paragraph.
The NEA Rules of Procedures, in providing that the decisions are to be immediately
executory, do not contradict the NEA Charter, as petitioner insists.
In much the same way, decisions of the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR), an
administrative agency cloaked with quasi-judicial functions, are immediately
executory, as this Court explained in Manuel v. Department of Agrarian Reform
Adjudication Board (DARAB),[90] to wit:
Section 17. Quasi-Judicial Powers of the DAR The DAR is hereby vested with
quasi-judicial powers to determine and adjudicate agrarian reform matters, and
shall have exclusive original jurisdiction over all matters involving implementation
of agrarian reform, except those falling under the exclusive original jurisdiction of
the DENR and the Department of Agriculture (DA).

The DAR shall have powers to punish for contempt and to issue subpoena duces
tecum and writs to enforce its order or decisions.
The decisions of the DAR may, in proper cases, be appealed to the Regional Trial
Courts but shall be immediately executory notwithstanding such appeal.
Furthermore, in Springfield Development Corporation, Inc. v. Presiding Judge
ofRTC, Misamis Oriental, Br. 40,[91] this Court ruled:
The DARAB is a quasi-judicial body created by Executive Order Nos. 229 and 129-A.
R.A. No. 6657 delineated its adjudicatory powers and functions. The DARAB Revised
Rules of Procedure adopted on December 26, 1988 specifically provides for the
manner of judicial review of its decisions, orders, rulings, or awards. Rule XIV,
Section 1 states:
SECTION 1. Certiorari to the Court of Appeals. Any decision, order, award or ruling
by the Board or its Adjudicators on any agrarian dispute or on any matter
pertaining to the application, implementation, enforcement or interpretation of
agrarian reform laws or rules and regulations promulgated thereunder, may be
brought within fifteen (15) days from receipt of a copy thereof, to the Court of
Appeals by certiorari, except as provided in the next succeeding section.
Notwithstanding an appeal to the Court of Appeals the decision of the Board or
Adjudicator appealed from, shall be immediately executory.
Further, the prevailing 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, expressly
provides for an appeal from the DARAB decisions to the CA.
Rules of procedure of other administrative agencies with quasi-judicial functions
likewise provide for immediately executory decisions without prejudice to
petitioner's filing of a motion for reconsideration. The following are further
examples:
Although the Order of the NTC dated May 3, 2000 granting provisional authority to
Bayantel was immediately executory, it did not preclude the filing of a motion for
reconsideration. Under the NTC Rules, a party adversely affected by a decision,
order, ruling or resolution may within fifteen (15) days file a motion for
reconsideration. That the Order of the NTC became immediately executory does not
mean that the remedy of filing a motion for reconsideration is foreclosed to the
petitioner.[92]
SECTION 5. Stay of Execution. The decision of the Administration shall be stayed
during the pendency of the appeal; Provided that where the penalty imposed
carries the maximum penalty of twelve months suspension or cancellation of
license, the decision shall be immediately executory despite the pendency of the
appeal.
Provided further that where the penalty imposed is suspension of license for one
month or less, the decision shall be immediately executory and may only be
appealed on ground of grave abuse of discretion.[93]
Petitioners' contention that Section 15 of the NEA Rules of Procedures should be
struck down for being invalid is absurd and would have this Court exercising judicial
review and enforcing the same over a rule that does not even, in reality, deprive
him of the remedy he wanted - a motion for reconsideration. Petitioner was, in fact,
able to file a motion for reconsideration. There was no grave abuse of discretion on
the part of the NEA Administrator in issuing the questioned Order, as it did not
violate any rule or law and was done in the exercise of the authority granted to the
NEA to supervise and control electric cooperatives, under its Charter.
The Court does not strike down rules as invalid on a whim. There is nothing
pernicious about the provision allowing decisions of the NEA Administrative Board to
be "immediately executory." After a careful study of our records, we rule that the
petition in G.R. No. 175736 must fail.
With regard to G.R. No. 175898, we agree with respondents that petitioners failed
to prove their bare allegations of indirect contempt. We find the following as
instructive:
NEA BULLETIN NO. 35
FUNCTIONS AND RESPONSIBILITES OF THE RURAL ELECTRIC
COOPERATIVES BOARD OF DIRECTORS
xxxx
PROHIBITIONS
The position of director is a privilege granted by the members to a person
whom they think can best represent and protect their interests in the
cooperative. Directors have a moral responsibility to perform their jobs in
furtherance of the best interests of the REC.
Thus, Board members, either collectively or individually xxxx
3. Should not intrude in the day-to-day management and operations of

the cooperative where sufficient policies have been enacted x x x.
4. Should not hold regular office hours in the cooperative.[94]
(Emphases ours.)
With regard to the assignment of a project supervisor, it is within the power of

control and supervision of the NEA over BATELEC II as an electric cooperative
organized and existing pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 269 as amended by
Presidential Decree No. 1645.[95]
As correctly discussed by respondent Caguimbal:
The proceedings for punishment of indirect contempt are criminal in nature. The
modes of procedure and rules of evidence adopted in contempt proceedings are
similar in nature to those used in criminal prosecutions. Thus, any liberal
construction of the rules governing contempt proceedings should favor the accused.
It can be argued that Soriano has essentially been afforded the right to be heard,
as he did comment on the charge of indirect contempt against him. Yet, since
an indirect contempt charge partakes the nature of a criminal charge,
conviction cannot be had merely on the basis of written pleadings, x x x.
[96]
(Citations omitted.)
As pointed out by all the respondents and discussed above, petitioners failed to
clearly demonstrate how exactly respondents committed indirect contempt. Thus,
we dismiss the petition.
On September 15, 2015, the Court issued a resolution [97] reiterating its earlier
resolution, dated March 17, 2015, directing the Director of the National Bureau of
Investigation to (i) arrest and detain counsel for private respondents Atty. Erwin M.
Layog until the latter shall have filed the explanation and comment required in the
Court's resolution dated August 19, 2014 and (ii) submit a report of NBI's
compliance with the resolution within ten (10) days from notice hereof.
Since this case is now being disposed of, and it appearing on record that Atty.
Layog has, to this date, failed to comply with the filing of explanation and comment
on the letter dated January 3, 2012 of Hon. Nicanor M. Briones, Representative,
AGAP Party List, and Vice-Chairperson, Committee on Cooperative Development,
which comment has been required of him since January 31, 2012, the Court
resolves to INFORM Atty. Layog that he is deemed to have waived the filing of the
comment.[98]Counsel for private respondents is likewise informed that his payment
of the fine imposed upon him is not equivalent to the filing of the required
comment, which he twice did without submitting any explanation for his failure to
file such comment, and his actions constitute contumacious violation of a lawful
order of this Court.
It appears, based on counsel for respondent Bueno and the NEA Board of
Administrators' Compliance, that Hon. Nicanor Briones through his lawyer Atty. Joel
C. Aguilar, was able to obtain copies of the pleadings, orders and other documents
relative to these cases from NEA's legal services office, which was the subject of the
letter dated January 3, 2012.[99]
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, we hereby:
1. DENY the petition in G.R. No. 175736 and AFFIRM the Decision of the Court
of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 96486 as well as the October 9, 2006 Order of
Respondent Edita S. Bueno;
2. LIFT the Status Quo Ante Order issued on December 29, 2006 in G.R. No.
175736; and
3. DISMISS the petition for indirect contempt in G.R. No. 175898 for lack of
merit.
SO ORDERED.
Sereno, CJ., Carpio, Velasco, Jr., Brion, Bersamin, Perez, Mendoza, Reyes, PerlasBernabe, Leonen, and Caguioa, JJ., concur.
Del Castillo, J., no part.
Jardeleza, J., no part, prior O.S.G action.
Rollo (G.R. No. 175736), pp. 26-40; penned by Associate Justice Mariano C. del
Castillo (now a member of this Court) with Associate Justices Conrado M. Vasquez,
Jr. and Ricardo S. Rosario concurring.
[1]
[2]
Id. at 27-31.
[3]
Id. at 633.
[4]
Id. at 634.
[5]
Id. at 122-123.
[6]
Id. at 38.
[7]
Id. at 39.
[8]
Id. at 300-301.
[9]
Id. at 308-314.
[10]
Rollo (G.R. No. 175898), pp. 3-1.
[11]
Rollo (G.R. No. 175736), pp. 8-9.
[12]
Id. at 9.
[13]
Id.
CREATING THE "NATIONAL ELECTRIFICATION ADMINISTRATION" AS A

CORPORATION, PRESCRIBING ITS POWERS AND ACTIVITIES, APPROPRIATING THE
NECESSARY FUNDS THEREFOR AND DECLARING A NATIONAL POLICY OBJECTIVE
FOR THE TOTAL ELECTRIFICATION OF THE PHILIPPINES ON AN AREA COVERAGE
SERVICE BASIS, THE ORGANIZATION, PROMOTION AND DEVELOPMENT OF
ELECTRIC COOPERATIVES TO ATTAIN THE SAID OBJECTIVE, PRESCRIBING TERMS
AND CONDITIONS FOR THEIR OPERATIONS, THE REPEAL OF REPUBLIC ACT NO.
6038, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. (August 6, 1973.)
[14]
Approved by the NEA Board of Administrators on May 19, 2005; Table of

Offenses and Penalties approved by the NEA Board of Administrators on September
7, 2005.
[15]
[16]
NEA Rules of Procedure, Rule V.
[17]
Rollo (G.R. No. 175736), p. 12.
[18]
Id.
RULES OF COURT, Rule 52, SEC. 4. Stay of execution. The pendency of a

motion for reconsideration filed on time and by the proper party shall stay the
execution of the judgment or final resolution sought to be reconsidered unless the
court, for good reasons, shall otherwise direct.
[19]
[20]
Rollo (G.R. No. 175736), p. 13.
[21]
Id. at 14.
[22]
Id.
[23]
Id. at 15.
[24]
Id. at 15-16.
[25]
Id. at 20-21.
[26]
Id. at 339-384.
[27]
Id. at 341-344.
[28]
Id. at 636-637.
[29]
Id. at 347.
[30]
Id. at 349.
[31]
Id. at 636.
[32]
Id. at 637.
[33]
Id. at 351.
[34]
Id. at 352.
[35]
Id. at 353-356.
[36]
Id. at 523-524.
[37]
Id. at 361,
[38]
Section 4(e), Rule III.
[39]
Rollo (G.R. No. 175736), p. 367.
[40]
Id. at 373.
[41]
Id. at 374-375.
[42]
Id. at 375.
[43]
Id. at 378.
BATELEC H's Member-Consumers' Demonstration: NO to CDA; Stop power abuse

(Id. at 642-656); Complaint for grave threats filed by BATELEC II employees
against Remo Tagle et al. (Id. at 661-663).
[44]
[45]
Id. at 666-686.
[46]
Id. at 672-675.
[47]
Id. at 676.
[48]
Under the NEA Administrative Rules of Procedures of 2013.
[49]
Id. at 677.
[50]
Id.
[51]
Id. at 679.
[52]
Id. at 682.
[53]
Id. at 692-710.
[54]
Id. at 34-35.
[55]
Id. at 35-37.
[56]
Id. at 37-38.
[57]
Id. at 38-39.
[58]
Id. at 715-721.
[59]
Id. at 747-783.
[60]
Id. at 814-827.
[61]
Id. at 829-843.
[62]
Id. at 832.
[63]
Id., Vol. II, p. 844.
[64]
Id. at 862-886.
[65]
Id. at 980.
[66]
Id. at 874-877.
[67]
Id. at 892-896.
[68]
Id. at 868.
[69]
Id. at 1003-1009.
[70]
Id. at 971-984.
[71]
Id. at 971.
[72]
Id. at 973.
[73]
Id. at 975.
[74]
Id. at 985-1002.
[75]
Id. at 1010.
[76]
Rollo (G.R. No. 175898), pp. 3-11.
[77]
Id. at 14-23.
[78]
Id. at 47-62.
[79]
Id. at 51.
[80]
Id. at 90-123.
[81]
Rollo (G.R. No. 175736), pp. 793-813.
[82]
Id. at 794-795.
[83]
Id.. Vol. II, pp. 1091-1125.
[84]
Rollo (G.R. No. 175898), pp. 103-104.
[85]
Rollo (G.R. No. 175736), Vol. III, pp. 1399-1400.
[86]
Approved by the NEA Board of Directors on May 19, 2005.
[87]
609 Phil. 104, 122(2009).
[88]
G.R. Nos. 176935-36 (Resolution), October 20, 2014.
[89]
G.R. No. 178082 (Notice), January 27, 2015.
[90]
555 Phil. 28, 34 (2007).
[91]
543 Phil. 298, 310-311 (2007).
Republic of the Philippines v. Express Telecommunication Co., Inc., 424 Phil.

372, 400 (2002).
[92]
POEA Rules and Regulations Governing the Recruitment and Employment of

Land-Based Overseas Workers, Part VI, Rule V.
[93]
[94]
Rollo (G.R. No. 175898V pp. 77-82.
[95]
La Union Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. Yaranon, 259 Phil. 457, 464 (1989).
[96]
Soriano v. Court of Appeals, 474 Phil. 741, 750 (2004).
[97]
Rollo (G.R. No. 175736), Vol. III, pp. 1458-1459.
[98]
Id. at 1400-A.
[99]
Id. at 1418-1419.

G.R.
No.
208066
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. JOHN GLEN WILE, EFREN BUENAFE, JR., MARK ROBERT
LARIOSA
AND
JAYPEE
PINEDA,
ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.
April 12, 2016
FIRST DIVISION
[ G.R. No. 208066, April 12, 2016 ]
JOHN GLEN WILE, EFREN BUENAFE, JR., MARK ROBERT
LARIOSA AND JAYPEE PINEDA, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.
DECISION
Before Us on appeal is the Decision[1] dated February 25, 2013 of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 00912, which affirmed with modification the
Decision[2]dated January 24, 2007 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Silay City,
Branch 69 in Criminal Case Nos. 5931-69 to 5938-69, finding accused-appellants
John Glen Wile (John),[3] Mark Robert Lariosa (Mark),[4] Jaypee Pineda (Jaypee), and
Efren Buenafe, Jr. (Efren)[5] guilty beyond reasonable doubt of several counts of
rape as defined in Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic
Act No. 8353, otherwise known as the Anti-Rape Law of 1997.
In eight (8) Informations, all dated December 2, 2005, accused-appellants were
charged before the RTC with the rapes of minors AAA and BBB,[6] as follows:
1) CRIMINAL CASE NO. 5931-69
That on July 26, 2005, in Silay City, Philippines, and within the Jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the accused JOHN GLENN WILE y VILLALOBOS, in conspiracy and
with the help of EFREN BUENAFE, JR. y AQUINO, MARK ROBERT LARIOSA y JUEN
and JAYPEE PINEDA y WILE with force and intimidation did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge with [AAAj, a fifteen-year-old
minor against her will.[7]
Honorable Court, the accused EFREN BUENAFE, JR. y AQUINO, in conspiracy and
with the help of MARK ROBERT LARIOSA y JUEN, JAYPEE PINEDA y WILE and JOHN
GLENN WILE y VILLALOBOS with force and intimidation did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge with [AAA], a 15-year-old minor
against the latter's will.[8]
Honorable Court, the accused JAYPEE PINEDA y WILE, in conspiracy and with the
help of JOHN GLENN WILE y VILLALOBOS, EFREN BUENAFE, JR. y AQUINO and
MARK ROBERT LARIOSA y JUEN with force and intimidation did then and there
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge with [AAAJ, a fifteenyear-old minor against her will.[9]
Honorable Court, the accused MARK ROBERT LARIOSA y JUEN, in conspiracy and
with the help of JAYPEE PINEDA y WILE, JOHN GLENN WILE y VILLALOBOS and
EFREN BUENAFE, JR. y AQUINO with force and intimidation did then and there
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge with [AAA], a fifteenyear-old minor against her will.[10]
That on September 12, 2005, in Silay City, Philippines, and within the Jurisdiction of
this Honorable Court, the accused JOHN GLENN WILE y VILLALOBOS, in conspiracy
with MARK ROBERT LARIOSA y JUEN with force and intimidation did then and there
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge with [AAA], a fifteenyear-old minor against her will.[11]
That on September 12, 2005, in Silay City, Philippines, and within the Jurisdiction of
this Honorable Court, the accused MARK ROBERT LARIOSA y JUEN, in conspiracy
with JOHN GLENN WILE y VILLALOBOS with force and intimidation did then and
there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge with [AAA], a
fifteen-year-old minor against her will.[12]
Honorable Court, the accused EFREN BUENAFE, JR. y AQUINO, in conspiracy and
with the help of MARK ROBERT LARIOSA y JUEN, JAYPEE PINEDA y WILE and JOHN
unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge with [BBB], a fifteen-year-old
Honorable Court, the accused MARK ROBERT LARIOSA y JUEN, in conspiracy and
with the help of EFREN BUENAFE, JR. y AQUINO, JAYPEE PINEDA y WILE and JOHN
unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge with [BBB], a fifteen-year-old
During their arraignment held on January 5, 2006, accused-appellants pleaded not
guilty to the crimes charged.[15]
At pre-trial, the prosecution and the defense jointly admitted the following facts:
1. This Court has jurisdiction to take cognizance of the instant criminal actions;
2. The [accused-appellants] in this case are John Glenn Wile, Efren Buenafe[,
Jr.], Mark Robert Lariosa, and Jaypee Pineda;
3. Private complainants, [AAA] and [BBB], are all minors;
4. Private complainants were all students of x x x Memorial High School[16] on
the date of the submitted incidents giving rise to the present criminal
actions;
5. Private complainants, [AAA] and [BBB], know the [accused- appellants]
named;
6. [Accused-appellants] belong to a fraternity known as "Sana Wala Akong
Kaaway" or "SWAK;" and
7. [Accused-appellants] John Glenn Wile, Jaypee Pineda, and Mark Robert

Lariosa, were all minors at the time of the incidents giving rise to the present
criminal actions.[17]
Thereafter, trial ensued.
The prosecution presented as witnesses AAA and BBB, the private complainants
themselves; Doctor Annabelle Ortiz y Monroy (Dr. Ortiz); Police Officer (PO) 2
Nanette Laurilla (Laurilla); CCC,[18] AAA's aunt; and DDD,[19] BBB's mother.
As gathered from the collective testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, on July
26, 2005, Juvelyn,[20] a common friend, invited AAA and BBB to join a fraternity
called Sana Wala Akong Kaaway or SWAK. Accompanied by Juvelyn, AAA and BBB
went to a hut in Sitio x x x where they spoke with accused-appellant Efren. By
touting that SWAK was a good group promoting brotherhood and camaraderie,
accused-appellant Efren was able to convince AAA and BBB to join said fraternity.
Accused-appellants Efren and Mark blindfolded AAA and BBB, respectively, with
handkerchiefs. Thus blindfolded, AAA and BBB were guided to a nearby canefield
and instructed to sit on a towel.
Accused-appellant Efren, whose voice BBB recognized, instructed BBB to separate
herself from AAA. After BBB sat away from AAA, BBB's blindfold was removed so
she saw accused-appellants take turns in raping AAA just a few meters away. AAA,
still blindfolded, was seated, at first, but accused-appellant Efren ordered her to lie
down. Accused-appellant Jaypee watched over BBB. With accused-appellants John
and Mark restraining AAA's hands and legs, respectively, accused-appellant Efren
kissed AAA's lips, opened her blouse, removed her bra, lifted her skirt, removed her
underwear, and inserted ljiis penis into her vagina. After accused-appellant Efren
had satisfied his lust, accused-appellant John followed in having coitus with AAA as
accused-appellant Efren held AAA's hands and accused-appellant Mark gripped
AAA's legs. When accused-appellant John was done, he substituted accusedappellant Jaypee in guarding BBB so that accused-appellant Jaypee could take his
turn in copulating with AAA while accused-appellants Efren and Mark continued to
hold AAA down. Once he was finished, accused-appellant Jaypee went back to
guarding BBB. Accused-appellant John pinned down AAA's legs and accusedappellant Efren kept his hold on AAA's hands, as accused-appellant Mark lastly had
sexual intercourse with AAA. All the while, AAA was crying and pleading for
accused-appellants to stop but accused-appellants threatened to hit her with a
bamboo pole. After all of the accused-appellants had their turns with AAA, they
removed AAA's blindfold, so AAA was able to see accused-appellants' faces. When
AAA was putting on her clothes, she noticed blood stains on her shirt. Accusedappellants helped AAA to stand up and instructed her to proceed to where BBB was.
[21]
Accused-appellant Efren then directed accused-appellant Mark to bring BBEi to him.

It was now the turn of AAA, who was just a few meters away, to witness BBB's rape
by accused-appellants Efren and Mark. Accused-appellant Efren blindfolded BBB and
ordered her to lie down. Accused-appellant Efren kissed BBB's lips and breasts,
lifted her bra and skirt, and removed her underwear. After accused-appellant Efren
finished having sexual intercourse with BBB, BBB was already trying to stand up but
accused-appellant Mark also lied on top of her and copulated with her. Meanwhile,
AAA was being guarded by accused-appellants John and Jaypee. AAA tried to fight
back and escape, but she was already weak. After raping BBB, accused-appellants
Efren and Mark removed BBB's blindfold, giving BBB the chance to see their faces.
The whole group thereafter left the canefield. Accused-appellants brought AAA and
BBB to the house of accused-appellant John's cousin. There, the right pinky fingers
of AAA and BBB were burned, a ritual to welcome AAA and BBB to the fraternity.
AAA and BBB went home afterwards.
Because AAA's parents were both in Manila, AAA had been in the care of her aunt,
CCC. AAA would be home from school either by 4:00 p.m. or 5:30 p.m., but on July
26, 2005, AAA came home late. When CCC asked AAA why she was late, AAA did
not answer and went straight to her room. AAA told her older sister that she had a
severe headache. AAA's whole body was shaking and she could not get up from the
bed. CCC and AAA's sister changed AAA's clothes and they noticed blood and mud
stains on AAA's skirt. The following morning, AAA still would not get up from bed
nor eat, and would just sleep.
BBB was usually home from school by 5:00 p.m., and was sometimes late by just
15 minutes. On July 26, 2005 though, BBB got home when it was already dim.
DDD, BBB's mother, twice asked why BBB got home late but BBB did not answer.
BBB headed straight to her room and did not join her family for supper. Since then,
DDD brought and fetched BBB from school as BBB seemed to be afraid of
something.
In the second week of August 2005, AAA attempted suicide. AAA was already
holding a knife. AAA and CCC's husband grappled for the knife and in the end, AAA
was wounded in her left hand. CCC asked AAA if she had any problems but AAA
stayed silent. CCC inquired at AAA's school and found out that AAA had not been
attending her classes. CCC even brought AAA for a session with the Guidance
Counselor. The Guidance Counselor related to CCC that AAA missed her parents.
AAA was again raped by accused-appellants John and Mark on September 12, 2005.
When classes were canceled due to a transport strike, AAA went to a friend's house
to cook arroz caldo. As AAA was outside her friend's house looking for a stone she
could use for a makeshift stove, she saw accused-appellant John approaching. AAA
tried to run away but accused-appellant John grabbed her arm and dragged her to
accused-appellant Mark's hut. Accused-appellant John ordered AAA to sit beside the
bed as he stood by the door of the hut. Moments later, accused-appellant Mark
entered the hut. AAA tried to escape but accused-appellant Mark pulled her back
inside the hut and embraced her. AAA kicked accused-appellant Mark in the leg.
Angered, accused-appellant Mark punched AAA in the stomach, causing her to gasp
for air and to fall seated on the bed. Accused-appellant Mark forced AAA to lie
down, covered her mouth, and removed her clothes. While accused-appellant Mark
was undressing himself, accused-appellant John was the one who covered AAA's
mouth. Then, accused-appellant Mark lied on top of AAA, spread her legs, and
inserted his penis into her vagina. When accused-appellant Mark was done, he took
over covering AAA's mouth as accused-appellant John also had sexual intercourse
with AAA. Afterwards, accused-appellants John and Mark allowed AAA to get
dressed and warned her not to tell anybody about what happened. Accusedappellants John and Mark next brought AAA to accused-appellant John's hut where
AAA was able to rest. While at accused-appellant John's hut, AAA saw an unnamed
friend approaching them and she ran towards her friend. AAA wanted to tell her
friend what happened to her but she could not because accused-appellant John was
following them. AAA went home and despite finding her aunt and an older sibling
there, she did not tell them what happened.
Meanwhile, BBB likewise exhibited a change in behavior. BBB would come home, go
straight to her room, and cry. She also expressed her desire to commit suicide,
going as far as draping a rope on a tree to hang herself. On September 26, 2005,
BBB's father, EEE, told DDD that something had happened to BBB.
AAA and BBB subjected themselves to separate medical examinations by Dr. Ortiz
on September 26 and 27, 2005, which revealed that both girls had healed hymenal
lacerations. According to Dr. Ortiz, hymenal lacerations could be caused by an
object inserted into the vagina, most commonly a penis.[22] On September 27,
2005, AAA and BBB went to the Women's Desk of the Silay City Police Station and
disclosed the rape incidents to PO2 Laurilla.
EEE came by BBB's house on September 27, 2005 and invited CCC to go with him
for a conference at the Women's Desk at the police station. It was only there that
CCC learned about the gang rape of her niece, AAA.
The defense called all four accused-appellants, as well as Mary Jane Biton (Biton)
and Jake Vagalleon (Vagalleon), as witnesses, who depicted a different version of
events.
Accused-appellants and BBB were members of a fraternity called SWAK. A person
who wished to join SWAK had to undergo an initiation, choosing between "hirap" or
"sarap." In "hirap" the applicant was hit with a paddle and/or punched on the
shoulders, abdomen, and thighs; and in "sarap" the applicant would pick a SWAK
member to have sexual intercourse with.
At around 12:00 noon on July 26, 2005, accused-appellants were in a hut in Villa
Hergon together with around 20 other fraternity members when AAA, BBB, and
Juvelyn arrived. AAA expressed her intention to join SWAK. Accused-appellant
Mark, as SWAK adviser, informed AAA about the initiation process and gave AAA the
choice between "hirap" or "sarap." AAA chose "sarap" and picked accused-appellant
Efren as her initiator. AAA, BBB, and Juvelyn went up a nearby hill, followed by
accused-appellants John, Mark, and Jaypee. BBB blindfolded AAA. Accusedappellant Efren arrived a few moments later, and he and AAA were ushered to a
nearby canefield where the two were left alone. BBB, Juvelyn, and accusedappellants John, Mark, and Jaypee went back to the hut.
When alone, accused-appellant Efren and AAA talked. AAA maintained her
willingness to undergo the initiation process, saying that she had done the same
thing when she joined another group called Katorse Hudas. AAA already took her
panties off, but accused-appellant Efren ordered her to put it back on. Accusedappellant Efren claimed that he lived in the same place as AAA and knew AAA's
family so he could not go through with the initiation. Accused-appellant Efren and
AAA just continued talking. About 15 minutes later, accused-appellant Efren and
AAA rejoined the others at the hut. After taking their snacks, accused-appellants
escorted AAA, BBB, and Juvelyn to Bangga Rizal, from where the three girls went
on their way home. Accused-appellants returned to the hut where they continued to
talk, going home at about 4:00 p.m.[23]
Biton and Vagalleon were long-time neighbors of accused-appellants John and
Mark, respectively. Biton and Vagalleon recalled that AAA and BBB were frequently
at the makeshift hut in Villa Hergon, which was near accused-appellant John's
house, or at accused-appellant Mark's house, and occasionally at accused appellant
Jaypee's house, conversing with the people present, cooking, and watching
television.
Biton recounted, in particular, an incident on August 19, 2005 when she went to the
house of accused-appellant Jaypee for the birthday celebration of the latter's older
sibling. AAA was there and she took off her school shoes and borrowed Biton's
slippers. CCC, AAA's aunt, arrived but AAA asked accused-appellant Jaypee to hide
her because she was being abused by CCC. In her hurry to hide herself, AAA was
unable to put her school shoes back on. However, CCC found AAA, grabbed AAA by
the hair, and dragged her home. CCC and AAA's sister merely returned the slippers
to Biton the next day.
On September 12, 2005, accused-appellant Mark was sleeping at his house when
he was awakened because accused-appellant John, AAA, and BBB were there to
invite him to go to the makeshift hut in Villa Hergon. Vagalleon, accused-appellant
Mark's neighbor, followed the group all the way to the hut. Accused-appellant Mark
gave Vagalleon P40.00 and requested him to buy bread for their snacks. When
Vagalleon returned from his errand, there were about 20 people at the hut, sitting
around and talking to one another. The SWAK members present ate the bread
Vagalleon bought and discussed whether or not they should renovate the hut.
Subsequently, the group dispersed and each went home.
Accused-appellant Mark denied ever having sexual intercourse with AAA and
brought up a letter,[24] purportedly from AAA, advising him to flee because EEE,
BBB's father, already knew about the initiation, filed a case against him, and
wanted to put him in jail. AAA's letter, translated from the Ilonggo dialect to
English, reads:
Mart, I am writing you this I have something important to tell you. I can no longer
go out of our house. Mart, you have to flee now because the father of [BBB] wanted
you in jail. He already knew about the initiation. I wanted you to flee because when
we meet in court, what will come out would be all lies. They would not tell the truth
in Court, that is why, I want to help you now because if you would be apprehended,
I can no longer do anything because the father of [BBB] is putting pressure on me.
Please flee now because I can no longer leave the house. Last Monday, we filed a
case against you. After you read this, please tear this. You must leave and go to
other places outside Negros.[25]
The letter was not fully signed but only bore the first letter of AAA's name. Accusedappellant Mark did not heed AAA's advice to flee, asserting that he did nothing
wrong.[26]
After receiving all of the evidence, the RTC promulgated its Decision on January 24,
2007 ruling that accused-appellants' guilt was established beyond reasonable doubt
and sentencing them as follows:
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, in Criminal Case No. 5931-69, this Court
finds [accused-appellants] John Glen Wile y Villalobos, Efren Buenafe, Jr. y Aquino,
Mark Robert Lariosa y Juen and Jaypee Pineda y Wile, Guilty of the crime of Rape as
defined in Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines, as amended
by Republic Act No. 8353, as the prosecution had established their guilts (sic)
beyond any reasonable doubt.
Accordingly, taking into consideration the privilege mitigating circumstance of
Minority, and in application of the pertinent provisions of the Indeterminate

Sentence Law, this Court sentences [accused-appellants] John Glen Wile y
Villalobos, Mark Robert Lariosa y Juen and Jaypee Pineda y Wile to each suffer the
penalty of imprisonment for a period of from TEN (10) YEARS of Prision Mayor as
minimum to FOURTEEN (14) YEARS of Reclusion Temporal as maximum, the same
to be served by them at the National Penitentiary, Muntinlupa City, Province of
Rizal.
[Accused-appellant] Efren Buenafe, Jr. y Aquino is sentenced by this Court to suffer
the penalty of Reclusion Perpelua, the same to be served by him at the National
Penitentiary, Muntinlupa City, Province of Rizal.
[Accused-appellants] are, further, ordered by this Court to jointly and severally pay
private complainant, [AAA], the sums of [P]50,000.00, as civil indemnity, and
[P]50,000.00 as moral damages, all in Philippine currency.
In Criminal Case No. 5932-69, this Court finds [accused-appellants] John Glen Wile
y Villalobos, Efren Buenafe, Jr. y Aquino, Mark Robert Lariosa j; Juen and Jaypee
Pineda y Wile, Guilty of the crime of Rape as defined in Article 266-A of the Revised
Penal Code of the Philippines, as amended by Republic Act No. 8353, as the
prosecution had established their guilts (sic) beyond any reasonable doubt.
Rizal.
the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua, the same to be served by him at the National
private complainant, [AAA], the sums of [P]50,000.00 as civil indemnity, and
In Criminal Case No. 5933-69, this Court finds [accused-appellants] John Glen
Wile y Villalobos, Efren Buenafe, Jr. y Aquino, Mark Robert Lariosa y Juen and
Jaypee Pineda y Wile, Guilty of the Crime of Rape as defined in Article 266-A of the
Revised Penal Code of the Philippines, as amended by Republic Act No. 8353, as the
Rizal.
private complainant, [AAA], the sums of [P]50,000.00, as civil indemnity, and
Jaypee Pineda y Wile, Guilty of the crime of Rape as defined in Article 266-A of the
Sentence Law, this Court sentences [accused-appellants] John Glen
Wile y Villalobos, Mark Robert Lariosa y Juen and Jaypee Pineda y Wile to each
suffer the penalty of imprisonment for a period of from TEN (10) YEARS of Prision
Mayor as minimum to FOURTEEN (14) YEARS of Reclusion Temporal as maximum,
the same to be served by them at the National Penitentiary, Muntinlupa City,
Province of Rizal.
private complainant, [AAA], the sums of [P]50,000.00 as civil indemnity, and [P]
50,000.00 as moral damages, all in Philippine currency.
Wile y Villalobos and Mark Robert Lariosa y Juen, Guilty of the Crime of Rape as
defined in Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines, as amended
by Republic Act No. 8353, as the prosecution had established their guilts (sic)
beyond any reasonable doubt.
Wile y Villalobos and Mark Robert Lariosa y Juen, to each suffer the penalty of
imprisonment for a period of from TEN (10) YEARS of Prision Mayor as minimum to
FOURTEEN (14) YEARS of Reclusion Temporal as maximum, the same to be served
by them at the National Penitentiary, Muntinlupa City, Province of Rizal.
In Criminal Case No. 5936-69, this Court finds [accused-appellants] John Glen Wile
y Villalobos and Mark Robert Lariosa y Juen, Guilty of the crime of Rape as defined
in Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines, as amended by
Republic Act No. 8353, as the prosecution had established their guilts (sic) beyond
any reasonable doubt.
Wile y Villalobos and Mark Robert Lariosa y Juen, to each suffer the penalty of
imprisonment for a period of from TEN (10) YEARS of Prision Mayor as minimum to
FOURTEEN (14) YEARS of Reclusion Temporal as maximum, the same to be served
by them at the National Penitentiary, Muntinlupa City, Province of Rizal.

Province of Rizal.
private complainant, [BBB], the sums of [P]50,000.00 as civil indemnity, and
Province of Rizal.
private complainant, [BBB], the sums of [P]50,000.00 as civil indemnity, and
In the service of the sentence imposed upon them by this Court, [accusedappellants] shall be given credit for the entire period of their detention pending
trial.
[Accused-appellants] John Glen Wile y Villalobos, Efren Buenafe, Jr. y Aquino, Mark
Robert Lariosa y Juen and Jaypee Pineda y Wile, are remanded to the custody of
the Jail Warden of the Bureau of Jail Management and Penology of Silay City,
Negros Occidental, pending their commitment to the National Penitentiary,
Muntinlupa City, Rizal, where they shall served (sic) the penalties of imprisonment
imposed on them by this Court.[27]
Accused-appellants filed their Notice of Appeal of the foregoing RTC judgment on
February 5, 2007.[28]
Accused-appellants John, Mark, and Jaypee, being minors at the time of
commission of the purported crimes,[29] eventually filed on February 13, 2007 a
motion for probation[30] under Section 42 of Republic Act No. 9344, otherwise
known as the "Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006," which provides:
Sec. 42. Probation as an Alternative to Imprisonment. - The court may, after it shall
have convicted and sentenced a child in conflict with the law, and upon application
at any time, place the child on probation in lieu of service of his/her sentence taking
into account the best interest of the child. For this purpose, Section 4 of Presidential
Decree No. 968, otherwise known as the "Probation Law of 1976," is hereby
amended accordingly.
The three accused-appellants filed the next day, on February 14, 2007, a motion to
withdraw their appeal.[31]
In an Order dated March 5, 2007,[32] the RTC denied both motions of accusedappellants John, Mark, and Jaypee, rationalizing that:
The provisions of the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006 (Republic Act No.
9344) are not applicable to [accused-appellants] named. The penalty imposed by
this Court on them was imprisonment for a period of Ten (10) Years of Prision
Mayor to Fourteen (14) Years of Reclusion Temporal. Under the provisions of
Presidential Decree No. 968, otherwise known as the Probation Law of 1976, as
amended, offenders sentenced to serve a maximum term of imprisonment of more
than six (6) years are disqualified from availing of the benefits of the Law. The
amendment made by Republic Act No. 9344, Section 42, refers only to the filing of
the application for probation even beyond the period for filing an appeal.
Minor [accused-appellants] named, likewise, cannot avail of suspended sentence
under the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006 (Republic Act No. 9344). The
imposable penalty for the crime of Rape committed by two or more persons (Art.
266-A in relation to Art. 266-B, Revised Penal Code of the Philippines, as amended)
is Reclusion Perpetua to Death. Republic Act No. 9344 merely amended Article 192
of P.D. No. 603, as amended by A.M. No. 02-1-18-SC, in that the suspension of
sentence shall be enjoyed by the juvenile even if he is already 18 years of age or
more at the time of the pronouncement of his/her guilt. The other disqualifications
in Article 192 of P.D. No. 603, as amended, and Section 32 of A.M. No. 02-1-18-SC
have not been deleted from Section 38 of Rep. Act No. 9344. Evidently, the
intention of Congress was to maintain the other disqualifications as provided in
Article 192 of P.D. No. 603, as amended, and Section 32 of A.M. No. 02-1-18-SC.
Hence, juveniles who have been convicted of a crime the imposable penalty for
which is reclusion perpetua, life imprisonment or reclusion perpetua to death or
death, are disqualified from having their sentences suspended (Declarador vs.
Gubaton, G.R. No. 159208, August 18, 2006).
On March 6 2007, the RTC directed the Branch Clerk of Court to forward the case
records to the Court of Appeals.[33]
On February 25, 2013, the Court of Appeals rendered its Decision affirming
accused-appellants' conviction for all counts of rape but modifying the penal and
civil liabilities imposed upon them, thus:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is DENIED. The 24 January 2007
decision of the Regional Trial Court of Silay City convicting accused-appellants for
the crime of rape as defined in Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, as
amended by RA 8353, is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION.
JOHN GLEN WILE and MARK ROBERT LARIOSA are sentenced to a penalty of
six (6) years and one (1) day of Prision mayor, as minimum to fourteen (14) years,
eight (8) months and one (1) day of Reclusion temporal, as maximum for each of
the six (6) counts of rape committed against AAA and for each of the two (2)
counts of rape against BBB.
JAYPEE PINEDA is sentenced to a penalty of six (6) years and one (1) day
of Prision mayor, as minimum to fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months and one (1)
day of Reclusion temporal, as maximum for each of the four (4) counts of rape
against AAA and for each of the two (2) counts of rape against BBB.
EFREN BUENAFE, JR. is sentenced to a penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA for each
of the four (4) counts of rape against AAA and for each of the two (2) counts of
rape against BBB.
Accused-appellants are ORDERED to pay P75,000.00 as civil indemnity and
P75,000.00 as moral damages for each count of rape where each is convicted.
Upon finality of this Decision, the accused-appellants John Glen Wile, Mark Robert
Lariosa and Jaypee Pineda shall be confined pursuant to Section 51 of Republic Act
9344.[34]
Hence, accused-appellants come before us via an appeal under Rule 124, Section
13(c)[35] of the Revised Rules of Court.
In a Resolution[36] dated August 28, 2013, the Court directed both parties to submit
their supplemental briefs. However, plaintiff-appellee and accused-appellants filed
their respective Manifestations[37] stating that they would no longer file a
supplemental brief and that they were adopting the contents and arguments in their
appellate briefs.
In their appeal brief,[38] accused-appellants make a lone assignment of error on the
part of the RTC, viz.:
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANTS FOR THE
[CRIMES] CHARGED DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE PROSECUTION FAILED TO
PROVE [THEIR] GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.[39]
Accused-appellants argue that the prosecution failed to present evidence to
overcome the presumption of their innocence and establish their guilt beyond
reasonable doubt. Accused-appellants contend that the supposed rapes of AAA and
BBB were highly improbable for the following reasons: First, all members of the
fraternity were present during the alleged rapes. It was unbelievable that only the
four accused-appellants would rape AAA and BBB while the rest of the fraternity
members would just watch and do nothing. Second, the hut where AAA and BBB
were purportedly raped by accused-appellants had no walls, was adjacent to a
pathway, and near neighboring houses. Passers-by would have had a clear view of
the hut making it impossible for said accused-appellants to commit the
crime. Third, if AAA and BBB were blindfolded, they could not have positively
identified accused-appellants as the persons who had sexual intercourse with them.
Although BBB testified that her blindfold was removed so she was able to see how
accused-appellants took turns in raping AAA, accused-appellants insist that it was
highly improbable for them to have allowed BBB to witness her friend AAA being
raped. The same thing could be said for AAA's assertion that her blindfold was
removed as BBB was being raped.Fourth, Juvelyn, a friend of AAA and BBB who
was said to be present on July 26, 2005, would have been a vital witness for the
prosecution, but she was not presented in court. Also inconceivable was AAA's
allegation that she was at her friend's house on September 12, 2005 and accusedappellants John and Mark could not have just grabbed AAA and raped her in the
presence of her friend and other persons inside the house. And fifth, AAA and BBB
did not mention that force or threat was employed by accused-appellants in their
rapes. AAA and BBB merely claimed that they tried to resist but they failed to
describe the manner of their resistance and the kind offeree that was employed on
them by accused-appellants. In addition, accused-appellants dispute the finding of
the RTC that there was conspiracy among them despite the absence of proof of the
same.
Accused-appellants' appeal is bereft of merit.
Article 266-A(1) of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, describes how the crime
of rape can be committed:
Article 266-A. Rape, When And How Committed. - Rape is committed 1) By a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the
circumstances:
a) Through force, threat or intimidation;
b) When the offended party is deprived of reason or is otherwise unconscious;
c) By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority;
d) When the offended party is under twelve (12) years of age or is demented, even
though none of the circumstances mentioned above be present.
The elements of rape committed under Article 266-A(l)(a) of the Revised Penal
Code, as amended, are: (a) that the offender, who must be a man, had carnal
knowledge of a woman, and (b) that such act is accomplished by using force or
intimidation.[40]
Both the RTC and the Court of Appeals found that the prosecution was able to
establish all the foregoing elements of rape in the case at bar, substantially giving
weight and credence to the testimonies of the victims AAA and BBB.
This Court bears in mind that due to its intimate nature, rape is usually a crime
bereft of witnesses, and, more often than not, the victim is left to testify for herself.
Thus, in the resolution of rape cases, the victim's credibility becomes the primordial
consideration. When the victim's testimony is straightforward, convincing, and
consistent with human nature and the normal course of things, unflawed by any
material or significant inconsistency, it passes the test of credibility, and the
accused may be convicted solely on the basis thereof.[41] The credibility of herein
victims AAA and BBB is further bolstered by the unique circumstance that AAA and
BBB had witnessed the rape of each other on July 26, 2005, and the testimonies
they gave in court were consistent with and corroborative of each other.
The RTC, in its evaluation of the testimonies of AAA and BBB, observed that:
When a woman, moreso if she is a minor, as [AAA] and [BBB] are, says that she
had been raped she, in effect, says all that is necessary to show that rape was, in
fact, committed on her. Normally, their testimonies must be given full weight and
credit. Youth and immaturity are generally badges of truth and sincerity. No
woman, lest a minor, would concoct a story of defloration, allow an examination of
her private parts and subject herself to public trial and ridicule if she has not, in
truth, been a victim of rape and impelled to seek justice for the wrong done to her
(People vs. Guambor, G.R. No. 152183, 22 January 2004). The private
complainants were minors, fifteen (15) years of ages and were third year high
school students of the x x x Memorial High School, Silay City, Negros Occidental at
that time of the submitted incidents of sexual molestations on their persons. The
declarations they gave of the acts done on them by the [accused-appellants] had
been consistent, logical, straightforward, thorough, detailed, candid and to this
Court's appreciation, taken in sum, credible. Their narrative accounts of the details
of acts done on them by each of the [accused-appellants] stood unshaken in the
face of rigid cross-examinations and unflawed by inconsistencies or contradictions
in their material points as their declarations were, likewise, devoid of
omissions/lapses in basic facts. They positively identified the four (4) [accusedappellants], Efren Buenafe, Jr., Mark Robert Lariosa, John Glen Wile, and Jaypee
Pineda, as the very persons who perpetrated the sexual molestations on them on
the dates and places given. They detailed what each of the [accused-appellants]
had done and their collective participations in the referred molestations. [42]
On appeal, the Court of Appeals upheld the credibility of the testimonies of AAA and
BBB. The supposed loopholes and improbable facts in said testimonies of AAA and
BBB pointed out by accused-appellants were already thoroughly considered and
addressed by the Court of Appeals, as shown in the following excerpts from its
judgment:
We uphold the conviction of the accused-appellants.
xxxx
A careful reading and evaluation of the evidence on record [reveal] that the
foregoing elements are sufficiently established by the prosecution. The records,
supported by the medical results of the examination conducted on the victims,
would show that the four (4) accused-appellants committed carnal knowledge of
AAA and BBB with the use of force and intimidation.
When AAA was called to the witness stand, she gave a thorough, detailed and
straightforward narration of the incidents that happened on July 26, 2005 and
September 12, 2005. She recalled how each of the four (4) accused-appellants
successively abused her while the others were holding her legs and hands. She
positively identified the four (4) accused-appellants to be the same perpetrators

who had carnal knowledge and took advantage of her against her will. The same
thing happened with BBB. She categorically recounted eacn and every detail of the
abuses committed against her by the perpetrators.
Thus, contrary to the posturing of the accused-appellants, the corroborative
testimonies of the prosecution witnesses established beyond reasonable doubt the
commission of the crimes charged herein.
Accused-appellants' insistence that it is highly improbable for the victims to be
raped in the presence of all the members of the group and within the premises of
the hut which is described to be open, located along the highway and had
neighboring houses nearby are misplaced. Records are very clear and it was even
admitted by the accused-appellants that they conducted the initiation not inside the
hut in the presence of all the members of the fraternity, but in the cane field on top
of a hill with the presence of the four (4) accused-appellants and the two (2)
victims. The pertinent portion of the testimony of Efren Buenafe states:
Q:
A:
Q:
A:
Q:
A:
Q:
A:
Q:
A:
Q:
A:
Q:
A:
Q:
A:
Q:
A:
Q:
A:
And after that, what happened?

Mart told us to stand.
And what else happened after that?
AAA was made to choose from among us.
And what was the purpose of choosing the one of you?
We were instructed to stand, the she chose made (sic) that one should be the one to
conduct the initiation on her.
After that, what happened, Mr. Witness?
They ascended to near the top of the hill.
Who went to the upper portion of the hill?
The five of them.
Who were they?
BBB, AAA, friend, Mark Robert, and John Glen.
How about you, when these individuals you mentioned went to the upper portion,
where were you at the time?
I was in the hut.
And then, what did you do after these five persons you mentioned went to the hilly
portion?
Mark called me.
And what did you do after you were summoned by Mark?
They went after us to the cane field.
When you said they, who was with you when they conducted you inside this sugarcane
field?
The five of them.
The foregoing testimony indubitably showed that indeed the four (4) accusedappellants and two (2) victims went on top of the hill. While accused-appellants'
version of the story would show that it was only [accused-appellant Efren] and AAA
who were left in the cane field while the others immediately went back to the hut,
still it was not physically impossible for the four (4) accused-appellants to be at the
scene of the crime and commit the same against the two (2) victims.
xxxx
The testimonies of AAA and BBB were consistent and positive that the commission
of the rape unto each of them was consecutive, not simultaneous. Records showed
that AAA, who was blindfolded, was raped first while BBB was seated at a distance
of about two (2) meters without any blindfolds. Hence, BBB can clearly see the
felonious and obscene acts of the four (4) accused-appellants as they took turns in
consummating carnal knowledge of AAA. On the other hand, when BBB was raped
by the two (2) [accused-appellants], AAA was also present at the scene of the
crime and was not blindfolded. Thus, she can clearly see the vulgar and lewd acts
committed unto her friend.
xxxx
The presentation of [Juvelyn] is not vital for the case of the prosecution. The
Supreme Court has ruled that due to its intimate nature, rape is usually a crime
bereft of witnesses, and, more often than not, the victim is left to testify for herself.
Thus, in the resolution of rape cases, the victim's credibility becomes the primordial
consideration. It is settled that when the victim's testimony is straightforward,
convincing and consistent with human nature and the normal course of things,
unflawed by any material or significant inconsistency, it passes the test of
credibility, and the accused may be convicted solely on the basis thereof.
The Supreme Court has likewise ruled that when the offended parties are young
and immature girls, as in this case, Courts are inclined to lend credence to their
version of what transpired, considering not only their relative vulnerability, but also
the shame and embarrassment to which they would be exposed if the matter about
which they testified were not true. A young girl would not usually concoct a tale of
defloration; publicly admit having been ravished and her honor tainted; allow the
examination of her private parts; and undergo all the trouble and inconvenience,
not to mention the trauma and scandal of a public trial, had she not in fact been
raped and been truly moved to protect and preserve her honor, and motivated by
the desire to obtain justice for the wicked acts committed against her.
Hence, the Court is convinced to give the badge of belief and approval to the
categorical, consistent and straightforward testimonies of the two (2) victims.
Accused-appellants' allegation that case record made no mention of any force or
intimidation upon the victims during the commission of the crime is also
unacceptable. AAA and BBB were consistent and candid in their declarations that
they were threatened to be struck with a bamboo pole if they resist the lewd
intentions of the four (4) perpetrators. AAA's testimony states:
Q:
A:
While these things were happened to you, what did you do?
I was also crying, I was pleading not to do these things to me but they did not [heed]
me and they threatened that they would [strike] me with the bamboo pole.
Added to that and as discussed earlier, the prosecution clearly showed that during
the incident, both hands and legs of both victims were held by the other accusedappellants while the other one consummates the sexual act. This manifested the
element of force and intimidation which attended the rape committed unto AAA and
BBB.
xxxx
The trial court found the presence of conspiracy between the perpetrators and We
concur to such findings. The trial court ruled in this wise:
"[Accused-appellants] -named did perform specific individual acts with such
closeness and coordination as to indicate a common purpose or design to force the
private complainants into sexual intercourse with each of them. They decided on
the mode, method and manner on how they intended the sexual molestation of
named private complainants was to be done and/or perpetrated as may be inferred
from the acts they committed, which unmistakably show a joint purpose and
design, concerted action and community of interest. Each of them did their parts so
that their acts were, in fact, connected and cooperative, indicating a closeness of
personal association and concurrence of sentiments that cannot lead to any
conclusion but a conspiracy to commit the offense."
xxxx
In this case, records revealed a common design to commit the crime. The four (4)
accused-appellants mutually helped each other so that each of them can
consummate the crime against the victims. There was indeed a community of
purpose as manifested by the holding of the hands and legs of the victims while the
other commits the illicit act. Verily, conspiracy is implied when the accused persons
had a common purpose and were united in its execution. Spontaneous agreements
or active cooperation by all perpetrators at the moment of the commission of the
crime is sufficient to create joint criminal responsibility. Such acts are extant in the
case at bench.
In sum, this Court hereby finds no reversible error on the part of the RTC, in finding
accused-appellants Efren Buenafe Jr., Jaypee Pineda, John Glen Wile and Mark
Robert Pineda guilty beyond reasonable doubt for the commission of rape against
victims AAA and BBB. For the rape committed on July 26, 2005 and September 12,
2005, conspiracy among the four (4) accused-appellants was established. The act
of any one was the act of all and each of them is equally guilty of all the crimes
committed. Thus, each accused-appellant shall be guilty of rape for each sexual act
they each committed against the victims.[43](Citations omitted.)
The well-entrenched rule is that the findings of fact of the trial court in the
ascertainment of the credibility of witnesses and the probative weight of the
evidence on record, affirmed on appeal by the appellate court, are accorded high
respect, if not conclusive effect, by the Court, in the absence of any justifiable
reason to deviate from the said findings.[44] The Court further elaborated in People
v. Regaspi[45] that:
When it comes to credibility, the trial court's assessment deserves great weight,
and is even conclusive and binding, unless the same is tainted with arbitrariness or
oversight of some fact or circumstance of weight and influence. Since it had the full
opportunity to observe directly the deportment and the manner of testifying of the
witnesses before it, the trial court is in a better position than the appellate court to
properly evaluate testimonial evidence. The rule finds an even more stringent
application where the CA sustained said findings, as in this case. (Citations
omitted.)
The aforementioned general rule applies to this case wherein accused-appellants
failed to persuade us of any cogent reason to disturb the findings of fact of the RTC,
as affirmed by the Court of Appeals, on the actual commission of the rapes at the
times and places and manner described by AAA and BBB, the identities of accusedappellants as the perpetrators, and the existence of conspiracy among accusedappellants.
In contrast, accused-appellants proffer the defenses of alibi and denial. For alibi to
prosper, it must be proved that the accused was at another place when the crime
was committed and that it was physically impossible for him to have been at the
scene of the crime. To determine physical impossibility, we take into consideration
the distance between the place where the accused was when the crime transpired
and the place where the crime was committed, as well as the facility of access
between these two places.[46] In the present case, accused-appellants admit being
present at the hut in Villa Hergon, as well as the nearby canefield, with AAA and
BBB on July 26, 2005, for the conduct of the initiation of their fraternity. Accusedappellants John and Mark likewise conceded being with AAA at the hut in Villa
Hergon on September 12, 2005. Accused-appellants were either at the very place
or within the immediate vicinity of the place where AAA and BBB were raped on July
26, 2005 and September 12, 2005 at around the same time as when said rapes
were committed, so accused-appellants' defense of alibi is completely unavailing.

That leaves accused-appellants with the defense of denial, which is refuted by the
positive identification made by AAA and BBB. As we declared in People v. Rabago,
[47]
"[a] plain denial, which is a negative self-serving evidence, cannot stand against
the positive identification and categorical testimony of a rape victim." We also
expounded in People v. Monticalvo[48] that:
Denial is an inherently weak defense and has always been viewed upon with
disfavor by the courts due to the ease with which it can be concocted. Denial as a
defense crumbles in the light of positive identification of the accused, as in this
case. The defense of denial assumes significance only when the prosecution's
evidence is such that it does not prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Verily, mere
denial, unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence, is negative self-serving
evidence which Cannot be given greater evidentiary weight than the testimony of
the complaining witness who testified on affirmative matters. (Citation omitted.)
Given that accused-appellants' guilt for the rapes of AAA and BBB on July 26, 2005
and September 12, 2005 was established beyond reasonable doubt, we proceed to
determining whether the proper penalties were imposed upon them.
The finding of conspiracy among accused-appellants in the rapes of AAA and BBB
on July 26, 2005 and between accused-appellants John and Mark in the rapes of
AAA on September 12, 2005 makes them responsible not only for their own
unlawful acts, but also for those of the other accused-appellants, for in conspiracy,
the act of one is the act of the other.[49]
Under paragraph 2 of Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, as amended,
whenever the rape is committed by two or more persons, the penalty shall
be reclusion perpetua to death. There being no mitigating or aggravating
circumstance in the commission of the crimes in the case at bar, the lesser penalty
of reclusion perpetuais imposed upon accused-appellant Efren for each of the four
(4) counts of rape of AAA and two (2) couhts of rape of BBB on July 26, 2005.
As for accused-appellants John, Mark, and Jaypee, the Court takes into account
Republic Act No. 9344. Accused-appellants John and jMark were seventeen (17)
years old and accused-appellant Jaypee was sixteen (16) years old at the time of
commission of the rapes. Section 6 of Republic Act No. 9344 exempts a child above
fifteen (15) years but below eighteen (18) years of age from criminal liability,
unless he/she had acted with discernment, in which case, such child shall be
subjected to the appropriate proceedings in accordance with said Act. In People v.
Jacinto,[50] we determined "discernment" in this wise:
Discernment is that mental capacity of a minor to fully appreciate the consequences

of his unlawful act. Such capacity may be known and should be determined by
taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances afforded by the records in
each case.
xxx The surrounding circumstances must demonstrate that the minor knew what he
was doing and that it was wrong. Such circumstance: includes the gruesome nature
of the crime and the minor's cunning and shrewdness.
It is the finding of the RTC, subsequently affirmed by the Court of Appeals, that
accused-appellants John, Mark, and Jaypee had acted with discernment. According
to the Court of Appeals, such discernment was satisfactorily established by the
credible testimonies of the victims and "as obviously shown in the ghastly and
dastardly acts they committed to the victims, they were fully knowledgeable of the
consequences of their acts." The Court additionally highlights that the three minor
accused-appellants were members of the SWAK fraternity in which female
applicants were given a choice during initiation between "hirap" or "sarap" the!
latter entailing sexual intercourse with a fraternity member. Such initiation process
was established by accused-appellants as founding members of SWAK. Said three
accused-appellants also willingly and actively participated in the rapes of AAA and
BBB on July 26, 2005, helping each other in consummating the rapes by taking
turns in holding the victims' hands and legs and guarding one girl while the other
was being raped. Accused-appellants John and Mark further exhibited their
depravity by conspiring with each other to rape AAA once more on September 12,
2005.
Since accused-appellants John, Mark, and Jaypee are found to have acted with
discernment and are convicted as charged, we shall render the appropriate
sentences against them, keeping in mind the privileged mitigating circumstance of
minority. Pursuant to Article 68(2)[51] of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, the
penalty to be imposed upon a person under eighteen (18) but above fifteen (15)
years of age for a crime shall be the penalty next lower than that prescribed by law.
We previously determined herein that the imposable penalty for rape committed by
two or more persons, without any mitigating or aggravating circumstance,
is reclusion perpetua. Therefore, the imposable penalty on the three accusedappellants, who were either seventeen (17) or sixteen (16) years old at the time of
the rapes, is reduced by one degree from reclusion perpetua, which is reclusion
temporal, for every count. Being a divisible penalty, the Indeterminate Sentence
Law is applicable. There being no modifying circumstance attendant to each crime,
the maximum of the indeterminate penalty, i.e., reclusion temporal, is imposed in
its medium period, which ranges from fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months, and
one (1) day to seventeen (17) years and four (4) months. To set the minimum of
the indeterminate penalty, reclusion temporal is reduced by one degree to prision
mayor, which ranges from six (6) years and one (1) day to twelve (12) years. The
minimum of the indeterminate penalty is taken from the full range of prision
mayor.[52] In the present case, the penalty imposed by the Court of Appeals on
accused-appellants John, Mark, and Jaypee for each count of rape is imprisonment
of six (6) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as minimum, to fourteen (14)
years, eight (8) months, and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, as maximum. Being
within the proper range of indeterminate sentence as provided by law, we have no
reason to disturb the same.
Accused-appellants John, Mark, and Jaypee may no longer have their sentences
suspended under Section 40 of Republic Act No. 9344. [53]
Although suspension of sentence still applies even when the child in conflict with
the law is already eighteen (18) years of age or more at the time the judgment of
conviction was rendered, such suspension is only until the minor reaches the
maximum age of twenty-one (21).[54] By now, accused-appellants John and Mark
are twenty-seven (27) years old, while accused-appellant Jaypee is twenty-six (26)
years old.
Nevertheless, accused-appellants John, Mark, and Jaypee are still entitled to the
benefit of Section 51 of Republic Act No. 9344[55] even when they are already
beyond twenty-one (21) years of age. Upon order of the court, accused-appellants
may serve their sentences at an agricultural camp or any other training facility,
controlled by the Bureau of Correction, in coordination with the Department of
Social Welfare and Development, in lieu of a regular penal institution.[56]
Finally, the civil indemnity and moral damages awarded by the Court of Appeals in
favor of AAA and BBB, each in the amount of P75,000.00, are affirmed, in
accordance with recent jurisprudence.[57] In addition, exemplary damages in the
amount of P75,000.00[58] is also awarded to set a public example and to protect
hapless individuals from sexual molestation. All monetary awards herein shall earn
legal interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum to be reckoned from the
date of finality of this judgment until fully paid.[59]
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Decision dated February 25, 2013 of the
Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 00012 is AFFIRMED with
MODIFICATION,to read as follows:
Accused-appellants John Glen Wile and Mark Robert Lariosa are sentenced to suffer
the penalty of imprisonment of six (6) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as
minimum, to fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months, and one (1) day of reclusion
temporal, as maximum, for each of the six (6) counts of rape of AAA and for each
of the two (2) counts of rape of BBB.
Accused-appellant Jaypee Pineda is sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment

of six (6) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as minimum, to fourteen (14)
years, eight (8) months, and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, as maximum, for
each of the four (4) counts of rape of AAA and for each of the two (2) counts of
rape of BBB.
On account of the minority of accused-appellants John Glen Wile, Mark Robert
Lariosa, and Jaypee Pineda when they came in conflict with the law, they shall
serve their sentences in an agricultural camp or training facility in accordance with
Section 51 of Republic Act No. 9344. For this purpose, the case is remanded to the
Regional Trial Court of Silay City, Branch 69 for the appropriate disposition.
Accused-appellant Efren Buenafe, Jr. is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion
perpetua for each of the four (4) counts of rape of AAA and two (2) counts of rape
of BBB.
Accused-appellants are directed to jointly and severally pay AAA and BBB the
amounts of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages, and
P75,000.00 as exemplary damages for each of the four (4) counts of rape of AAA
and for each of the two (2) counts of rape of BBB committed on July 26, 5005.
Accused-appellants John Glen Wile and Mark Robert Lariosa are directed to jointly
and severally pay AAA the amounts of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as
moral damages, and P75,000.00 as exemplary damages, for each of the two (2)
counts of rape of AAA committed on September 12, 2005.
All monetary awards herein are subject to six percent (6%) interest per
annum from the finality of this judgment until they are fully paid.
SO ORDERED
Sereno, CJ., (Chairperson), Bersamin, Perlas-Bernabe, and Caguioa, JJ., concur.
CA rollo pp. 123-152; penned by Associate Justice Carmelita SalandananManahan with Associate Justices Ramon Paul L. Hernando and Maria Elisa Sempio
Diy concurring.
[1]
[2]
CA rollo pp. 55-73.
[3]
Accused-appellant John Glen Wile's first two names were also sometimes spelled
as "Jhon Glen" and "John Glenn."

Accused-appellant Mark Robert Lariosa's first name was also sometimes spelled
as "Marc" and "Mart."
[4]
[5]
Accused-appellant Efren Buenafe, Jr. was also referred to as "Jay-R."
The victims real names are withheld pursuant to People v. Cabalquinto (533 Phil.
703 [2006])
[6]
[7]
Records (Crim. Case No, 5931-69), p. 1.
[8]
Records (Crim. Case No. 5932-69), p. 1
[9]
Records (Crim Case No. 5033-69), p. 1
[10]
Records (Crim. Case No. 5934-69), p 1.
[11]
Records (Crim. Case No. 5935-69), p. 1.
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
Id. at 30.
Section 44 of Republic Act No. 9262, otherwise known as the Anti-Violence

Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004, requires the confidentiality of all
records pertaining to cases of violence against women and their children. Per said
section, all public officers and employees are prohibited from publishing or causing
to be published in any format the name and other identifying information of a
victim or an immediate family member. The penalty of one (1) year imprisonment
and a fine of not more than Five Hundred Thousand pesos (P500,000.00) shall be
imposed upon those who violate the provision. Pursuant thereto, in the courts'
promulgation of decisions, final resolutions and/or final orders, the names of
women and children victims shall be replaced by fictitious initials, and their personal
circumstances or any information, which tend to identify them, shall likewise not be
disclosed. (Resolution in BBB v. AAA, G.R. No. 193225, February 9, 2015)
[16]
[17]
Records (Crim. Case No. 5938-69), p. 36
[18]
BBB v. AAA, supra note 16. Id.
Variously referred to in the TSN as "Juvelyn Bellega" (TSN, March 13, 2006, p.
7), "Gebelyn Gelbaliega" (TSN, May 8, 2006, p. 6), and "Jevielyn Gilbalega" (TSN,
August 14, 2006, p. 11).
[20]
[21]
TSN, March 13, 2006, pp. 10-12.
[22]
TSM, February 13,2006, pp. 4-9.
[23]
TSN, September 11, 2006, pp. 10-14.
AAA asked a certain Richelle, a SWAK member, to hand the letter to accusedappellant Lariosa (TSM, August 14, 2006, pp. 20-21.)
[24]
[25]
TSN, August 7, 2006, pp. 29-30.
[26]
Id.
[27]
Accused-appellants John, Mark, and Jaypee filed a Notice of Appeal on February

5, 2007 while accused-appellant Efren filed his Notice of Appeal on February 13,
2007. (Records [Crim Case No. 5938-69], pp. 152-153.)
[28]
Based on their Certificates of Live Birth, accused-appellants John, Mark, and

Jaypee were born on May 24, 1988, March 29, 1988, and December 9, 1988,
respectively. Thus, John and Mark were both seventeen (17) years old and Jaypee
was sixteen (16) years old when they committed the crimes. (Id. at 123-125.)
[29]
[30]
Records (Crim. Case No. 5938-69), pp. 158-159.
[31]
Id. at 154-155.
[32]
Id. at 160-161.
[33]
Id. at 162.
[34]
[35]
Sec. 13. Certification or appeal of case to the Supreme Court. - x x x
xxxx
(c) In cases where the Court of Appeals imposes reclusion perpetua, life
imprisonment or a lesser penalty, it shall render and enter judgment imposing such
penalty. The judgment may be appealed to the Supreme Court by notice of appeal
filed with the Court of Appeals.
[36]
Rollo, p. 37
Plaintiff-appellee's Manifestation (In Lieu of Supplemental Brief) (Rollo, pp. 3840); Accused-appellants' Manifestation In Lieu of Supplemental Brief (Rollo, pp. 4547).
[37]
[38]
[39]
Id. at 33.
[40]
People v. Aaron, 438 Phil. 296, 309 (2002).
[41]
People v. Balino, G.R. No. 194833, July 2, 2014, 729 SCRA 52, 62.
[42]
[43]
[44]
People v. Flora, 585 Phil. 626, 644-645 (2008).
[43]
G.R. No. 198309, September 7, 2015.
[46]
People v. Ancajas, G.R. No. 199270, October 21 2015.
[47]
448 Phil. 539, 550-551 (2003).
[48]
702 Phil. 643,664(2013).
[49]
People v. Juarez and Sabal, 394 Phil. 345, 363 (2000).
[50]
661 Phil. 224,249-250 (2011).
Art. 68. Penalty to be imposed upon a person under eighteen years of age,
When the offender is a minor under eighteen years and his case is one coming
under the provisions of the paragraph next to the last of article 80 of this Code, the
following rules shall be observed:
[51]
xxxx
2. Upon a person over fifteen and under eighteen years of age the penalty next
lower than that prescribed by the law shall be imposed, but always in the proper
period.
[52]
See People v. Ancajas, supra note 46.
Sec. 40. Return of the Child in Conflict with the Law to Court. - If the court finds
that the objective of the disposition measures imposed upon the child in conflict
with the law have not been fulfilled, or if the child in conflict with the law has
willfully failed to comply with the conditions of his/her disposition or rehabilitation
program, the child in conflict with the law shall be brought before the court for
execution of judgment.
[53]
If said child in conflict with the law has reached eighteen (18) years of age while
under suspended sentence, the court shall determine whether to discharge the child
in accordance with this Act, to order execution of sentence, or to extend the
suspended sentence for a certain' specified period or until the child reaches the
maximum age of twenty-one (21) years.
People v. Ancajas, supra note 46, citing People v. Jacinto, supra note 50. See
also People v. Sarcia, 615 Phil. 97, 129-130 (2009).
[54]
Sec. 51. Confinement of Convicted Children in Agricultural Camps and Other

Training Facilities. - A child in conflict with the law may, after conviction and upon
order of the court, be made to serve his/her sentence, in lieu of confinement in a
regular penal institution, in an agricultural camp and other training facilities that
may be established, maintained, supervised and controlled by the [Bureau of
Corrections], in coordination with the [Department of Social Welfare and
Development].
[55]
People v. Ancajas, supra note 46, citing People v. Jacinto, supra note 50. See
also People v. Sarcia, supra note 54.
[56]
[57]
People v. Jugueta, G.R. No. 202124, April 5, 2016.
The amount of exemplary damages for simple rape is now set at P75,000.00
(People v. Jugueta, id.).
[58]
[59]
People v. Ancajas, supra note 46.

G.R.
No.
214934
PACIFIC REHOUSE CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. JOVEN L. NGO, AS REPRESENTED BY OSCAR J. GARCIA,
RESPONDENT.
April 12, 2016
FIRST DIVISION
[ G.R. No. 214934, April 12, 2016 ]
PACIFIC REHOUSE CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. JOVEN
L. NGO, AS REPRESENTED BY OSCAR J. GARCIA,
RESPONDENT.
DECISION
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:
Assailed in this petition for review on certiorari[1] are the Decision[2] dated March 20,
2014 and the Resolution[3] dated October 8, 2014 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in
CA-G.R. SP. No. 122222, which set aside the Omnibus Order [4] dated April 7, 2011
and the Order[5] dated September 30, 2011 of the Regional Trial Court of Imus,
Cavite, Branch 20 (RTC), in consolidated Civil Case No. 2031-08 and LRC Case
No. 1117-09 and consequently dismissed the complaint for specific performance
and damages docketed as Civil Case No. 2031-08.
The Facts
On February 17, 1994, petitioner Pacific Rehouse Corporation (petitioner) entered
into a Deed of Conditional Sale[6] with Benjamin G. Bautista (Bautista) for the
purchase of a 52,341-square meter parcel of land located in Imus, Cavite and
covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-800 issued by the Registry of
Deeds of the Province of Cavite (subject property), for a total consideration of
P7,327,740.00. Under the contract, petitioner was to make a down payment of
P2,198,322.00 upon its execution, with the balance to be paid upon completion by
Bautista of the pertinent documents necessary for the transfer of the said property.
[7]
However, despite receipt of payment in the total amount of P6,598,322.00 and

repeated offers to pay the balance in full, Bautista failed and refused to comply with
his obligation to execute the corresponding deed of absolute sale and deliver the
certificate of title of the subject property, and even sold the property to another
buyer.[8]Hence, on April 30, 2008, petitioner filed a complaint[9] for specific
performance and damages against Bautista, docketed as Civil Case No. 2031-08,
praying for the delivery of a deed of transfer and other documents necessary to
transfer the title in its favor, as well as the Owner's Copy of TCT No. T-800.
[10]
Further, on May 9, 2008, petitioner caused the annotation of a Notice of Lis
Pendens on TCT No. T-800 under Entry No. 9405[11] in order to protect its rights
over the subject property pending litigation.[12]
After the parties had filed their respective responsive pleadings, [13] the case was set
for pre-trial. However, before the same could proceed, Bautista's counsel filed a
Manifestation and Notice of Death[14] informing the RTC that Bautista had died on
February 14, 2009. Thus, in an Order[15] dated May 19, 2009, the RTC directed
Bautista's counsel to substitute the latter's heirs and/or representatives in the
action pursuant to Section 16, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court. Unfortunately, said
counsel failed to comply due to lack of personal knowledge of the identities of the
heirs of Bautista and their respective residences.[16]
On the other hand, petitioner manifested that it had located Bautista's surviving
spouse, Rosita Bautista, and as a result, was directed to amend the complaint to
implead her as such.[17] For failure of petitioner to comply with the foregoing
directive, however, the RTC issued an Order[18] dated February 23,
2010 dismissingCivil Case No. 2031-08 pursuant to Section 3, Rule 17 of the
Rules of Court.
Upon petitioner's motion for reconsideration,[19] the RTC issued an Order[20] dated
September 20, 2010 setting aside its earlier Order dismissing Civil Case No.
2031-08. However, it held in abeyance the proceedings in said case until petitioner
procures the appointment of an executor or administrator for the estate of Bautista
pursuant to Section 16, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court. [21]
Meanwhile, on May 6, 2009, respondent Joven L. Ngo, represented [22] by Oscar J.
Garcia (respondent), filed a Verified Petition for Cancellation of Notice of Lis
Pendens[23] against petitioner and the Register of Deeds of the Province of Cavite
before the RTC, docketed as LRC Case No. 1117-09. Respondent alleged, inter
alia, that on July 23, 2007, Bautista obtained a loan from him in the amount of
P8,000,000.00 secured by a real estate mortgage over the subject property, and
that the mortgage was registered with the Registry of Deeds of Cavite and
annotated on TCT No. T-800 on July 24, 2007.[24] Upon Bautista's default, the
mortgage was foreclosed and the subject property was sold at a public auction, with
respondent emerging as the highest bidder. Accordingly, a Certificate of Sale [25] was
issued in his favor, which was likewise registered and annotated [26] on TCT No. T800 on January 27, 2009. According to respondent, it was only on May 9, 2008 that
he discovered petitioner's claimed interest over the subject property when he saw
the latter's Notice of Lis Pendens in TCT No. T-800 under Entry No. 9405.[27] In view
of the said averments, respondent contended that Entry No. 9405 should be
removed. He maintained that petitioner was aware of the real estate mortgage that
was annotated on TCT No. T-800 in his favor as early as July 24, 2007 and that
petitioner may no longer recover the subject property, considering that Bautista had
lost ownership thereof when it was sold at a public auction and a certificate of sale
was issued in respondent's favor.[28] On February 11, 2010, TCT No. T1322748[29] was issued in his name with Entry No. 9405 carried over as an
annotation.
In its opposition to LRC Case No. 1117-09,[30] petitioner countered that
respondent was not a mortgagee in good faith, having knowledge of the sale of the
subject property to petitioner as early as November 2007 or even prior to the
foreclosure proceedings.[31] Likewise, asserting that the petition for cancellation of
the notice lis pendens should have been filed instead in Civil Case No. 203108 and not in a land registration case where the RTC exercised limited jurisdiction,
petitioner moved for the consolidation of Civil Case No. 2031-08 and LRC Case
No. 1117-09.[32]
In an Order[33] dated February 24, 2010, the RTC denied petitioner's motion to
consolidate Civil Case No. 2031-08 and LRC Case No. 1117-09, holding that
while both cases involved the same property and, as such, would adversely affect
their respective claims, the former case had already been dismissed in an Order
dated February 23, 2010.[34]
Thereafter, on November 3, 2010, respondent filed an Urgent Motion for
Cancellation of Notice of Lis Pendens[35] praying for the cancellation of Entry No.
9405 carried over to TCT No. T-1322748. Petitioner opposed the said urgent
motion[36] and reiterated its prayer for the consolidation of Civil Case No. 203108 and LRC Case No. 1117-09.[37]
In an Omnibus Order[38] dated April 7, 2011 (April 7, 2011 Omnibus Order), the
RTC denied respondent's motion for being premature and for lack of legal basis, and
instead, ordered the consolidation of Civil Case No. 2031-08 and LRC Case No.
1117-09. The RTC ruled that while it had initially denied the consolidation, it was
premised on an order of dismissal that was subsequently set aside. [39] In this
regard, the RTC opined that the consolidation was necessary in order to fully
adjudicate the issues of the two cases, noting that the outcome in Civil Case No.
2031-08 would adversely affect LRC Case No. 1117-09 which involved the same
subject property; conversely, a decision in the latter case would pre-empt the
outcome of the former case. Further, the RTC ruled that Civil Case No. 203108 would survive Bautista's death since it primarily involved property and property
rights. Thus, the RTC directed petitioner to comply with its previous Order dated
September 20, 2010 to procure the appointment of an administrator pursuant to
Section 16, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court within a period of thirty (30) days. [40]
Respondent's motion for reconsideration[41] therefrom was denied in
an Order[42] dated September 30, 2011.
Accordingly, in compliance with the April 7, 2011 Omnibus Order, petitioner filed on
July 20, 2011 a petition[43] for the appointment of an administrator over the estate
of Bautista before the RTC, docketed as Sp. Proc. Case No. 1075-11. Finding the
petition to be sufficient in form and substance, the RTC issued a Notice of
Hearing[44] dated September 12, 2011, setting the case for initial hearing on
November 14, 2011.[45]
On November 8, 2011, respondent filed an Omnibus Motion to Dismiss [46] Sp. Proc.
Case No. 1075-11 on the grounds that: (a) the RTC has no jurisdiction over the
subject matter of the case, over the person of Bautista's surviving spouse, and over
his person;[47] (b) the petition failed to state a proper cause of action;[48] (c)
petitioner failed to comply with Rule 78 of the Rules of Court;[49] and (d) the petition
violated the rule on forum shopping and litis pendentia.[50]
Thereafter, respondent also filed on December 2, 2011 a petition
for certiorari[51] before the CA, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 122222, claiming that
the following orders of the RTC were issued without or in excess of its jurisdiction,
or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction: (a)
Order dated February 24, 2010 initially denying the consolidation of Civil Case No.
2031-08 and LRC Case No. 1117-09; (b) Order dated September 20, 2010
reinstating Civil Case No. 2031-08; (c) April 7, 2011 Omnibus Order
consolidating Civil Case No. 2031-08 and LRC Case No. 1117-09 and ordering
the petitioner to procure the appointment of an executor or administrator for the
estate of Bautista; (d) Order dated September 30, 2011 upholding the April 7, 2011
Omnibus Order upon motion for reconsideration, and (e) the Notice of Hearing
dated September 12, 2011 in Sp. Proc. Case No. 1075-11.
The CA Ruling
In a Decision[52] dated March 20, 2014, the CA gave due course to the petition only
with respect to the assailed April 7, 2011 Omnibus Order which ordered the
consolidation of Civil Case No. 2031-08 and LRC Case No. 1117-09 and
dismissed the petition as to the four (4) other assailed orders of the RTC due to
procedural lapses.[53] Nevertheless, the CA ruled in favor of respondent and
accordingly, set aside the April 7, 2011 Omnibus Order of the RTC and ordered the
dismissal of Civil Case No. 2031-08.[54]
The CA held that the complaint for specific performance and damages in Civil Case
No. 2031-08 was an action in personam since its object was to compel Bautista to
perform his obligations under the Deed of Conditional Sale and hence, rendered him
pecuniarily liable. As such, the obligations in the contract attached to him alone and
did not burden the subject property. Since the action was founded on a personal
obligation, it did not survive Bautista's death. Hence, the CA concluded that the
dismissal of the complaint by reason thereof, and not a resort to Section 16, Rule 3
of the Rules of Court, was the proper course of action. Consequently, the CA opined
that the issue involving the propriety of the consolidation of the two cases had
become moot and academic.[55]
Petitioner moved for reconsideration[56] but was denied in a Resolution[57] dated
October 8, 2014; hence, this petition.
The primordial issue for the Court's resolution is whether or not the CA correctly
dismissed Civil Case No. 2031-08 in view of Bautista's death.
The Court's Ruling
Section 16, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court governs the rule on substitution in case of
death of any of the parties to a pending suit. It reads in full:
SEC. 16. Death of party; duty of counsel. - Whenever a party to a pending action
dies, and the claim is not thereby extinguished, it shall be the duty of his counsel to
inform the court within thirty (30) days after such death of the fact thereof, and to
give the name and address of his legal representative or representatives. Failure of
counsel to comply with this duty shall be a ground for disciplinary action.
The heirs of the deceased may be allowed to be substituted for the deceased,

If no legal representative is named by the counsel for the deceased party, or if the
one so named shall fail to appear within the specified period, the court may order
the opposing party, within a specified time, to procure the appointment of an
executor or administrator for the estate of the deceased and the latter shall
immediately appear for and on behalf of the deceased. The court charges in
procuring such appointment, if defrayed by the opposing party, may be recovered
as costs. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
Section 16, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court allows the substitution of a party-litigant
who dies during the pendency of a case by his heirs, provided that the claim
subject of said case is not extinguished by his death. As early as in Bonilla v.
Barcena,[58] the Court has settled that if the claim in an action affects property and
property rights, then the action survives the death of a party-litigant, viz.:
The question as to whether an action survives or not depends on the nature of the
action and the damage sued for. In the causes of action which survive the
wrong complained affects primarily and principally property and property
rights, the injuries to the person being merely incidental, while in the causes
of action which do not survive the injury complained of is to the person, the
property and rights of property affected being incidental. x x x. [59] (Emphasis and
underscoring supplied)
In the instant case, although the CA correctly pointed out that Civil Case No.
2031-08 involves a complaint for specific performance and damages, a closer
perusal of petitioner's complaint reveals that it actually prays for, inter alia, the
delivery of ownership of the subject land through Bautista's execution of a deed of
sale and the turnover of TCT No. T-800 in its favor. This shows that the primary
objective and nature of Civil Case No. 2031-08 is to recover the subject property
itself and thus, is deemed to be a real action.[60]
In Gochan v. Gochan,[61] the Court explained that complaints like this are in the
nature of real actions, or actions affecting title to or recovery of possession of real
property, to wit:
In this jurisdiction, the dictum adhered to is that the nature of an action is
determined by the allegations in the body of the pleading or complaint itself, rather
than by its title or heading. The caption of the complaint below was
denominated as one for "specific performance and damages." The relief
sought, however, is the conveyance or transfer of real property, or
ultimately, the execution of deeds of conveyance in their favor of the real
properties enumerated in the provisional memorandum of agreement.
Under these circumstances, the case below was actually a real action,
affecting as it does title to or possession of real property.

In the case of Hernandez v. Rural Bank of Lucena, this Court held that a real action
is one where the plaintiff seeks the recovery of real property or, as indicated in
Section 2(a) of Rule 4 (now Section 1, Rule 4 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure),
a real action is an action affecting title to or recovery of possession of real property.
It has also been held that where a complaint is entitled as one for specific
performance but nonetheless prays for the issuance of a deed of sale for a
parcel of land, its primary objective and nature is one to recover the parcel
of land itself and, thus, is deemed a real action. x x x.
xxxx
In the case at bar, therefore, the complaint filed with the trial court was in the
nature of a real action, although ostensibly denominated as one for specific
performance.[62] (Emphases and underscoring supplied)
Evidently, Civil Case No. 2031-08 is a real action affecting property and property
rights over the subject land. Therefore, the death of a party-litigant, i.e., Bautista,
did not render the case dismissible on such ground, but rather, calls for the proper
application of Section 16, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court on substitution of partylitigants. Similarly, in Carabeo v. Spouses Dingco,[63] the Court held that an action
for specific performance based on the "Kasunduan sa Bilihan ng Karapatan sa Lupa"
was in pursuit of a property right and, as such, survives the death of a party
thereto.
In sum, the CA erred in dismissing Civil Case No. 2031-08 based solely on
Bautista's death. As such, it should be reinstated and consolidated with LRC Case
No. 1117-09, considering that the two cases involve the same property and, as
correctly opined by the court a quo, any adjudication in either case would
necessarily affect the other.[64] In this relation, case law states that consolidation of
cases, when proper, results in the simplification of proceedings, which saves time,
the resources of the parties and the courts, and a possible major abbreviation of
trial. It is a desirable end to be achieved, within the context of the present state of
affairs where court dockets are full and individual and state finances are limited. It
contributes to the swift dispensation of justice, and is in accord with the aim of
affording the parties a just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of their cases
before the courts. Likewise, it avoids the possibility of conflicting decisions being
rendered by the courts in two or more cases which would otherwise require a single
judgment.[65]
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated March 20, 2014 and
the Resolution dated October 8, 2014 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No.
122222, dismissing Civil Case No. 2031-08 are hereby REVERSED and SET
ASIDE. Accordingly, the Omnibus Order dated April 7, 2011 and the Order dated
September 30, 2011 of the Regional Trial Court of Imus, Cavite, Branch 20, in
consolidated cases docketed as Civil Case No. 2031-08 and LRC Case No. 1117-09
areREINSTATED.
SO ORDERED.
concur.
[1]
Rollo, pp. 30-49.
Id. at 51-65. Penned by Associate Justice Ramon A. Cruz with Associate Justices
Hakim S. Abdulwahid and Romeo F. Barza concurring.
[2]
[3]
Id. at 67-68.
[4]
Id. at 213-216. Penned by Presiding Judge Fernando L. Felicen.
[5]
Id. at 258-259.
[6]
Id. at 78-80.
[7]
See id.
[8]
Id. at 116-117.
[9]
Id. at 115-118.
[10]
Id. at 118.
[11]
Id. at 148.
[12]
See also id. at 52.
See id. at 156-160 (Answer with Compulsory Counterclaim dated July 21, 2008),
161-162 (Reply dated August 8, 2008), 163-166 (Supplemental Answer dated
September 26, 2008), and 167-170 (Answer/Reply to Defendant's Supplemental
Answer dated October 8, 2008).
[13]
[14]
Id. at 154 and 171.
[15]
Id. at 173.
[16]
See id. at 185-186.
[17]
See id. at 186.
[18]
Id. at 184.
[19]
Dated March 30, 2010. Id. at 185-188.
[20]
Id. at 211-212.
[21]
Id. at 212. See also id. at 52-53.
[22]
Id. at 144-145.
[23]
Id. at 139-143.
[24]
Id. at 147.
[25]
Id. at 284.
[26]
Id. at 279.
[27]
Id. at 140.
[28]
Id. at 141. See also id. at 53.
[29]
Id. at 287-288.
[30]
Id. at 175-177.
[31]
Id. at 176.
[32]
Id. at 176. See also id. at 53.
[33]
Id. at 189-190.
[34]
See also id. at 53.
[35]
Id. at 191-197.
[36]
Id. at 198-200.
[37]
See id. at 54.
[38]
Id. at 213-216.
[39]
Id. at 214.
[40]
See id. at 54.
See Omnibus and Urgent Motion for Reconsideration dated June 21, 2011; id. at
217-235.
[41]
[42]
Id. at 258-259.
[43]
Id. at 149-153.
[44]
Id. at 293. Signed by Clerk of Court V Allan Sly M. Marasigan.
[45]
See also id. at 54-55.
[46]
Id. at 267-276.
[47]
See id. at 269.
[48]
See id. at 270.
[49]
See id. at 271.
[50]
See id. at 272.
[51]
Id. at 81-111.
[52]
Id. at 51-65.
[53]
Id. at 57-59.
[54]
Id. at 62.
[55]
Id. at 59-62.
[56]
[57]
Rollo, pp. 67-68.
[58]
163 Phil. 516, 521 (1976).
Id. at 521. See also Carabeo v. Spouses Dingco, 662 Phil. 565, 570
(2011); Cruz v. Cruz, 644 Phil. 67, 72 (2010); Sumaljag v. Spouses Literato, 578
Phil. 48, 56 (2008); Spouses Suria v. Heirs of Tomolin, 552 Phil. 354, 358 (2007);
and Gonzales v. PAGCOR, 473 Phil. 582, 591 (2004).
[59]
See Gochan v. Gochan, 423 Phil. 491, 502 (2001), citing Ruiz v. J.M. Tuason &
Co., Inc., 117 Phil. 223, 227-228 (1963).
[60]
[61]
Id.
[62]
Id. at 501-503.
[63]
See Spouses Yu v. Basilio G. Magno Construction and Development Enterprises,

Inc., 535 Phil. 604, 617-619 (2006).
[64]
[65]
Id. at 619.

G.R.
No.
203370
MALAYAN INSURANCE COMPANY, INC. AND HELEN Y. DEE, PETITIONERS, VS. PHILIP PICCIO, MIA GATMAYTAN, MA.
ANNABELLA RELOVA SANTOS, JOHN JOSEPH GUTIERREZ, JOCELYN UPANO, JOSE DIZON, ROLANDO PAREJA, WONINA
M. BONIFACIO, ELVIRA CRUZ, CORNELIO ZAFRA, VICENTE ORTUOSTE, VICTOMA GOMEZ JACINTO, JUVENCIO
PERECHE, JR., RICARDO LORAYES, PETER C. SUCHIANCO, AND TRENNIE MONSOD, RESPONDENTS. [G.R. NO. 215106]
MALAYAN INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., PETITIONER, VS. PHILIP PICCIO, MIA GATMAYTAN, MA. ANNABELLA RELOVA
SANTOS, JOHN JOSEPH GUTIERREZ, JOCELYN UPANO, JOSE DIZON, ROLANDO PAREJA, WONINA M. BONIFACIO,
ELVIRA CRUZ, CORNELIO ZAFRA, VICENTE ORTUOSTE, VICTORIA GOMEZ JACINTO, JUVENCIO PERECHE, JR.,
RICARDO
LORAYES,
PETER
C.
SUCHIANCO,
AND
TRENNIE
MONSOD,
RESPONDENTS.
April 11, 2016
FIRST DIVISION
[ G.R. No. 203370, April 11, 2016 ]
MALAYAN INSURANCE COMPANY, INC. AND HELEN Y. DEE,
PETITIONERS, VS. PHILIP PICCIO, MIA GATMAYTAN, MA.
ANNABELLA RELOVA SANTOS, JOHN JOSEPH GUTIERREZ,
JOCELYN UPANO, JOSE DIZON, ROLANDO PAREJA, WONINA
M. BONIFACIO, ELVIRA CRUZ, CORNELIO ZAFRA, VICENTE
ORTUOSTE, VICTOMA GOMEZ JACINTO, JUVENCIO PERECHE,
JR., RICARDO LORAYES, PETER C. SUCHIANCO, AND TRENNIE
MONSOD, RESPONDENTS.
[G.R. NO. 215106]
MALAYAN INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., PETITIONER, VS.
PHILIP PICCIO, MIA GATMAYTAN, MA. ANNABELLA RELOVA
SANTOS, JOHN JOSEPH GUTIERREZ, JOCELYN UPANO, JOSE
DIZON, ROLANDO PAREJA, WONINA M. BONIFACIO, ELVIRA
CRUZ, CORNELIO ZAFRA, VICENTE ORTUOSTE, VICTORIA
GOMEZ JACINTO, JUVENCIO PERECHE, JR., RICARDO
LORAYES, PETER C. SUCHIANCO, AND TRENNIE MONSOD,
RESPONDENTS.
DECISION
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:
Before this Court are two (2) consolidated petitions for review on certiorari.[1] The
first petition, docketed as G.R. No. 203370, filed by petitioners Malayan Insurance
Company, Inc. (Malayan Insurance) and Helen Y. Dee (petitioners) assails the
Decision[2] dated February 24, 2012 and the Resolution[3] dated September 5, 2012
of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 31467, which denied their appeal
from the Order[4] dated February 20, 2007 and the Resolution [5] dated September 3,
2007 of the Regional Trial Court of Makati City (Makati-RTC), Branch 137 (MakatiRTC, Br. 137) in Criminal Case Nos. 06-877 and 06-882 on the ground that the
same was not authorized by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG). On the other
hand, the second petition, docketed as G.R. No. 215106, filed by petitioner Malayan
Insurance assails the Decision[6] dated March 31, 2014 and the Resolution[7] dated
October 17, 2014 of the CA in CA-G.R. CR. No. 32148, which denied its appeal from
the Orders[8] dated December 28, 2007 and August 29, 2008 of the Makati-RTC,
Branch 62 (Makati-RTC, Br. 62) in Criminal Case No. 06-884 on the ground of lack
of jurisdiction.
The Facts
On October 18, 2005, Jessie John P. Gimenez (Gimenez), President of the Philippine
Integrated Advertising Agency - the advertising arm of the Yuchengco Group of
Companies (Yuchengco Group), to which Malayan Insurance is a corporate member
- filed a Complaint-Affidavit[9] for thirteen (13) counts of Libel, defined and
penalized under Article 355 in relation to Article 353 of the Revised Penal Code
(RPC), before the City Prosecutor of Makati City, docketed as I.S. No. 05-1-11895,
against herein respondents Philip Piccio, Mia Gatmaytan, Ma. Annabella Relova
Santos, John Joseph Gutierrez, Jocelyn Upano, Jose Dizon, Rolando Pareja, Wonina
M. Bonifacio, Elvira Cruz, Cornelio Zafra, Vicente Ortuoste, Victoria Gomez Jacinto,
Juvencio Pereche, Jr., Ricardo Lorayes, Peter C. Suchianco, and Trennie Monsod
(respondents) for purportedly posting defamatory articles/statements on the
website www.pepcoalition.com that besmirched the reputation of the Yuchengco
family and the Yuchengco Group, including herein petitioners. [10]
Upon the prosecutor's finding of probable cause, [11] thirteen (13) Informations were
filed before the Makati-RTC. Among those filed were Criminal Case Nos. 06877[12]and 06-882[13] (raffled to Makati-RTC, Br. 137) and Criminal Case No. 06884[14] (raffled to Makati-RTC, Br. 62), from which arose the present petitions.
In Criminal Case Nos. 06-877 and 06-882, respondents filed a Motion to
Quash[15] dated June 7, 2006, asserting, among others, lack of jurisdiction, since
the residences of petitioners were not alleged in the Informations. Besides, even if
so stated, the residence or principal office address of petitioners was admittedly at
Quintin Paredes Street, Binondo, Manila, and not in Makati City. Hence, the venue
was mislaid, and the Makati-RTC, Br. 137 did not have jurisdiction over the said
cases.[16]
In an Order[17] dated February 20, 2007, the Makati-RTC, Br. 137 granted the said
motion and dismissed Criminal Case Nos. 06-877 and 06-882 on the ground of
lack of jurisdiction.[18] It found that the Informations filed in these cases failed to
state that any one of the offended parties resides in Makati City, or that the subject
articles were printed or first published in Makati City.[19] Hence, the failure to state
the aforementioned details was a fatal defect which negated its jurisdiction over the
criminal cases.[20] Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration,[21] which was,
however, denied in a Resolution[22] dated September 3, 2007. Hence, petitioners
filed an appeal[23] before the CA, docketed as CA-G.R. CR No. 31467.
Similarly, in Criminal Case No. 06-884, respondents filed a Motion to
Quash[24] dated June 5, 2006, based on the following grounds: (a) that the
Information failed to vest jurisdiction on the Makati-RTC; (b) that the acts
complained of in the Information are not punishable by law; and (c) that the
Information is fatally defective for failing to designate the offense charged and to
allege the acts or omissions complained of as constituting the offense of Libel. [25]
In an Order[26] dated December 28, 2007, the Makati-RTC, Br, 62 dismissed Criminal
Case No. 06-884 for lack of probable cause. Among others, it ruled that the
element of malice was lacking since respondents did not appear to have been
motivated by personal ill will to speak or spite Malayan Insurance.[27] The
prosecution filed a motion for reconsideration,[28] which was,, however, denied in an
Order[29] dated August 29, 2008. Thus, Malayan Insurance filed an appeaL [30] before
the CA. docketed as CA-GR. CR. No. 32148.
The Proceedings Before the CA
In CA-GR. CR No. 31467, the CA noted that while petitioners filed a Notice of
Appeal, the Appellants' Brief was filed only by the private prosecutor, and not by the
OSG as required by law.[31] It likewise observed from the records that the OSG filed
a Manifestation and Motion[32] dated September 16, 2008 asking that "it be excused
from filing any documents or pleadings relative to the aforementioned case[,]
considering that it had not received any endorsement coming from the Department
of Justice to appeal the same."[33] Moreover, the CA held that "the Chief City
Prosecutor-of Makati City was required to comment, and he categorically stated in
his Explanation and Compliance that he did not authorize the filing, nor conform to
the filing of an appeal from the quashal of the two (2) Informations in[Criminal
Case Nos. 06-877 and 06-882]."[34]
Thus, in the assailed Decision[35] dated February 24, 2012, the CA denied the appeal
outright on the ground that the same was not filed by the authorized official, i.e.,
the OSG. It remarked that although the private prosecutor may, at certain times, be
permitted to participate in criminal proceedings on appeal in the CA, his
participation is always subject to prior approval of the OSG; and the former cannot
be permitted to adopt a position that is not consistent with that of the OSG.
Petitioners' motion for reconsideration[37] was denied in the assailed

Resolution[38] dated September 5, 2012, prompting them to file the petition in G.R.
No. 203370.
[36]
The same was reached when the CA, in the assailed Decision [39] dated March 31,
2014 in CA-GR. CR. No. 32148, denied Malayan Insurance's appeal, but this time,
on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. The ruling was premised on its finding that the
case of Bonifacio v. RTC of Makati, Branch 149 (Bonifacio),[40] which involved one of
the thirteen (13) Libel cases, particularly Criminal Case No. 06-876, participated in
by the same parties albeit concerning a different defamatory article, is already
controlling.[41] Hence, since this Court directed the quashal of Information in
Criminal Case No. 06-876 and dismissed the same, the CA did not delve on the
propriety of the Makati-RTC, Br. 62's finding of probable cause, and instead,
adopted, the same course of action in Bonifacio. In its view, all other issues are
rendered moot and academic in light of this Court's declaration that the Makati-RTC
is without jurisdiction to try and hear cases for Libel filed by Malayan Insurance
against respondents.[42] Malayan Insurance's motion for reconsideration[43] was
denied in the assailed Resolution[44] dated October 17, 2014, prompting it to file the
petition in G.R. No. 215106.
The Issues Before the Court
In G.R. No. 203370, petitioners contend that the CA erred in denying the appeal
in CA-GR. CR No. 31467 due to lack of the OSG's authorization. While in G.R. No.
215106, Malayan Insurance argued that the CA likewise erred in denying its
appeal, in CA-GR. CR. No. 32148, but this time, on jurisdictional grounds.
The Court's Ruling
I. Resolution of G.R. No. 203370
The authority to represent the State in appeals of criminal cases before the Court
and the CA is vested solely in the OSG[45] which is "the law office of the Government
whose specific powers and functions include that of representing the Republic
and/or the People [of the Philippines] before any court in any action which affects
the welfare of the people as the ends of justice may require."[46] Section 35 (1),
Chapter 12, Title III, Book IV of the 1987 Administrative Code [47] provides that:
Section 35. Powers and Functions. The Office of the Solicitor General shall
represent the Government of the Philippines, its agencies and
instrumentalities and its officials and agents in any litigation, proceeding,
investigation or matter requiring the services of a lawyer, x x x. It shall have the
following specific powers and functions:
(1) Represent the Government in the Supreme Court and the Court of
Appeals in all criminal proceedings; represent the Government and its officers
in the Supreme Court, and Court of Appeals, and all other courts or tribunals in all
civil actions and special proceedings in which the Government or any officer thereof
in his official capacity is a party. (Emphases supplied)
In People v. Piccio (Piccio),[48] which involved one of the thirteen (13) criminal cases
between the same parties, this Court held that "if there is a dismissal of a criminal
case by the trial court or if there is an acquittal of the accused, it is only the OSG
that may bring an appeal on the criminal aspect representing the People.
The rationale therefor is rooted in the principle that the party affected by the
dismissal of the criminal action is the People and not the petitioners who are mere
complaining witnesses. For this reason, the People are therefore deemed as the
real parties in interest in the criminal case and, therefore, only the OSG
can represent them in criminal proceedings pending in the CA or in this
Court. In view of the corollary principle that every action must be prosecuted or
defended in the name of the real party in interest who stands to be benefited or
injured by the judgment in the suit, or by the party entitled to the avails of the suit,
an appeal of the criminal case not filed by the People as represented by the OSG is
perforce dismissible. The private complainant or the offended party may, however,
file an appeal without the intervention of the OSG but only insofar as the civil
liability of the accused is concerned. He may also file a special civil action
for certiorari even without the intervention of the OSG, but only to the end of
preserving his interest in the civil aspect of the case."[49]
In this case, as in Piccio, records show that petitioners' appeal in CA-G.R. CR No.
31467 principally sought the remand of Criminal Case Nos. 06-877 and 06882 to the Makati-RTC, Br. 137 for arraignment and trial, or, in the alternative,
amend the Informations, and therefore, was not intended to merely preserve their
interest in the civil aspect of the case. Thus, as its appeal was filed in relation to the
criminal aspect of the case, it is necessary that the same be filed with the
authorization of the OSG, which, by law, is the proper representative of the real
party in interest in the criminal proceedings, the People. There being no
authorization given, the appeal was rightfully dismissed by the CA. In fact, in its
Comment[50] dated July 5, 2013, the People, through the OSG, even sought the
dismissal of petitioners' appeal before this Court [51] on the ground that "petitioners
have no legal personality to elevate on appeal the quashal of the [Informations] in
the subject criminal cases."[52] As it is, petitioners have no legal standing to
interpose an appeal in the criminal proceeding; hence, as they went beyond the
bounds of their interest, petitioners cannot successfully contest the propriety of the
Makati-RTC, Br. 137's dismissal of the criminal cases. It must, however, be clarified
that the CA's denial of petitioners' appeal is without prejudice to their filing of the
appropriate action to preserve their interest in the civil aspect of the Libel cases,
following the parameters of Rule 111 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure. [53]
II. Resolution of G.R. No. 215106
"Venue is jurisdictional in criminal actions such that the place where the crime was
committed determines not only the venue of the action but constitutes an essential
element of jurisdiction. This principle acquires even greater import in libel cases,
given that Article 360 [of the RPC], as amended [by Republic Act No. 4363 [54]],
specifically provides for the possible venues for the institution of the criminal and
civil aspects of such cases,"[55] to wit:
Article 360. Persons responsible. - x x x.
xxxx
The criminal and civil action for damages in cases of written defamations as
provided for in this chapter, shall be filed simultaneously or separately with the
court of first instance of the province or city where the libelous article is
printed and first published or where any of the offended parties actually
resides at the time of the commission of the offense: x x x.
x x x x (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
Thus, generally speaking, "the venue of libel cases where the complainant is a
private individual is limited to only either of two places, namely: 1) where the
complainant actually resides at the time of the commission of the offense; or 2)
where the alleged defamatory article was printed and first published. [56]
In this case, the CA proceeded to deny Malayan Insurance's appeal in view of the
Makati-RTC, Br. 62's lack of jurisdiction over Criminal Case No. 06-884. It held that
this Court's ruling in Bonifacio is already "controlling here because they involve the
same parties and the same issues," [57] observing that this case is "one (1) of the
thirteen (13) cases/[I]nformations filed before the [Makati-RTC] which originated
from the complaint initiated by [Gimenez]."[58]
To contextualize, the Libel case involved in Bonifacio was Criminal Case No. 06-876
which, as the CA observed, involved the same parties herein. Highlighting the
Amended Information's allegation that the offending article "was first published
and accessed by the private complainant in Makati City,"[59] respondents
submitted that "[t]he prosecution erroneously laid the venue of the case in the
place where the offended party accessed the internet-published article." [60] This
Court sustained the argument, and directed the Makati-RTC to quash the Amended
Information in Criminal Case No. 06-876 and dismiss the case, ratiocinating in the
following wise:
If the circumstances as to where the libel was printed and first published are used
by the offended party as basis for the venue in the criminal action, the Information
must allege with particularity where the defamatory article was printed and first
published, as evidenced or supported by, for instance, the address of their editorial
or business offices in the case of newspapers, magazines or serial publications. This
precondition becomes necessary in order to forestall any inclination to harass.
The same measure cannot be reasonably expected when it pertains to defamatory
material appearing on a website on the internet as there would be no way of
determining the situs of its printing and first publication. To credit Gimenez's
premise of equating his first access to the defamatory article on petitioners' website
in Makati with printing and first publication would spawn the very ills that the
amendment to Article 360 of the RPC sought to discourage and prevent. It hardly
requires much imagination to see the chaos that would ensue in situations where
the website's author or writer, a blogger or anyone who posts messages therein
could be sued for libel anywhere in the Philippines that the private complainant may
have allegedly accessed the offending website.
For the Court to hold that the Amended Information sufficiently vested jurisdiction
in the courts of Makati simply because the defamatory article was accessed therein
would open the floodgates to the libel suit being filed in all other locations where
the pepcoalition website is likewise accessed or capable of being accessed.
[61]
(Underscoring in the original)
Here, Malayan Insurance opposes the CA's application of Bonifacio, asserting that
the venue was properly laid as the Informations subject of this case state in one
continuous sentence that: "x x x in Makati City, [Metro Manila,] Philippines and a
place within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court xxx, the above-named accused
x x x did then and there x x x caused to be composed, posted and published in
the said website www.pepcoalition.com and [sic] injurious and defamatory
article."[62] They also aver that Bonifacio laid down an entirely new requirement on
internet Libel cases which did not exist prior to its promulgation and, hence, should
not be applied retroactively to Malayan Insurance's prejudice. [63]
While Bonifacio's applicability was indeed squarely raised in the instant petition, this
Court finds that it would be improper not to pass upon this issue considering that similar to the appeal in CA-G.R. CR No. 31467 - the appeal in CA-G.R. CRNo.
32148, as well as this petition for review, suffers from a fatal defect in that
they were filed without the conformity of the OSG. As earlier stated, the right to
prosecute criminal cases pertains exclusively to the People, which is, therefore, the
proper party to bring the appeal, through the representation of the OSG. The
People are deemed as the real parties in interest in the criminal case and,
therefore, only the OSG can represent them in criminal proceedings
pending in the CA or in this Court. As the records bear out, this Court, in a
Resolution[64] dated September 9, 2015, required the OSG to file its Comment so as
to be given the ample opportunity to manifest its desire to prosecute the present
appeal, in representation of the People. However, in a Manifestation (In lieu of
Comment),[65] the People, through the OSG, manifested that it is adopting its
Comment[66] dated July 5, 2013 in G.R. No. 203370, which sought the dismissal of
the petition on the ground that "petitioners have no legal personality to elevate on
appeal the quashal of the [Informations] in the subject criminal cases." [67] Hence, in
view of Malayan Insurance's lack of legal personality to file the present petition, this
Court has to dismiss the same, without prejudice, however, to Malayan Insurance's
filing of the appropriate action to preserve its interest in the civil aspect of the Libel
case following the parameters of Rule 111 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure. [68]
WHEREFORE, the petitions are DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
Sereno, C.J., (Chairperson), Leonardo-De Castro, Bersamin, and Caguioa, JJ.,
concur.
[1]
Rollo (G.R. No. 203370), pp. 10-51; and rollo (G.R. No. 215106), pp. 10-37.
Rollo (G.R. No. 203370), pp. 54-62. Penned by Associate Justice Manuel M.
Barrios with Associate Justices Juan Q. Enriquez, Jr. and Apolinario D. Bruselas, Jr.
concurring.
[2]
Id. at 64-65. Penned by Associate Justice Manuel M. Barrios with Associate

Justices Apolinario D. Bruselas, Jr. and Francsico P. Acosta concurring.
[3]
Id. at 3 11-321. Penned by Presiding Judge (now Deputy Court Administrator)

Jenny Lind R. Aldecoa- Delorino.
[4]
[5]
Id. at 341-344.
Rollo (G.R. No. 215106), pp. 47-55. Penned by Associate Justice Elihu A. Ybaez
with Associate Justices, Japar B. Dimaampao and Melchor Q.C. Sadang concurring.
[6]
[7]
Id. at 57-58.
[8]
Id. at 249-257 and 314, respectively. Penned by Judge Selma Palacio Alaras.
[9]
[10]
See Resolution dated May 2, 2006 (promulgated on May 5, 2006) of the Makati
City Prosecutor's Office signed by 1st Assistant City Prosecutor Romulo I. Nanola and
approved by City Prosecutor Feliciano Aspi; rollo (G.R. No. 203370), pp. 219-230;
and rollo (G.R. No. 215106), pp. 198-209.
[11]
Excerpts from the Information in Criminal Case No. 06-877 read:

That on or about the 26th day of August 2005 in Makati City, Metro Manila,
Philippines, a place within the jurisdiction of the Honorable Court, the above-named
accused, being then the trustees of Parents Enabling Parents Coalition and as such
trustees they hold the legal title to the website [www.pepcoalition.com] which is of
general circulation, and publication to the public conspiring confederating and
mutually helping with one another together with John Does, did then and there
[wilfully], unlawfully and feloniously and publicly and maliciously with intention of
attacking the honesty, virtue, honor and integrity, character and reputation of
complainant Malayan Insurance Co., Inc., Yuchengco Family particularly Yuchengco
Family and [Yuchengco Group of Companies (YGC)] of which Malayan is part and for
further purpose exposing the complainant to public hatred and contempt published
an article imputing a vice or defect to the complainant and caused to be composed,
posted and published in the said website [www.pepcoalition.com] and injurious and
defamatory article as follows:
It's just plain common sense. Why throw good, hard earned money on something
that will earn you nothing?
[12]
We PPI planholders should face reality. The Yuchengcos are not the insurance
business. Their core business is DECEPTION. So why put your money on an
insurance or pre-need company that is not trustworthy? Ten years from now when
you make a claim, they'll just give you the same run around that they've been
giving us now.
C'mon do you really believe that the Yuchengco[']s will honor their commitments?
Hoy, Gising'
x x x x (See rollo [G.R. No. 203370], pp. 231-233.)
[13]
That on or about the 12th day of September 2005 in Makati City, Metro Manila,
complainant Malayan Insurance Co., Inc., Yuchengco Family particularly Malayan is
part and Helen Dee and for further purpose exposing the complainant to public
hatred and contempt published an article imputing a vice or defect to the
complainant and caused to be composed, posted and published in the said website
[www.pepcoalition.com] and injurious and defamatory article as follows:
The coalition has been attacked by all sorts of lowlifes unleased [sic] by the HYDRA
(Helen Yuchengco Dee's Rampaging Alipores).
Maybe it is time to give YGC a dose of their own medicine. There are a lot of you
there with access or at least internet cafes.
[14]
That on or about the 24th day of September 2005 in Makati City, Metro Manila,
complainant Malayan Insurance Co., Inc., Yuchengco Family particularly Yuchengco
Family and for further purpose exposing the complainant to public hatred and
contempt published an article imputing a vice or defect to the complainant and
caused to be composed, posted and published in the said website
[www.pepcoalition.com] and injurious and defamatory article as follows:
If, by any chance, our children's cries for justice and a better future, have struck a
choir in your heart, we ask you to convince the Scrooges in your family to let go of
the greed that seems to have overtaken and ruled their style of corporate
governance... lest the spirits of the past, present and future catch up with them all.
[15]
Particularly respondents Wonina M. Bonifacio, Vicente Ortuoste, Juvencio
Pereche, Jr., and Jocelyn Upano. Rollo (G.R. No. 203370), pp. 236-274
[16]
Id. at 55.
[17]
Id. at 311-321.
[18]
Id. at 321.
[19]
Id. at 319-320.
[20]
Id, at 320-321.
[21]
Dated March 13, 2007. id, at 322-340.
[22]
Id. at 341-344,
See Notice of Appeal dated September 21, 2007 filed through the private
prosecutor, with conformity of Public Prosecutor George V. De Joya; id. at 345-346.
[23]
Particularly respondents Winona M. Bonifacio, Vicente Ortuoste, Juvencio

Pereche, Jr., and Jocelyn Upano. Rollo (G.R. No. 213106), pp. 212-246.
[24]
[25]
Id. at 212.
[26]
Id. at 249-257.
[27]
Id. at 51 and 256.
[28]
Dated April 24, 2008; id. at 258-278.
[29]
Id. at 314.
See Notice of Appeal dated September 23, 2008 filed through the private
prosecutor; id. at 315-317
[30]
[31]
Id. at 56.
[32]
Dated September 16, 2008. Id, at 366-368.
[33]
Id. at 56.
[34]
Id.
[35]
Id. at 54-62.
[36]
Id. at 58-59.
[37]
Not attached to the rollos.
[38]
Rollo (G.R. No. 203370), pp. 64-65.
[39]
Rollo (GR. No. 215106), pp. 47-55.
[40]
634 Phil. 348(2010).
[41]
Rollo (G.R. No, 215106). p. 52,
[42]
Id. at 53.
[43]
Not attached to the rollos.
[44]
Rollo (GR. No. 215106), pp. 57-58.
Villareal v. Aliga, G.R. No. 166995, January 13, 2014, 713 SCRA 52, 64,
citing Baulista v. Cuneta-Pangilinan, G.R. No. 189754, October 24, 2012, 684 SCRA
521, 534.
[45]
[46]
Gonzales v. Chavez, G.R. No. 97351, February 4, 1992, 205 SCRA 816, 845.
Executive Order No. 292, Series of 1987, entitled "INSTITUTING THE

ADMINISTRATIVE CODE OF 1987," signed on July 25, 1987.
[47]
[48]
G.R. No. 193681, August 6, 2014, 732 SCRA 254.
[49]
Id. at 261 -262; emphases and underscoring supplied.
[50]
Rollo (G.R. No. 203370), pp. 636-660.
[51]
Id. at 659.
[52]
Id. at 648.
[53]
See People v. Piccio, supra note 48, at 262.
Entitled "AN ACT FURTHER AMEND ARTICLE THREE HUNDRED SIXTY OF THE
REVISED PENAL CODE," approved on June 19, 1965.
[54]
Bonifacio v. RTC of Makati, Branch 149, supra note 40, at 360. citing Macasaet
v. People, 492 Phil. 355, 370 (2005).
[55]
[56]
Id. at 361; underscoring supplied.
[57]
Rollo (G.R. No. 215106), p. 52
[58]
Id.
Bonifacio v. RTC of Makati, Branch 149, supra note 40, at 357; emphasis and
underscoring in the original.
[59]
[60]
Id. at 358.
[61]
Id. at 362-363.
[62]
Rollo (G.R. No. 215106), p. 26; emphasis supplied. See also id. at 210-211.
Id. at 30. Notably, this same argument is echoed in the above-discussed petition
in G.R. No. 203370.
However, since the actual basis of the CA's denial of appeal was the OSG's lack of
conformity to the appeal in CA-G.R. CR No. 31467, which this Court has
hereinabove sustained, it is unnecessary to pass upon the merits of such claim
(see rollo [G.R. No. 203370], pp. 32-35).
[63]
See Minute Resolution dated September 9 2015; rollo (G.R. No. 203370), pp.
713-715.
[64]
[65]
Dated February 2, 2016. Rollo (G.R. No. 215106), pp. 487-489.
[66]
Rollo (G.R. No. 203370), pp. 636-660.
[67]
Id. at 648.
[68]
See People v. Piccio, supra note 48, at 262.

A.M.
No.
RTJ-16-2455
(Formerly
OCA
I.P.I.
No.10-3443-RTJ)
NEMIA CASTRO, COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE CESAR A. MANGROBANG, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 22, IMUS,
CAVITE,
RESPONDENT.
April 11, 2016
FIRST DIVISION
[ A.M. No. RTJ-16-2455 (Formerly OCA I.P.I.
No.10-3443-RTJ), April 11, 2016 ]
NEMIA CASTRO, COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE CESAR A.
MANGROBANG, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 22, IMUS,
CAVITE, RESPONDENT.
RESOLUTION
This is an administrative complaint for Gross Inefficiency, Neglect of Duty, Gross
Ignorance of the Law and Manifest Bias and Partiality, filed by Nemia Castro
(Castro) against Judge Cesar A. Mangrobang (Judge Mangrobang) of the Regional
Trial Court, Branch 22 (RTC-Branch 22), Imus, Cavite, relative to Civil Case No.
2187-00, entitled Nemia Castro v. Rosalyn Guevarra, sued with her husband, Jamir
Guevarra.
The complaint arose from the following facts:
Civil Case No. 2187-00 was an action for Cancellation and/or Discharge of Check
and Defamation/Slander with Damages instituted on October 5, 2000 before the
RTC of Imus, Cavite, by Castro against spouses Jamir and Rosalyn Guevarra
(spouses Guevarra). The case was raffled to RTC-Branch 90 of Imus, Cavite,
presided by Judge Dolores Espaol (Judge Espaol). In her complaint, Castro
sought the cancellation of her undated Far East Bank and Trust Company (FEBTC)
Check No. 0133501 in the amount of P1,862,000.00 payable to the order of
Rosalyn Guevarra, contending that the total obligation for which said check was
issued had already been fully paid. Castro also prayed that her FEBTC Check Nos.
0133574 and 0133575, dated March 24, 2000 and March 31, 2000, respectively, in
the amount of P10,000.00 each, be declared without value; that Rosalyn Guevarra
be ordered to return the excess payments Castro had made amounting to
P477,257.00, plus interest; and that Castro be awarded exemplary damages, moral
damages, and attorney's fees. Spouses Guevarra, in their defense, alleged that the
personal checks in question were issued by Castro in their favor in exchange for
rediscounted checks in Rosalyn Guevarra's possession; and that of Castro's
P1,862,000.00 obligation to the spouses Guevarra, only P230,000.00 had been
paid. By reason of Castro's stop payment order to the bank for the three checks,
spouses Guevarra filed before the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Imus, Cavite, three
criminal complaints under the Bouncing Checks Law against Castro. During trial of
Civil Case No. 2187-00, spouses Guevarra moved for the issuance of subpoena ad
testificandum and subpoena duces tecum for certain bank officials and documents,
but said motions were denied by Judge Espaol. Spouses Guevarra challenged
Judge Espaol's denial of their motions for subpoena via a Petition
for Certiorari before the Court of Appeals, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 80561.
Given the pendency of CA-G.R. SP No. 80561, spouses Guevarra did not file a
Formal Offer of Evidence before RTC-Branch 90 and instead filed on December 15,
2003 a Motion to Defer Action in Civil Case No. 2187-00.
Judge Espaol of RTC-Branch 90 rendered a Decision on December 22, 2003 in Civil
Case No. 2187-00 with the following dispositive portion:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of plaintiff
[Nemia Castro] and against defendants Rosalyn Guevarra and Jamir Guevarra
ordering the discharge of Far East Bank and Trust Co. (FEBTC) Check No. 0070789
and its replacement FEBTC Check No. 0133501, which, defendants subsequently
affixed the date July 15, 2000 thereto, both in the amount of P1,862,000.00, the
same are hereby cancelled if not returned to the plaintiff. Further, FEBTC Checks
Nos. 0133574 and 0133575 dated March 24, 2000 and March 30, 2000,
respectively, each in the amount of P10,000.00, are also hereby declared as without
value. Likewise, the defendants are ordered to return to the plaintiff the amount of
P477,257.00 representing the excess payment made by plaintiff plus legal interest
of 12% per annum, from the filing of this complaint until fully paid. Further,
defendants are ordered to pay plaintiff moral damages of P400,000.00, exemplary
damages of P100,000.00, attorney's fees of P200,000.00 and the costs of suit.
Furthermore, for lack of factual and legal basis, Criminal Case No. 8624-01, entitled
People of the Philippines vs. Nemia Castro, for Estafa under Article 315 (2-d), RPC
in relation to P.D. 818, is hereby DISMISSED. Thus, the Clerk of Court is directed to
furnish the Municipal Trial Court of Imus, Cavite, with a copy of this decision for its
information and guidance with regard to the Criminal Cases involving FEBTC Checks
Nos. 0133574 and 0133575 pending before the said court. [1]
In the body of the same Decision, Judge Espaol mentioned that the spouses
Guevarra's Motion to Defer Action was denied "pursuant to Section 7, Rule 65 of the
1997 Rules of Civil Procedure."
Spouses Guevarra filed on January 26, 2004 a Motion for Reconsideration assailing
the validity of the Decision dated December 22, 2003 in Civil Case No. 2187-00 on
the grounds that it was promulgated after Judge Espaol's retirement; it was
contrary to law and the facts of the case; and it was rendered without due process
as they were denied the right to present evidence. Spouses Guevarra filed two days
later, on January 28, 2004, a Motion to Re-Raffle Case considering Judge Espaol's
mandatory retirement on January 9, 2004 and the uncertainty of when a new judge
would be appointed to replace her. Judge Norberto Quisumbing, Jr., Executive Judge
of the RTC of Imus, Cavite, issued an Order[2] dated January 28, 2004 granting
spouses Guevarra's Motion to Re-Raffle Case, and consequently, Civil Case No.
2187-00 was raffled to RTC-Branch 22, presided by Judge Mangrobang.
On December 15, 2004, Judge Mangrobang issued an Omnibus Order resolving
spouses Guevarra's (1) Motion to Defer Action, and (2) Motion for Reconsideration
of the Decision dated December 22, 2003. Judge Mangrobang found merit in
spouses Guevarra's Motion for Reconsideration, thus:
After a thorough study of the positions of both parties, this Court is of the opinion
that defendants [spouses Guevarra] had clearly presented a meritorious contention
in proving that the questioned decision is null and void. Circumstantial and concrete
evidence had been established by defendants which will show that the said decision
was clearly promulgated after the Honorable Judge Dolores Espaol had retired
from service.
As correctly pointed out by defendants, the certified photocopy of the original of the
subject decision dated December 22, 2003, which they secured on January 14,
2004 from the court and attached to their Motion for Reconsideration, does not
show that it has been filed with the clerk of court from the time it was written until
it was promulgated or sent to the parties. Unfortunately, plaintiff [Castro] failed to
disprove said defendants' claim. The failure of the former judge to file the said
decision with the clerk of court is very vital and cannot just be considered as one
simple procedural lapse.
As held by the Honorable Supreme Court:
"The rule is well-established that the filing of the decision, judgment or order with
the clerk of court, not the date of writing of the decision or judgment, nor the
signing thereof or even the promulgation thereof, that constitutes rendition.
(Echaus vs. CA G.R. 57343, July 23, 1990; Marcelino vs. Cruz, Jr. supra, p. 55;
Castro vs. Malazo, 99 SCRA 164, 170 [1968]; Comia v. Nicolas, 29 SCRA 492
[1969].
"What constitutes rendition of judgment is not the mere pronouncement of the
judgment in open court but the filing of the decision signed by the judge with the
Clerk of Court (Quintana Sta. Maria v. Ubay, 87 SCRA 179).
Evidently, although the decision is dated December 22, 2003, the same was mailed
to the parties on January 12, 2004 and the neighboring Municipal Trial Court
furnished on January 13, 2004. A considerable length of time therefore had lapsed
from the time the said decision was presumably written up to the time it was
actually served upon the parties. The Court cannot find a justifiable excuse in not
serving the decision, during the incumbency or before the retirement of the former
Judge Dolores Espaol, taking into account that there were occasions wherein the
sheriff of this Court had caused the service of orders of lesser importance to the
defendants.
xxxx
The decision dated December 22, 2003 having been considered as null and void,
the other issues raised by the defendants in their Motion for Reconsideration are
rendered moot and academic.[3]
Ultimately, Judge Mangrobang decreed in his Omnibus Order:
WHEREFORE, for being meritorious, defendants' [spouses Guevarra's] Motion for
Reconsideration is hereby granted, and the Court's decision dated December 22,
2003 is hereby reconsidered and set aside.
Further, in order not to intricate matters in this case considering that a Petition for
Certiorari had been filed by the defendants before the Honorable Court of Appeals,
let the proceedings of this case be held in abeyance until after the Court of Appeals
shall have ruled on the pending petition.[4]
The Court of Appeals rendered a Decision on July 20, 2006 in CA-G.R. SP No. 80561
dismissing spouses Guevarra's Petition for Certiorari. According to the appellate
court, the issues raised in said petition had become moot and academic because of
the Decision dated December 22, 2003 rendered by RTC-Branch 90 in Civil Case No.
2187-00.
Spouses Guevarra filed on October 20, 2006 before the RTC-Branch 22 a Motion to
Revive Proceedings and/or New Trial in Civil Case No. 2187-00, to enable them to
complete their presentation of evidence by submitting newly discovered evidence
which could disprove Castro's claims. Judge Mangrobang issued an Order [5] dated
March 23, 2007 granting spouses Guevarra's Motion and setting new trial of the
case on April 27, 2007 at 8:30 in the morning.
It was now Castro's turn to file on July 19, 2007 before the Court of Appeals a
Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus with prayer for issuance of
Temporary Restraining Order (TRO), docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 99763, directly
challenging Judge Mangrobang's Order dated March 23, 2007 and also collaterally
attacking his Omnibus Order dated December 15, 2004, for having been issued with
grave abuse of discretion. In its Decision dated April 26, 2010, the appellate court
denied Castro's petition. It opined that the petition should have been dismissed
outright for Castro's failure to file a motion for reconsideration of Judge
Mangrobang's Order dated March 23, 2007. The Court of Appeals also ruled that the
issuance of the Order dated March 23, 2007 was not tainted with grave abuse of
discretion as Judge Mangrobang acted within the bounds of his authority and in the
exercise of his sound discretion. Castro filed a Motion for Reconsideration but it was
denied by the Court of Appeals in a Resolution dated June 29, 2010. Castro filed
before the Court a Petition for Review on Certiorari, docketed as G.R. No. 192737.
On April 25, 2012, the Court rendered a Decision denying Castro's petition. The
Court sustained Judge Mangrobang's Omnibus Order dated December 15, 2004,
reasoning that: (1) Civil Case No. 2187-00 was properly assigned and transferred
to RTC-Branch 22, vesting Judge Mangrobang with the authority and competency to
take cognizance and to dispose of the case and all pending incidents therein, such
as the spouses Guevarra's Motion for Reconsideration of Judge Espaol's Decision
dated December 22, 2003; and (2) Judge Mangrobang's Omnibus Order dated
December 15, 2004 had already attained finality after Castro failed to avail herself
of any of the available remedies for questioning the same. The Court though found
that the Court of Appeals should have given due course to Castro's Petition
for Certiorari as an exception to the general rule requiring the prior filing of a
motion for reconsideration because there was no basis at all for Judge
Mangrobang's Order dated March 23, 2007 granting spouses Guevarra's motion for
new trial. A motion for new trial is only available when relief is sought against a
judgment and the judgment is not yet final. Spouses Guevarra's motion for new
trial in Civil Case No. 2187-00 was premature as RTC-Branch 22 has not yet
rendered any decision in said case. Yet, in the interest of justice, the Court deemed
it fair and equitable to allow the spouses Guevarra to adduce evidence in Civil Case
No. 2187-00 before RTC-Branch 22 and thereafter make their formal offer. If Castro
would no longer present any rebuttal evidence, RTC-Branch 22 could already decide
the case on the merits.[6]
In the meantime, Castro filed on July 20, 2007 before RTC-Branch 22 a Motion to
Suspend Proceedings[7] in Civil Case No. 2187-00 by reason of her Petition
forCertiorari filed before the Court of Appeals just the day before. On November 3,
2008, Judge Mangrobang issued an Order denying Castro's Motion because the
Court of Appeals had not issued a TRO or writ of preliminary injunction despite the
lapse of more than a year since the filing of the Petition for Certiorari.
Complainant Castro then filed a Motion and Manifestation to Secure Services of
Counsel after her third lawyer's withdrawal of services. During the hearing on April
16, 2009, Castro herself spoke before Judge Mangrobang reiterating her request to
suspend the hearing of Civil Case No. 2187-00 to give her time to look for another
lawyer and accord the Court of Appeals the opportunity to resolve her Petition
for Certiorari in CA-G.R. SP No. 99763. Judge Mangrobang granted Castro only until
May 28, 2009 to secure the services of a new lawyer but denied her motion to
suspend the hearing of Civil Case No. 2187-00 while her Petition for Certiorari was
pending before the appellate court.
Castro filed on April 23, 2009 a Motion for Inhibition, [8] charging Judge Mangrobang
with manifest bias and partiality in favor of the spouses Guevarra in violation of
Castro's right to due process. Spouses Guevarra filed an Opposition (To the Motion
for Inhibition), to which Castro filed a Reply. On July 30, 2009, Judge Mangrobang
issued an Order[9] which stated that Castro failed to submit a reply to the spouses
Guevarra's Opposition (To the Motion for Inhibition) and she was already deemed to
have waived her right to file the same. At the end of said Order, Judge Mangrobang
adjudged:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, plaintiffs [Castro's] Motion for Inhibition is
hereby denied.
Accordingly, let the hearing for this case be set on September 9, 2009 at 2:00
o'clock in the afternoon. The plaintiff is hereby sternly warned that she should
appear with a lawyer on that date. Otherwise, she would be deemed to have waived
her right to present her evidence and the Court would be [constrained] to allow the
defendants [spouses Guevarra] to start their presentation of evidence. [10]
Castro, through new counsel, filed on August 26, 2009 an Omnibus Motion with
Leave of Court (ad cautelam)[11] praying for, among other remedies, a
reconsideration of Judge Mangrobang's Order dated July 30, 2009 which denied her
Motion for Inhibition. Castro additionally filed on September 18, 2009 a
Manifestation and Motion to Admit Postmaster's Certification [12] to prove that her
Reply to spouses Guevarra's Opposition (To the Motion for Inhibition), under
Registry Receipt No. 15718, was delivered in a sealed envelope to RTC-Branch 22
and received by Orlando G. Nicolas on June 15, 2009.
Castro eventually received a Notice of Hearing, setting the continuation of the
hearing of Civil Case No. 2187-00 on June 3, 2010, prompting Castro to file an
Urgent Motion for Postponement citing again her lack of counsel and Judge
Mangrobang's failure to rule on her Omnibus Motion and Motion to Admit
Postmaster's Certification.
Based on the foregoing events, Castro filed a Complaint-Affidavit against Judge
Mangrobang before the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) on June 15, 2010.
Castro takes Judge Mangrobang to task for his failure to promptly act on her two
pending Motions in Civil Case No. 2187-00, stressing that a judge must act on all
motions and interlocutory matters pending before their courts within the 90-day
period provided in the Constitution, unless the law requires a lesser period. Failure
by the judge to promptly dispose the court's business within the periods prescribed
by law and the rules constitutes gross inefficiency and warrants administrative
sanction.
Castro further questions Judge Mangrobang's Omnibus Order dated December 15,
2004 which granted spouses Guevarra's Motion to Defer Action and held in
abeyance the proceedings in Civil Case No. 2187-00 until after the Court of Appeals
have ruled on spouses Guevarra's Petition for Certiorari in CA-G.R. SP No. 80561.
Castro argues that said Omnibus Order was in violation of Section 7, Rule 65 of the
Revised Rules of Court which provides that "[t]he petition shall not interrupt the
course of the principal case unless a temporary restraining order or a writ of
preliminary injunction has been issued against the public respondent from further
proceeding in the case[;]" and that such rule is so elementary that "not to know, or
to act as if one does not know the same, constitutes gross ignorance of the law,
even without the complainant having to prove malice or bad faith."
In addition, Castro contends that Judge Mangrobang exhibited bias and partiality in
granting spouses Guevarra's Motion to Defer Action by reason of their pending
Petition for Certiorari before the Court of Appeals, but later denying Castro's Motion
to Suspend Proceedings also on the basis of her pending Petition
for Certioraribefore the Court of Appeals. According to Castro, Judge Mangrobang's
undue preference to spouses Guevarra constitutes neglect of his duty to administer
justice impartially under Rule 1.02 of The Code of Judicial Conduct, and of his
obligation to conduct himself free of any whiff of impropriety.
Castro lastly avers that Judge Mangrobang had acted maliciously, deliberately, and
in bad faith in issuing his Orders dated December 15, 2004, March 23, 2007,
November 3, 2008, April 16, 2009, and July 30, 2009. Castro maintains that it was
not true that Judge Espaol did not rule on the spouses Guevarra's Motion to Defer
Action when she obviously did by denying the same in her Decision dated December
22, 2003. In still granting the spouses Guevarra's Motion to Defer Action, Judge
Mangrobang deliberately allowed himself to be used as a tool by said spouses in
getting a "TRO," which the Court of Appeals already denied in its Resolution dated
February 18, 2004 in CA-G.R. SP No. 80561. For said Orders, Judge Mangrobang
could be held liable for gross ignorance of the law, as well as gross misconduct.
In Judge Mangrobang's Comment[13] dated September 8, 2010, he dismisses Castro
as a "disgruntled litigant" who would always cry that an injustice was committed
against her. Judge Mangrobang asserts that as a matter of public policy, not every
error or mistake committed by a judge in the performance of his/her official duties
renders him/her administratively liable; and that, in the absence of fraud,
dishonesty, or deliberate intent to do an injustice, acts done in the judge's official
capacity, even though sometimes erroneous, do not always constitute misconduct.
Judge Mangrobang identifies two major issues against him in Castro's complaint:
(1) his denial of Castro's Motion for Inhibition; and (2) his alleged undue delay in
resolving Castro's pending Motions in Civil Case No. 2187-00.
On his refusal to inhibit himself from Civil Case No. 2187-00, Judge Mangrobang
invokes Section 1, Rule 137 of the Revised Rules of Court, which states that except
as to the ground of close blood relationship with either party or counsel to a case,
voluntary inhibition based on good, sound, or ethical grounds is a matter of
discretion on the part of the judge and the official who is empowered to act upon
the request for inhibition. Judge Mangrobang also points out that requiring a judge
to grant all motions for inhibition would open the floodgates to a form of forum
shopping, in which litigants would be allowed to shop for a judge more sympathetic
to their cause.
Judge Mangrobang adds that a litigant seeking a judge's inhibition has the burden
of proving the impossibility on said judge's part to render an impartial judgment
upon the matter before him/her. In the instant case, Judge Mangrobang challenges
Castro to describe particular acts or conduct that are clearly indicative of his
arbitrariness or prejudice. Prejudice should not be presumed. It would not benefit
the judicial system to brand a judge as biased and prejudiced simply because said
judge issued orders in favor of or against a party. A mere suspicion and bare
allegation that the judge was partial to one party are not enough. There must be
clear and convincing evidence of such partiality.
Anent the second issue against him, Judge Mangrobang informs the Court that he
already resolved Castro's Omnibus Motion and Motion to Admit Postmaster's
Certification in an Order dated June 8, 2010, copies of which were mailed to the
parties on June 21, 2010. However, Castro's copy of the said Order, sent to the
address stated in her motions, were returned to the sender for the reason that the
addressee did not reside in the given address.
Judge Mangrobang then begs the indulgence of OCA, admitting that he failed to
resolve Castro's aforementioned motions within the prescribed period of 90 days
because of his heavy work load. Judge Mangrobang clarifies though that he already
resolved Castro's Motion for Inhibition by denying the same in his Order dated July
30, 2009, and what he failed to immediately resolve was Castro's Omnibus Motion
in which she sought reconsideration of the Order dated July 30, 2009. Judge
Mangrobang justifies that his delay in resolving Castro's Omnibus Motion and
Motion to Admit Postmaster's Certification could not be deemed unreasonable
considering that the delay in the disposition of the entire case was due to several
motions and postponements sought by Castro herself. Moreover, Judge Mangrobang
claims that the immediate resolution of said motions was not essential to the
continuation of the hearing of Civil Case No. 2187-00 since the arguments raised by
Castro therein were mere rehash of her previous motions.
On April 27, 2011, OCA submitted its Report[14] with the following
recommendations:
RECOMMENDATION: Respectfully submitted for the consideration of the
Honorable Court are the following recommendations:
1. That the instant administrative case be RE-DOCKETED as a regular
administrative matter;
2. That the charges of Gross Ignorance of the Law and Manifest Bias or Partiality
against respondent Judge Cesar A. Mangrobang of the Regional Trial Court,
Branch 22, Imus, Cavite, be DISMISSED for being judicial in nature; and
3. That respondent Judge Cesar A. Mangrobang of the Regional Trial Court,
Branch 22, Imus, Cavite, be found GUILTY of Undue Delay in Rendering an Order,
and be meted the penalty of FINE in the amount of Ten Thousand Pesos
(P10,000.00), with a warning that a repetition of the same, or any similar
infraction in the future, shall be dealt with more severely.
In a Resolution dated November 21, 2011, the Court required the parties to
manifest within 10 days from notice if they were willing to submit the matter for
resolution based on the pleadings filed. Judge Mangrobang and Castro submitted
their respective Manifestations[15] dated January 31, 2012 and February 13, 2012,
respectively. Thereafter, the Court deemed the instant case submitted for decision.
The Court agrees with the findings and conclusion of the OCA.
There is no basis for taking any administrative action against Judge Mangrobang for
his denial of Castro's Motion to Inhibit.
Section 1, Rule 137 of the Revised Rules of Court provides for when a judge is
mandatorily disqualified and when a judge may voluntarily inhibit from a case. Said
rule is reproduced in full below:
Sec. 1. Disqualification of judges. - No judge or judicial officer shall sit in any case
in which he, or his wife or child, is pecuniarily interested as heir, legatee, creditor or
otherwise, or in which he is related to either party within the sixth degree of
consanguinity or affinity, or to counsel within the fourth degree, computed
according to the rules of the civil law, or in which he has been executor,
administrator, guardian, trustee or counsel, or in which he has presided in any
inferior court when his ruling or decision is the subject of review, without the
written consent of all parties in interest, signed by them and entered upon the
record.
A judge may, in the exercise of his sound discretion, disqualify himself from sitting
in a case, for just or valid reasons other than those mentioned above.
None of the circumstances for the mandatory disqualification of a judge from a case
applies to Judge Mangrobang. The question then is should Judge Mangrobang have
voluntarily inhibited himself from Civil Case No. 2187-00?
The Court answers in the negative.
The following lengthy disquisition of the Court in Philippine Commercial
International Bank v. Spouses Dy Hong Pi[16] is pertinent in this case:
Under the first paragraph of Section 1, Rule 137 of the Rules of Court, a judge or
judicial officer shall be mandatorily disqualified to sit in any case in which:
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
he, or his wife or child, is pecuniarily interested as heir, legatee, creditor or otherwise;
or
he is related to either party within the sixth degree of consanguinity or affinity, or to
counsel within the fourth degree, computed according to the rules of civil law; or
he has been executor, administrator, guardian, trustee or counsel; or
he has presided in any inferior court when his ruling or decision is the subject of
review, without the written consent of all parties in interest, signed by them and entered
upon the record.
Paragraph two of the same provision meanwhile provides for the rule on voluntary
inhibition and states: "[a] judge may, in the exercise of his sound discretion,
disqualify himself from sitting in a case, for just or valid reasons other than those
mentioned above." That discretion is a matter of conscience and is addressed
primarily to the judge's sense of fairness and justice. We have elucidated on this
point in Pimentel v. Salanga, as follows:
A judge may not be legally prohibited from sitting in a litigation. But when
suggestion is made of record that he might be induced to act in favor of one party
or with bias or prejudice against a litigant arising out of circumstances reasonably
capable of inciting such a state of mind, he should conduct a careful selfexamination. He should exercise his discretion in a way that the people's faith in the
courts of justice is not impaired. A salutary norm is that he reflect on the probability
that a losing party might nurture at the back of his mind the thought that the judge
had unmeritoriously tilted the scales of justice against him. That passion on the
part of a judge may be generated because of serious charges of misconduct against
him by a suitor or his counsel, is not altogether remote. He is a man, subject to the
frailties of other men. He should, therefore, exercise great care and caution before
making up his mind to act in or withdraw from a suit where that party or counsel is
involved. He could in good grace inhibit himself where that case could be heard by
another judge and where no appreciable prejudice would be occasioned to others
involved therein. On the result of his decision to sit or not to sit may depend to a
great extent the all-important confidence in the impartiality of the judiciary. If after
reflection he should resolve to voluntarily desist from sitting in a case where his
motives or fairness might be seriously impugned, his action is to be interpreted as
giving meaning and substances to the second paragraph of Section 1, Rule 137. He
serves the cause of the law who forestalls miscarriage of justice.
The present case not being covered by the rule on mandatory inhibition, the issue
thus turns on whether Judge Napoleon Inoturan should have voluntarily inhibited
himself.
At the outset, we underscore that while a party has the right to seek the inhibition
or disqualification of a judge who does not appear to be wholly free, disinterested,
impartial and independent in handling the case, this right must be weighed with the
duty of a judge to decide cases without fear of repression. Respondents
consequently have no vested right to the issuance of an Order granting the motion
to inhibit, given its discretionary nature.
However, the second paragraph of Rule 137, Section 1 does not give judges
unfettered discretion to decide whether to desist from hearing a case. The inhibition
must be for just and valid causes, and in this regard, we have noted that the mere
imputation of bias or partiality is not enough ground for inhibition, especially when
the charge is without basis. This Court has to be shown acts or conduct clearly
indicative of arbitrariness or prejudice before it can brand them with the stigma of
bias or partiality. Moreover, extrinsic evidence is required to establish bias, bad
faith, malice or corrupt purpose, in addition to palpable error which may be inferred
from the decision or order itself. The only exception to the rule is when the error is
so gross and patent as to produce an ineluctable inference of bad faith or malice.

We do not find any abuse of discretion by the trial court in denying respondents'
motion to inhibit. Our pronouncement in Webb, et al. v. People of the
Philippines, et al. is apropos:
A perusal of the records will reveal that petitioners failed to adduce any extrinsic
evidence to prove that respondent judge was motivated by malice or bad faith in
issuing the assailed rulings. Petitioners simply lean on the alleged series of adverse
rulings of the respondent judge which they characterized as palpable errors. This is
not enough. We note that respondent judge's rulings resolving the various motions
filed by petitioners were all made after considering the arguments raised by all the
parties, x x x.
xxxx
We hasten to stress that a party aggrieved by erroneous interlocutory rulings in the
course of a trial is not without remedy. The range of remedy is provided in our
Rules of Court and we need not make an elongated discourse on the subject. But
certainly, the remedy for erroneous rulings, absent any extrinsic evidence of malice
or bad faith, is not the outright disqualification of the judge. For there is yet to
come a judge with the omniscience to issue rulings that are always infallible. The
courts will close shop if we disqualify judges who err for we all err.
There is an absolute dearth herein of any evidence of Judge Mangrobang's bias or
partiality, which would have required him to inhibit from Civil Case No. 2187-00.
Judge Mangrobang's series of orders adverse to Castro and favorable to spouses
Guevarra, by itself, does not constitute sufficient proof, even if characterized by
palpable error/s. Castro did not allege, much less prove, any ill motive, corrupt
purpose, or malicious intention behind Judge Mangrobang's orders. Unjustified
assumptions and mere misgivings that the judge acted with prejudice, passion,
pride, and pettiness in the performance of his functions cannot overcome the
presumption that a judge shall decide on the merits of a case with an unclouded
vision of its facts.[17] The Court highlights that mere imputation of bias or partiality
is not enough ground for inhibition, there must be extrinsic evidence of malice or
bad faith on the judge's part. Moreover, the evidence must be clear and convincing
to overcome the presumption that a judge will undertake his noble role to dispense
justice according to law and evidence without fear or favor.[18]
In the absence of clear and convincing evidence to prove the charge of bias and
prejudice, a judge's ruling not to inhibit oneself should be allowed to stand.
[19]
Because voluntary inhibition is discretionary, Judge Mangrobang was in the best
position to determine whether or not there was a need to inhibit from the case, and
his decision to continue to hear the case, in the higher interest of justice, equity,
and public interest, should be respected.[20]
Just as important is the fact that Judge Mangrobang issued the orders in the
exercise of his judicial functions. The filing by Castro of an administrative case
against Judge Mangrobang - to compel him to inhibit from Civil Case No. 2187-00 is not the proper remedy. The pronouncements of the Court in Re: Letters ofLucena
B. Rallos for Alleged Acts/Incidents/Occurrences Relative to the Resolution(s)
Issued in CA-G.R. SP No. 06676 by Court of Appeals Executive Justice Pampio
Abarintos and Associate Justices Ramon Paul Hernando and Victoria Isabel
Paredes[21] on the voluntary inhibition of Justices of the Court of Appeals are just as
relevant for judges. The Court quotes:
Considering that the assailed conduct under both complaints referred to the
performance of their judicial functions by the respondent Justices, we feel
compelled to dismiss the complaints for being improper remedies. We have
consistently held that an administrative or disciplinary complaint is not the proper
remedy to assail the judicial acts of magistrates of the law, particularly those
related to their adjudicative functions. Indeed, any errors should be corrected
through appropriate judicial remedies, like appeal in due course or, in the proper
cases, the extraordinary writs of certiorari and prohibition if the errors were
jurisdictional. Having the administrative or disciplinary complaint be an alternative
to available appropriate judicial remedies would be entirely unprocedural. In Pitney
v. Abrogar, the Court has forthrightly expressed the view that extending the
immunity from disciplinary action is a matter of policy, for "[t]o hold otherwise
would be to render judicial office untenable, for no one called upon to try the facts
or interpret the law in the process of administering justice can be infallible in his
judgment."
In addition, the Court reminds that the disregard of the policy by Rallos would
result in the premature filing of the administrative complaints - a form of abuse of
court processes.
Rallos is consistent with the doctrine and policy previously recognized in Atty.
Flores v. Hon. Abesamis,[22] thus:
Now the established doctrine and policy is that disciplinary proceedings and criminal
actions against Judges are not complementary or suppletory of, nor a substitute for,
these judicial remedies, whether ordinary or extraordinary. Resort to and
exhaustion of these judicial remedies, as well as the entry of judgment in the
corresponding action or proceeding, are pre-requi sites for the taking of other
measures against the persons of the judges concerned, whether of civil,
administrative, or criminal nature. It is only after the available judicial remedies
have been exhausted and the appellate tribunals have spoken with finality, that the
door to an inquiry into his criminal, civil or administrative liability may be said to
have opened, or closed.
Flores resorted to administrative prosecution (or institution of criminal actions) as a
substitute for or supplement to the specific modes of appeal or review provided by
law from court judgments or orders, on the theory that the Judges' orders had
caused him "undue injury." This is impermissible, as this Court had already more
than once ruled. Law and logic decree that "administrative or criminal remedies are
neither alternative nor cumulative to judicial review where such review is available,
and must wait on the result thereof." x x x. Indeed, since judges must be free to
judge, without pressure or influence from external forces or factors, they should not
be subject to intimidation, the fear of civil, criminal or administrative sanctions for
acts they may do and dispositions they may make in the performance of their
duties and functions; and it is sound rule, which must be recognized independently
of statute, that judges are not generally liable for acts done within the scope of
their jurisdiction and in good faith; and that exceptionally, prosecution of a judge
can be had only if "there be a final declaration by a competent court in some
appropriate proceeding of the manifestly unjust character of the challenged
judgment or order, and x x x also evidence of malice or bad faith, ignorance of
inexcusable negligence, on the part of the judge in rendering said judgment or
order" or under the stringent circumstances set out in Article 32 of the Civil Code x
x x.
The Court notes that in the instant case, Castro did have the opportunity to
challenge two of Judge Mangrobang's orders, i.e., Omnibus Order dated December
15, 2004 (granting spouses Guevarra's Motion for Reconsideration of the Decision
dated December 22, 2003 and Motion to Defer Action) and Order dated March 23,
2007 (granting spouses Guevarra's Motion to Revive Proceedings and/or New Trial),
through a Petition for Certiorari before the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No.
99763, and subsequently, a Petition for Review on Certiorari before this Court in
G.R. No. 192737, To recall, the Court, in its Decision dated April 25, 2012 in G.R.
No. 192737, ruled that: (1) Judge Mangrobang had the authority and competency
to issue the Order dated December 15, 2004, which already attained finality; (2)
Judge Mangrobang had no legal basis for granting the spouses Guevarra's motion
for new trial in his Order dated March 23, 2007, but in the interest of justice,
fairness, and equity, the spouses were allowed to adduce evidence in Civil Case No.
2187-00 before the RTC-Branch 22. The Court made no declaration in G.R. No.
192737 which Castro could use as basis for her charge of bias, partiality, or
prejudice against Judge Mangrobang.
Nevertheless, the Court finds merit in the charge of undue delay by Judge
Mangrobang in the resolution of Castro's Omnibus Motion and Motion to Admit
Postmaster's Certification, which were filed on August 26, 2009 and September 18,
2009, respectively. Judge Mangrobang only resolved said Motions in his Order dated
June 8, 2010.
In Re: Cases Submitted for Decision Before Hon. Teresito A. Andoy, former Judge,
Municipal Trial Court, Cainta, Rizal, the Court held[23]:
Article VIII, Section 15 (1) of the 1987 Constitution mandates lower court judges to
decide a case within the reglementary period of 90 days. The Code of Judicial
Conduct under Rule 3.05 of Canon 3 likewise enunciates that judges should
administer justice without delay and directs every judge to dispose of the court's
business promptly within the period prescribed by law. Rules prescribing the time
within which certain acts must be done are indispensable to prevent needless
delays in the orderly and speedy disposition of cases. Thus, the 90-day period is
mandatory.
Judges are enjoined to decide cases with dispatch. Any delay, no matter how short,
in the disposition of cases undermines the people's faith and confidence in the
judiciary. It also deprives the parties of their right to the speedy disposition of their
cases.
The Court has consistently impressed upon judges the need to decide cases
promptly and expeditiously under the time-honored precept that justice delayed is
justice denied. Every judge should decide cases with dispatch and should be
careful, punctual, and observant in the performance of his functions for delay in the
disposition of cases erodes the faith and confidence of our people in the judiciary,
lowers its standards and brings it into disrepute. Failure to decide a case within the
reglementary period is not excusable and constitutes gross inefficiency warranting
the imposition of administrative sanctions on the defaulting judge.
Castro's Omnibus Motion and Motion to Admit Postmaster's Certification were
pending matters in Civil Case No. 2187-00. It took Judge Mangrobang 10 months
and nine months to resolve the Omnibus Motion and Motion to Admit Postmaster's
Certification, respectively.
Judge Mangrobang failed to resolve said Motions within the 90-day reglementary
period for no justifiable reason. Judge Mangrobang's claim of heavy work load is
unsubstantiated, and even if assumed as true, does not automatically absolve him
of any administrative liability. Judge Mangrobang, upon finding himself unable to
comply with the 90-day mandatory reglementary period, should have asked the
Court for a reasonable period of extension to resolve Castro's Motions. The Court,
mindful of the heavy caseload of judges, generally grants such requests for
extension.[24] Judge Mangrobang did not make such a request.
According to Section 9(1), in relation to Section 11(B), Rule 140 of the Rules of
Court, as amended,[25] undue delay in rendering a decision or order is a less serious
charge, for which the respondent judge shall be penalized with either (a)
suspension from office without salary and other benefits for not less than one nor
more than three months; or (b) a fine of more than PI0,000.00 but not exceeding
P20,000.00.
Taking into account that Judge Mangrobang had rendered 16 years of continuous
service to the Government; he readily admitted that he failed to resolve the said
Motions within the 90-day mandatory reglementary period; he had already
optionally retired on August 31, 2012; and as a retiree, he would be mostly relying
financially on his retirement benefits, the Court agrees with OCA that a fine of PI
0,000.00 would suffice in this case.
WHEREFORE, the Court finds JUDGE CESAR A. MANGROBANG, former judge of the
Regional Trial Court of Imus, Cavite, Branch 22, GUILTY of undue delay in
resolving pending matters in Civil Case No. 2187-00, and for which he is FINED in
the amount of P10,000.00, to be deducted from the retirement benefits due and
payable to him. Let a copy of this Resolution be FORWARDED to the Office of the
Court Administrator so that the remaining benefits due respondent judge are
promptly released, unless there exists another lawful cause for withholding the
same.
SO ORDERED.
Sereno, C.J., (Chairperson), Bersamin, Perlas-Bernabe, and Caguioa, JJ., concur.
[1]
Rollo, pp. 19-20.
[2]
Id. at 24.
[3]
Id. at 27-28.
[4]
Id. at 29-30.
[5]
Id. at 39.
[6]
See Castro v. Sps. Guevarra, 686 Phil. 1125 (2012).
[7]
Rollo, pp. 40-42.
[8]
Id. at 51-58.
[9]
Id. at 60-62
[10]
Id. at 62.
[11]
Id. at 63-67.
[12]
Id. at 76-77.
[13]
Id. at 93-101.
[14]
Id. at 109.
[15]
Id. at 115, 117.
[16]
606 Phil. 615, 636-639 (2009).
Jimenez, Jr. v. People, G.R. Nos. 209195 and 209215, September 17, 2014, 735
SCRA 596, 625.
[17]
[18]
Villamor v. Manalastas, G.R. No. 171247, July 22, 2015.
[19]
Jimenez, Jr. v. People, supra note 17.
[20]
Villamor v. Manalastas, supra note 18.
IPI No. 12-203-CA-J (formerly A.M. No. 12-8-06-CA) and A.M. No. 12-9-08-CA,
December 10, 2013, 711 SCRA 673, 690-691.
[21]
[22]
341 Phil. 299, 313-314 (1997).
[23]
634 Phil. 378, 381-382 (2010).
[24]
Office of the Court Administrator v. Dilag, 508 Phil. 183, 1 89 (2005).
En Banc Resolution in A.M. No. 01-8-10-SC dated September 11, 2001 (Re:
Proposed Amendment to Rule 140 of the Rules of Court Regarding the Discipline of
Justices and Judges).
[25]

A.C.
PEDRO
No.
RAMOS,
COMPLAINANT,
VS.
ATTY.
MARIA
11128
NYMPHA
C.
MANDAGAN,
RESPONDENT.
April 06, 2016
THIRD DIVISION
[ A.C. No. 11128, April 06, 2016 ]
PEDRO RAMOS, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. MARIA NYMPHA C.
MANDAGAN, RESPONDENT.
RESOLUTION
REYES, J.:
Before this Court is an administrative complaint[1] for disbarment filed by
complainant Pedro Ramos (Ramos) against respondent Atty. Maria Nympha C.
Mandagan (Atty. Mandagan) for gross misconduct in violation of the Code of
Professional Responsibility (CPR).
In his Complaint, Ramos alleged that Atty. Mandagan demanded from him the
amount of Three Hundred Thousand Pesos (P300,000.00) in connection with the
criminal case filed against him for murder before the Sandiganbayan. According to
Ramos, the P300,000.00 shall be used as bail bond in the event that his petition for
bail in the said criminal case is granted.[2] Also, Atty. Mandagan collected an
additional amount of Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00) for operating expenses. In
both instances, an Acknowledgment Receipt was issued in his favor as proof of
payment.[3]
Contrary to the assurance, however, of Atty. Mandagan, Ramos' petition for bail was
denied by the Sandiganbayan. Moreover, Atty. Mandagan withdrew as his counsel

without returning the amount of P300,000.00 despite the demand sent by Ramos'
counsel.[4]
On December 19, 2012, the Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) of the Integrated
Bar of the Philippines (IBP) issued an Order[5] directing Atty. Mandagan to submit
her Answer to Ramos' complaint within fifteen (15) days from receipt of the Order.
In her Answer,[6] Atty. Mandagan argued that the amount of P300,000.00 was not
intended for payment of bail, but as mobilization expenses for preparation of
witnesses, defenses, and other documentary exhibits for both Ramos and his coaccused Gary Silawon.[7] Atty. Mandagan likewise alleged that Ramos never paid her
for acceptance, appearance fees, and legal services rendered in the entire course of
the proceedings until her withdrawal as counsel.[8]
On April 26, 2013, the IBP-CBD issued a Notice of Mandatory Conference [9] directing
the parties to appear for a mandatory conference. During the mandatory
conference, however, only Atty. Joselito Frial appeared, as counsel for Ramos, while
Atty. Mandagan was absent.
On August 29, 2013, the IBP-CBD issued an Order[10] terminating the mandatory
conference and directed both parties to submit their respective position papers
within a non-extendible period often (10) days upon receipt of the said order.
On December 18, 2013, the IBP-CBD issued a Report and Recommendation,
[11]
finding Atty. Mandagan liable for gross misconduct and for failure to render an
accounting of funds, and recommended that Atty. Mandagan be suspended for a
period of one (1) year. Subsequently, the Report and Recommendation of the IBPCBD was adopted and approved by the IBP Board of Governors in a
Resolution[12] dated October 11, 2014.
A Motion for Reconsideration was filed by Atty. Mandagan, but the same was denied
by the IBP Board of Governors in a Resolution[13] dated June 5, 2015.
After a careful review of the records of the case, the Court finds the Report and
Recommendation of the IBP-CBD, as adopted and approved by the IBP Board of
Governors, to be proper under the circumstances.
The practice of law is considered a privilege bestowed by the State on those who
show that they possess and continue to possess the legal qualifications for the
profession. As such, lawyers are expected to maintain at all times a high standard
of legal proficiency, morality, honesty, integrity and fair dealing, and must perform
their four-fold duty to society, the legal profession, the courts, and their clients, in
accordance with the values and norms embodied in the Code. [14]
In Cruz-Villanueva v. Atty. Rivera,[15] this Court held that:
When a lawyer receives money from the client for a particular purpose, the lawyer
must render an accounting to the client showing that the money was spent for the
intended purpose. Consequently, if the lawyer does not use the money for the
intended purpose, the lawyer must immediately return the money to the client.
[16]
(Citations omitted)
In the present case, Atty. Mandagan never denied receiving the amount of
P300,000.00 from Ramos for the purpose of posting a bond to secure the latter's
provisional liberty. When the petition for bail of Ramos, however, was denied by the
Sandiganbayan, Atty. Mandagan failed to return the amount to Ramos. Worse, she
unjustifiably refused to turn over the amount to Ramos despite demand from
Ramos' counsel.
Clearly, Atty. Mandagan failed to act in accordance with the rule stated in Canon 16
of the CPR, to wit:
Canon 16. A lawyer shall hold in trust all moneys and properties of his client that
may come into his possession.
Rule 16.01 A lawyer shall account for all money or property collected or received for
or from the client.
xxxx
Rule 16.03 A lawyer shall deliver the funds and property of his client when due or
upon demand. x x x.
In Belleza v. Atty. Macasa,[17] this Court stated that:
[A] lawyer has the duty to deliver his client's funds or properties as they fall due or
upon demand. His failure to return the client's money upon demand gives rise to
the presumption that he has misappropriated it for his own use to the prejudice of
and in violation of the trust reposed in him by the client. It is a gross violation of
general morality as well as of professional ethics; it impairs public confidence in the
legal profession and deserves punishment. Indeed, it may border on the criminal as
it may constitute a prima facie case of swindling or estafa.[18] (Citations omitted)
This court cannot give credence to Atty. Mandagan's defense that the amount she
received from Ramos was not for bail but merely for mobilization expenses. Records
show that Atty. Mandagan failed to substantiate her claim. At any rate, as correctly
observed by the IBP-CBD, "[Atty. Mandagan] should be forthright in stating what
constitutes legal mobilization expenses if only to dispel any doubt as to its intended
purpose."[19]
Atty. Mandagan's failure to make an accounting or to return the money to Ramos is
a violation of the trust reposed on her. As a lawyer, Atty. Mandagan should be

scrupulously careful in handling money entrusted to her in her professional capacity
because the CPR exacts a high degree of fidelity and trust from members of the bar.
WHEREFORE, the Court finds respondent Atty. Maria Nympha C.
Mandagan GUILTY of violating Canon 16, Rule 16.01 and Rule 16.03 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility, and SUSPENDS her from the practice of law for a
period of one (1) year effective upon receipt of this Resolution,
with WARNING that a similar offense will be dealt with more severely.
Let copies of this Resolution be entered in the personal record of Atty. Maria
Nympha C. Mandagan as a member of the Philippine Bar and furnished to the Office
of the Bar Confidant, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and the Office of the
Court Administrator for circulation to all courts in the country.
SO ORDERED.
April 27, 2016

NOTICE OF JUDGMENT
Sirs / Mesdames:
Very truly yours,

[1]
Rollo, pp. 2-3.
[2]
Id. at 8.
[3]
Id. at 2.
[4]
Id.
[5]
Id. at 9.
[6]
Id. at 13-18.
[7]
Id. at 15.
[8]
Id. at 99.
[9]
Id. at 27-28.
[10]
Id. at 34.
[11]
Id. at 99-100.
[12]
Id. at 98.
[13]
Id. at 217-218.
[14]
Molina v. Atty. Magat, 687 Phil. 1, 5 (2012).
[15]
537 Phil. 409 (2006).
[16]
Id. at 416.
[17]
611 Phil. 179 (2009).
[18]
Id. at 191.
[19]
Rollo, p. 222.

G.R.
Nos.
208896-97
EDREN RICASATA, PETITIONER, VS. CARGO SAFEWAY, INC. AND EVERGREEN MARINE CORPORATION (TAIWAN), LTD.,
RESPONDENTS.
April 06, 2016
SECOND DIVISION
[ G.R. Nos. 208896-97, April 06, 2016 ]
EDREN RICASATA, PETITIONER, VS. CARGO SAFEWAY, INC.
AND EVERGREEN MARINE CORPORATION (TAIWAN), LTD.,
RESPONDENTS.
DECISION
CARPIO, J.:
The Case
Petitioner Edren Ricasata (Ricasata) assails in this petition for review[1] the
Consolidated Decision[2] promulgated on 20 March 2013 and the
Resolution[3] promulgated on 25 July 2013 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No.
122937[4] and CA-G.R. SP No. 123015.[5] The Court of Appeals denied the petition in
CA-G.R. SP No. 122937 and granted the petition in CA-G.R. SP No. 123015 and
remanded the case to the Panel of Voluntary Arbitrators (Panel of Arbitrators) for
the proper computation of Ricasata's unearned wages, earned leave pay, and basic
wages corresponding to the unserved portion of his contract.
The Antecedent Facts
In June 2009, Ricasata was hired as an engine fitter for M.V. Uni Chart, a ship
owned by Evergreen Marine Corporation, Ltd. of Taiwan (Evergreen Marine),
represented in the Philippines by its local manning agency, Cargo Safeway, Inc.
(Cargo Safeway). The deployment was for a period of nine months with a basic
monthly salary of US$704. Ricasata was found fit for sea duty without restrictions
and was deployed aboard the vessel on 2 August 2009. His work included handling
noisy equipment such as grinders, generators, and pumps in the vessel's engine
room on a regular eight to five shift schedule.

In November 2009, Ricasata experienced severe pain in his ears. He reported the
pain to the Chief Engineer and requested for a medical check-up, but his request
was denied. On 10 January 2010, Ricasata experienced another bout of severe pain
in his ears. Again, Ricasata requested for a medical checkup which was also denied.
In March 2010, Ricasata was replaced by a reliever. On 19 March 2010, he
disembarked from the vessel at Coco Solo, Panama. He returned to the Philippines
on 23 March 2010.
On 29 March 2010, Ricasata underwent an Audiogram at the Seamen's Hospital.
According to Ricasata, he was diagnosed with Severe Hearing Loss. Later, Dr. Li-Ann
Lara-Orencia (Dr. Lara-Orencia), a private doctor, diagnosed him with "Permanent
Medical Unfitness with a Disability Grade 1" due to a "profound hearing loss."
On 21 July 2010, Ricasata filed an action against Cargo Safeway and Evergreen
Marine before the National Labor Relations Commission, claiming disability benefits,
moral and exemplary damages, legal interest, and attorney's fees. Cargo Safeway
and Evergreen Marine moved for the dismissal of the case and its referral for
Voluntary Arbitration on the ground that Ricasata's employment was covered by a
Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) between the Associated Marine Officers' and
Seamen's Union of the Philippines and the National Chinese Seamen's Union. The
case was referred to the National Conciliation and Mediation Board and submitted to
a Panel of Arbitrators.[6]
The Decision of the Panel of Voluntary Arbitrators
Ricasata claimed that his loss of hearing was due to his work in a noisy
environment, within an engine room filled with compressed air. As such, his illness
is compensable under the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration-Standard
Employment Contract (POEA-SEC). He sought a total permanent disability benefit of
US$89,100, sickness allowance of US$2,816 equivalent to four months, moral and
exemplary damages, and attorney's fees.
Cargo Safeway and Evergreen Marine countered that Ricasata is not entitled to the
benefits claimed because (1) he did not suffer any illness, accident, or injury while
on board the vessel; (2) he was repatriated to the Philippines because of the
expiration of his contract; and (3) he did not report any illness, injury, or accident
upon his arrival in the Philippines, and he did not request for referral to a companydesignated physician.
In its Decision[7] dated 22 December 2011, the Panel of Arbitrators rejected Cargo
Safeway and Evergreen Marine's contention that Ricasata's employment contract
expired on 19 March 2010. The Panel of Arbitrators ruled that Ricasata signed off
one and a half months before the expiration of his nine-month contract. The Panel
of Arbitrators also rejected the contention of Cargo Safeway and Evergreen Marine
that the flexibility provision of the CBA for the completion of the contract "one
month more or one month less as a result of operational convenience or
convenience of the port of call" should apply to justify Ricasata's early embarkment.
The Panel of Arbitrators ruled that Section 19(C) of POEA-SEC providing for
repatriation within three months before the expiration of the contract when the
vessel drops anchor in a convenient port would not apply in this case. Instead, the
Panel of Arbitrators ruled that Ricasata was not able to complete his contract and
thus, he is entitled to sickness allowance equivalent to one and a half months of his
monthly wage of US$704 plus 10% per annum of the resulting amount as penalty
for non-payment of the unexpired portion of the contract.
The Panel of Arbitrators also ruled that Ricasata is entitled to full disability benefit.
According to the Panel of Arbitrators, Cargo Safeway and Evergreen Marine failed to
refute the Audiogram finding by the Seamen's Hospital and the assessment made
by Dr. Lara-Orencia. The Panel of Arbitrators ruled that it is unjust and unfair to
award Ricasata a compensation equivalent to Impediment Grade 11, amounting
only to US$13,303, which is the compensation for Severe Hearing Loss under the
CBA. However, the Panel of Arbitrators disapproved Ricasata's claim of US$89,000
and instead awarded him US$51,000 as compensation.
The dispositive portion of the Decision of the Panel of Arbitrators reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, [t]his Panel ruled that Seafarer EDREN
RICASATA is entitled to back disability benefit equivalent to US$51,000.00 plus ten [percent] per annum of
this back benefit, at its peso equivalent at the time of actual payment;
back sick allowance equivalent to one and a half months of his monthly salary of
US$704.00 plus ten [percent] per annum of the back allowance, at its peso
equivalent at the time of actual payment, and attorney's fees often percent (10%)
of the total monetary award at its peso equivalent at the time of actual payment.
SO ORDERED.[8]
Both parties appealed from the Decision of the Panel of Voluntary Arbitrators to the
Court of Appeals.
The Decision of the Court of Appeals
In CA-G.R. SP No. 122937, Ricasata prayed for the modification of the Decision of
the Panel of Arbitrators by increasing the award for back disability benefit and sick
allowance.
In CA-G.R. SP No. 123015, Cargo Safeway and Evergreen Marine sought the
reversal of the Decision of the Panel of Arbitrators.
In a Resolution dated 27 November 2012, the Court of Appeals consolidated the
two petitions.
The Court of Appeals ruled that entitlement to disability benefits is a matter
governed by law and contract and not solely by medical findings. Citing Section
20(B) of the POEA-SEC, the Court of Appeals ruled that for a disability to be
compensable, the following elements must be present: (1) the injury or illness must
be work-related; and (2) the work-related injury or illness must have existed during
the term of the seafarer's employment contract. The Court of Appeals ruled that
Ricasata forfeited his claim for compensation by failing to comply with the
mandatory reporting requirements.
The Court of Appeals ruled that Ricasata failed to undergo a post-employment
medical examination by a company-designated physician within three days upon his
return. Instead, he went to the Seamen's Hospital on 29 March 2010, six days after
his arrival, for an Audiogram. The Court of Appeals noted that the Audiogram did
not indicate that it was issued by a company-designated physician, and there was
no signature or specification that it was issued by the company-designated
physician or at least by Seamen's Hospital. As such, the Court of Appeals ruled that
the Audiogram is not a sufficient evidence to prove Ricasata's claim. In addition, the
Court of Appeals ruled that Dr. Lara-Orencia is Ricasata's personal physician and
her medical certificate was issued on 27 April 2010, or almost a month after
Ricasata's repatriation.
The Court of Appeals ruled that entitlement to sickness allowance requires the
submission of medical reports. Since Ricasata failed to undergo the mandatory
reporting to a company-designated physician, he was not able to submit the
medical reports to substantiate his claim for sickness allowance.
The Court of Appeals further ruled that there is no basis for the award of attorney's
fees. However, the Court of Appeals ruled that Ricasata was not able to finish his
contract. Hence, he is entitled to his unearned wages and earned leave pay and to
his basic wages corresponding to the unserved portion of his contract.
The dispositive portion of the Decision of the Court of Appeals reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition in CA-G.R. SP No. 122937 is
DENIED. On the other hand, the Petition in CA-G.R. SP No. 123015 is GRANTED and
the Decision dated December 22, 2011 of the Panel of Voluntary Arbitrators in
NCMB-NCR-AC-056 (NCMB-32-01-06-11) is REVERSED and SET ASIDE and a new

one is rendered granting Edren Ricasata his unearned wages and earned leave pay
and to his basic wages corresponding to the unserved portion of the contract. For
this purpose, the case is REMANDED to the Panel of Voluntary Arbitrators for proper
computation in line with the foregoing discussion.
SO ORDERED.[9]
Ricasata filed a motion for reconsideration. In its 25 July 2013 Resolution, the Court
of Appeals denied the motion for lack of merit.
Ricasata filed a petition for review before this Court for the reversal of the Decision
and Resolution of the Court of Appeals. Ricasata alleged that the Court of Appeals
committed a reversible error in finding that he is not entitled to disability benefits,
sickness allowance, and attorney's fees.
The Issues
There are two issues for resolution in this case. They are:
(1) Whether Ricasata was able to finish his contract of employment; and
(2) Whether Ricasata is entitled to disability benefits, sickness allowance, and attorney's fees.
The Ruling of this Court
Ricasata alleged that the Court of Appeals misappreciated the facts of the case and
denied him his rightful compensation under the law. Ricasata further alleged that
while the Panel of Arbitrators correctly ruled that he is suffering from total
permanent disability, it erred in awarding him disability benefits that are contrary to
jurisprudence.
Expiration of Contract of Employment
In their Comment,[10] Cargo Safeway and Evergreen Marine contend that Ricasata is
not entitled to unearned wages, unearned leave pay, and basic wages
corresponding to the unserved portion of his contract. They invoke Section 19(C) of
the POEA-SEC to the effect that "[i]f the vessel arrives at a convenient port within a
period of three (3) months before the expiration of his contract, the
master/employer may repatriate the seafarer from such port x x x." They also
invoke Article 5.1 of the CBA which states that "it is mutually agreed that the term
of service of the seafarer covered by this Agreement shall be up to NINE (9)
months as covenanted by the parties and subject to the provisions of Article
6.5.1.4, however, a flexibility of one (1) month more or one (1) month less as a
result of operational convenience or convenience of port of call shall be acceptable x
x x."
We do not agree. Counsels for Cargo Safeway and Evergreen Marine only quoted a
portion of Section 19(C) of POEA-SEC. It provides in full:
SECTION 19. REPATRIATION
xxxx
C. If the vessel arrives at a convenient port within a period of three (3) months
before the expiration of his contract, the master/employer may repatriate the
seafarer from such port provided that the seafarer shall be paid all his earned
wages. In addition, the seafarer shall also be paid his leave pay for the entire
contract period plus a termination pay equivalent to one (1) month of his basic pay,
provided however, that this mode of termination may only be exercised by the
master/employer if the original contract period of the seafarer is at least ten
(months); provided, further, that the conditions for this mode of termination shall
not apply to dismissal for cause.
Clearly, Section 19(C) of POEA-SEC does not apply to this case. Section 19(C) of
POEA-SEC states that the mode of termination it provides may only be exercised by
the master/employer if the original period of the seafarer is at least ten months.
Ricasata's contract of employment is only for nine months. Granting that the
provision is applicable, Cargo Safeway and Evergreen Marine failed to present proof
that they paid Ricasata all his earned wages, his leave pay for the entire contract
period, and his termination pay equivalent to one month of his basic salary.
On the other hand, Article 5, Section 5.1 of the CBA provides:
5.1. Subject to the provisions hereinafter provided, the engagement of a seafarer
shall be at the time of departure from Manila to the date of expiration of contract or
arrival in Manila, unless terminated for just cause or causes enumerated in this
Agreement. It is mutually agreed that the term of service of the seafarer covered
by this Agreement shall be up to N1NK (9) months as covenanted by the parties
and subject to the provisions of Article 6.5.1.4, however, a flexibility of one (1)
month more or one (1) month less as a result of operational convenience or
convenience of port of call shall be acceptable without penalizing the Company or
seafarer. If any lesser period is agreed for operational convenience, this shall be
specified in the employment contract.[11]
We agree with the Panel of Voluntary Arbitrators and the Court of Appeals that the
provision of the CBA was specific: the flexibility period is one month more or one
month less from the term of the contract. Ricasata disembarked one and a half
months before the expiration of his contract, meaning it does not fall within the one
month more or one month less covered by the CBA. The CBA also provides that if
any lesser period is agreed for operational convenience, it should be specified in the
employment contract. No such provision is present in this case. Hence, the
flexibility provision of the CBA does not also apply to this case.
Entitlement to Disability Benefits and Sickness Allowance
Ricasata arrived in the Philippines on 23 March 2010. On 29 March 2010, he
underwent an Audiogram at the Seamen's Hospital. On 27 April 2010, Dr. LaraOrencia diagnosed him with "Permanent Medical Unfitness with a Disability Grade 1"
based on the Audiogram.
It is a settled rule that for a seaman's disability claim to prosper, it is mandatory
that within three days from repatriation, he is examined by a company-designated
physician.[12] His failure to do so will result to the forfeiture of his right to claim for
compensation and disability benefits.[13] Ricasata failed to comply with this
requirement. He also failed to show that he was physically incapacitated to be
medically examined by a company-designated physician that would have justified
his non-compliance with the mandatory three-day period. We note the finding of
the Court of Appeals that Ricasata was inconsistent on whether he was referred to a
company-designated physician. In his Petition before the Court of Appeals, he
alleged that Cargo Safeway referred him to a company-designated
physician[14] while in his Memorandum, he alleged that Cargo Safeway refused to
refer him for post-medical check-up.[15]
Ricasata submitted an Audiogram to support his claim for disability benefits. The
Audiogram,[16] taken six days after his arrival, did not indicate that it was taken by a
company-designated physician. It did not indicate that it came from Seamen's
Hospital. It was not signed, and it did not contain an interpretation of the graph. It
was simply a printout from the audiometer. Dr. Lara-Orencia, who issued a medical
certificate[17] diagnosing Ricasata with severe hearing loss, was not a companydesignated physician. She specializes in Family and Occupational Medicine and is
not an EENT.[18] Her medical certificate was based only on the Audiogram. Yet, she
declared Ricasata to be suffering from "Permanent Medical Unfitness with a
Disability Grade 1" without giving him additional medical examinations and
procedures. Dr. Lara-Orencia's medical certificate was only issued on 27 April 2010,
or almost a month after the Audiogram.
Considering the foregoing, the Court of Appeals did not err in ruling that Ricasata
failed to prove that he is entitled to the disability benefits and sickness allowance
that he was claiming.
Monetary Entitlement and Attorney's Fees
We agree with both the Court of Appeals and the Panel of Arbitrators that Ricasata
was not able to complete his employment contract. He was repatriated one and a
half months before the end of his contracted service. In ruling on his monetary
entitlement, we are guided by Section 19(B) of POEA-SEC. It provides:
B. If the vessel arrives at a convenient port before the expiration of the contract,
the master/employer may repatriate the seafarer from such port, provided the
unserved portion of his contract is not more than one (1) month. The seafarer shall
be entitled only to his earned wages and earned leave pay and to his basic wages
corresponding to the unserved portion of the contract, unless within 60 days from
disembarkation, the seafarer is rehired at the same rate and position, in which case
the seafarer shall be entitled only to his earned wages and earned leave pay.
The rule applies to repatriation at a convenient port before the expiration of the
contract. It could not be used by Cargo Safeway and Evergreen Marine to justify
Ricasata's disembarkation because the unexpired portion of his contract was more
than one month. However, it can be used as guide to determine Ricasata's
remunerations considering that Cargo Safeway and Evergreen Marine did not
appear to have acted in bad faith. Thus, applying Section 19(B) of POEA-SEC, the
Court of Appeals correctly stated that Ricasata is entitled to his earned wages,
earned leave pay, and basic wages corresponding to the unserved portion of his
contract. The Court of Appeals correctly remanded the case to the Panel of
Arbitrators for their proper computation.
The rule is that where an employee is forced to litigate and incur expenses to
protect his right and interest, he is entitled to attorney's fees equivalent to ten
percent of the total award at the time of actual payment.[19] In this case, Ricasata
was forced to protect his rights. Although his claim for disability benefits was
denied, it was established that he was not able to finish his contract of employment
without fault on his part. We deem it proper to allow him to recover attorney's fees.
WHEREFORE, we DENY the petition. We affirm the Consolidated Decision
promulgated on 20 March 2013 and the Resolution promulgated on 25 July 2013 of
the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 122937 and CA-G.R. SP No. 123015
with MODIFICATION by ruling that Edren Ricasata is also entitled to attorney's
fees equivalent to ten percent (10%) of the total award at the time of actual
payment.
SO ORDERED.
[1]
Under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
Rollo, pp. 55-69. Penned by Associate Justice Franchito N. Diamante, with

Associate Justices Celia C. Librea-Leagogo and Melchor Q. C. Sadang concurring.
[2]
[3]
Id. at 71-73.
Edren Ricasata v. Panel of Voluntary Arbitrators, Cargo Safeway, Inc., and

Evergreen Corp., Ltd.
[4]
Cargo Safeway, Inc. and Evergreen Marine Corp. (Taiwan) Ltd. v. Panel of
Voluntary Arbitrators (Hon. Hermenegildo Dumlao, Hon. Gregorio Sialsa and Hon.
Rene E. Ofreneo) and Edren A. Ricasata.
[5]
The Panel of Arbitrators was composed of Atty. Hermenegildo Dumlao as

Chairman and Captain Gregorio Siaisa and Dr. Rene E. Ofreneo as members.
[6]
[7]
Rollo, pp. 42-53.
[8]
Id. at 52.
[9]
Id. at 68.
[10]
Id. at 75-101.
[11]
CA rollo (CA-G.R. SP No. 123015), p. 52.
InterOrient Maritime Enterprises, Inc. v. Creer III, G.R. No. 181921, 17

September 2014, 735 SCRA 267.
[12]
[13]
Id.
[14]
CA rollo (CA G.R. SP No. 122937), p. 1
[15]
Id. at 304.
[16]
Id. at 97.
[17]
Id. at 98.
[18]
Id.
Fil-Pride Shipping Company, Inc. v. Balasta, G.R. No. 193047, 3 March 2014,
717 SCRA 624.
[19]

G.R.
No.
204314
HEIRS OF DANILO ARRIENDA, ROSA G. ARRIENDA, MA. CHARINA ROSE ARRIENDA-ROMANO, MA. CARMELLIE
ARRIENDA-MARA, DANILO MARIA ALVIN G. ARRIENDA, JR., AND JESUS FRANCIS DOMINIC G. ARRIENDA,
PETITIONERS,
VS.
ROSARIO
KALAW,
RESPONDENT.
April 06, 2016
THIRD DIVISION
[ G.R. No. 204314, April 06, 2016 ]
HEIRS OF DANILO ARRIENDA, ROSA G. ARRIENDA, MA.
CHARINA ROSE ARRIENDA-ROMANO, MA. CARMELLIE
ARRIENDA-MARA, DANILO MARIA ALVIN G. ARRIENDA, JR.,
AND JESUS FRANCIS DOMINIC G. ARRIENDA, PETITIONERS,
VS. ROSARIO KALAW, RESPONDENT.
DECISION
PERALTA, J.:
Before the Court is a petition for review on certiorari seeking to reverse and set
aside the Decision[1] and Resolution[2] of the Court of Appeals (CA), dated April 26,
2012 and October 30, 2012, respectively, in CA-G.R. SP No. 118687. The assailed
CA Decision reversed and set aside the Decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
Calamba City, Branch 35, in an unlawful detainer case docketed as Civil Case No.
3361-03-C, while the CA Resolution denied petitioners' motion for reconsideration.
The facts of the case are as follows:
On January 18, 2001, Danilo Arrienda (Arrienda) filed against herein respondent
and three other persons a Complaint[3] for unlawful detainer with the Municipal Trial
Court (MTC) of Calauan, Laguna, alleging that: he is the owner of an 11,635
square-meter parcel of land located along National Road, Barangay Lamot 2,
Calauan, Laguna; the seller of the property warranted that the same is not
tenanted and is free from any occupants or claimants; despite such warranty,
Arrienda later discovered, that a portion of it was actually being occupied by herein
respondent and the other defendants; after talking to respondent and the other
defendants, petitioner allowed them to continue occupying the premises in which
they have settled, subject to the condition that they will immediately vacate the
same upon prior notice by Arrienda that he will be needing it; sometime in
November 2000, Arrienda, informed respondent and the other defendants of his
intention to use the subject land; despite repeated demands, the last of which was
a letter dated December 7, 2000, respondent and the other defendants failed and
refused to vacate the disputed premises. Hence, the complaint, praying that
respondent and the other defendants be ordered to vacate the premises and restore
possession thereof to Arrienda; to pay a reasonable amount for the use and
occupation of the same; and to pay moral and exemplary damages, attorney's fees
and costs of suit.
In her Answer with Counterclaims,[4] respondent denied the material allegations in
Arrienda's Complaint and contended that: the MTC has no jurisdiction over the
nature of the action, considering that the main issue in the case is the ownership of
the disputed lot and not simply who among the parties is entitled to possession de
facto of the same; the issue of ownership converts the unlawful detainer suit into
one which is incapable of pecuniary estimation and, as such, the case should be
placed under the exclusive jurisdiction of the RTC; the subject lot is an agricultural
land of which respondent was a tenant; she and her family later obtained ownership
over the subject property when their landlord donated the said property to them;
Arrienda failed to secure a Certification from the Department of Agrarian Reform
that the disputed premises is not really an agricultural land, which is a condition
precedent in the filing of the case. As counterclaim, respondent alleged that, by
reason of Arrienda's bad faith, greed and malice in filing the complaint, she suffered
from anxiety, wounded feelings and similar injuries and was forced to engage the
services of a counsel to defend her rights. As such, she prayed that Arrienda be
ordered to pay moral damages, attorney's fees, litigation expenses and other reliefs
which the court may deem just and equitable.
The other defendants adopted respondent's Answer with Counterclaim.

After Arrienda filed his Reply,[5] the parties subsequently submitted their Position
Papers.
On November 20, 2002, the MTC rendered its Decision [6] dismissing the complaint
on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, holding as follows:
xxxx
[I]t is well settled that the mere allegation by the defendant in an ejectment case
that he is the owner of the property involved therein does not and cannot divest the
inferior court of its jurisdiction over the case. But if [it] appears during the trial that
by the nature of proof presented, the question of possession cannot be properly
determined without settling that of ownership, then the jurisdiction of the court is
lost and action should be DISMISSED. x x x Further, Plaintiff must not only prove
his ownership of the property but must also identify the land he claim[s] to remove
uncertainties.[7]
xxxx
The counterclaims of respondent and the other defendants were likewise dismissed
on the ground that the complaint was not maliciously filed.
On appeal by Arrienda, the RTC agreed with the MTC that jurisdiction lies with the
RTC. The RTC then took cognizance of the case and conducted trial. On April 6,
2010, the RTC rendered its Decision disposing as follows:
the defendants-appellees Rosario Kalaw, Felix Taklan, Maximo Valenzuela
and Fclicidad Ulan and all persons claiming rights under them to vacate the parcel
of land situated at National Road, Barangay Lamot 2, Calauan, Laguna, covered by
Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-204409 containing an area of 11,635 square
meters, more or less, and restore the same to the plaintiff-appellant Danilo T.
Arrienda. The defendants are likewise ordered to pay plaintiff the sum of
P10,000.00 as attorney's fees and the sum of P500.00 per month as reasonable
rental for the use and occupation of the premises beginning January 2001 until the
premises are finally vacated.
SO ORDERED.[8]
In so ruling, the RTC held that since it was established that Arrienda is the owner of
the subject lot, he is, under the law, entitled to all the attributes of ownership of the
property, including possession thereof.
Aggrieved by the RTC Decision, respondent filed a petition for review with the CA.
Pending resolution of respondent's appeal, Arrienda died and was substituted by his
heirs.
On April 26, 2012, the CA promulgated its assailed Decision reversing and setting
aside the RTC Decision. The CA held that the RTC did not acquire jurisdiction over
the case for Arrienda's failure to allege the assessed value of the subject property
and, as a consequence, the assailed RTC Decision is null and void.
Herein petitioners filed their Motion for Reconsideration, but the CA denied it in its
October 30, 2012 Resolution.
Hence, the instant petition based on the following grounds:
I
WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS MUST HAVE BEEN
CONFUSED WITH THE ORIGINAL AND APPELLATE JURISDICTION OF THE REGIONAL
TRIAL COURTS.
II
IT BEING OBVIOUS, AND AS SO ADMITTED BY THE HONORABLE COURT OF
APPEALS THAT "IN THIS CASE, ARRIENDA'S COMPLAINT FOR UNLAWFUL DETAINER
DATED 17 JANUARY 2001 WAS FIRST FILED WITH THE MTC OF CALAUAN,
LAGUNA," THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN RULING:
"THUS, FOR FAILURE OF ARRIENDA TO DISCLOSE THE ASSESSED VALUE OF THE
SUBJECT PROPERTY IN HIS COMPLAINT, THE COURT A QUO IS BEREFT OF
JURISDICTION OF TAKING COGNIZANCE OF THE CASE. WITHOUT ANY
JURISDICTION THEN, THE ASSAILED DECISION AND RESOLUTION ARE NULL AND
VOID."
III
WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, THE QUESTIONED APRIL 26, 2012 DECISION AND
OCTOBER 30, 2012 RESOLUTION OF THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS WOULD
WIPE OUT SECTION 8, RULE 40 ON "APPEAL FROM ORDERS DISMISSING CASE
WITHOUT TRIAL; LACK OF JURISDICTION" FROM THE 1997 RULES OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE, IF NOT NULLIFIED BY THIS HONORABLE SUPREME COURT.[9]
The basic issue in the instant petition is whether or not the RTC has jurisdiction
over Arrienda's appeal of the MTC Decision.
The Court rules in the affirmative.
It bears to reiterate that under Batas Pambansa Bilang. 129 (B.P. Blg. 129), as
amended by Republic Act No. 7691 (RA 7691), RTCs are endowed with original and
appellate jurisdictions.
For purposes of the present petition, Section 19 of B.P. Blg. 129, as amended,
provides for the RTCs' exclusive original jurisdiction in civil cases involving title to or
possession of real property or any interest therein, pertinent portions of which read
as follows:
Section 19. Jurisdiction in civil cases.- Regional Trial Courts shall exercise exclusive
original jurisdiction:
xxxx
In all civil actions which involve the title to, or possession of, real property, or any
interest therein, where the assessed value of the property involved exceeds Twenty
thousand pesos (P20,000.00) or for civil actions in Metro Manila, where such value
exceeds Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00), except actions for forcible entry into
and unlawful detainer of lands or buildings, original jurisdiction over which is
conferred upon Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal
Circuit Trial Courts.
xxx
Based on the amendments introduced by RA 7691, real actions no longer reside
under the exclusive original jurisdiction of the RTCs. Under the said amendments,
Metropolitan Trial Courts (MeTCs), Municipal Trial Courts (MTCs) and Municipal
Circuit Trial Courts (MCTCs) now have jurisdiction over real actions if the assessed
value of the property involved does not exceed P20,000.00, or in Metro Manila,
where such assessed value does not exceed P50,000.00. Otherwise, if the assessed
value exceeds P20,000.00 or P50,000.00, as the case may be, jurisdiction is with
the RTC.
On the other hand, the RTCs' appellate jurisdiction, as contrasted to its original
jurisdiction, is provided in Section 22 of B.P. Blg. 129, as amended, thus:
SECTION 22. Appellate jurisdiction. Regional Trial Courts shall exercise
appellate jurisdiction over all cases decided by Metropolitan Trial Courts,
Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in their respective
territorial jurisdictions. Such cases shall be decided on the basis of the entire
record of the proceedings had in the court of origin such memoranda and/or briefs
as may be submitted by the parties or required by the Regional Trial Courts. [10]
From the above-quoted provision, it is clear that the RTC exercises appellate
jurisdiction over all cases decided by first level courts in their respective territorial
jurisdictions.
Thus, in the present case, when the RTC took cognizance of Arrienda's appeal from
the adverse decision of the MTC in the ejectment suit, it (RTC) was unquestionably
exercising its appellate jurisdiction as mandated by law. Perforce, its decision may
not be annulled on the basis of lack of jurisdiction as the RTC has, beyond question,
jurisdiction to decide the appeal and its decision should be deemed promulgated in
the exercise of that jurisdiction.
The Court does not agree with the ruling of the CA that the RTC lacks jurisdiction
over the case on the ground that Arrienda failed to allege the assessed value of the
subject land in his Complaint.
It is true that under the prevailing law, as discussed above, in actions involving title
to or possession of real property or any interest therein, there is a need to allege
the assessed value of the real property subject of the action, or the interest therein,
for purposes of determining which court (MeTC/MTC/MCTC or RTC) has jurisdiction
over the action. However, it must be clarified that this requirement applies only if
these courts are in the exercise of their original jurisdiction. [11] In the present case,
the RTC was exercising its appellate, not original, jurisdiction when it took
cognizance of Arrienda's appeal and Section 22 of B.R Blg. 129 does not provide
any amount or value of the subject property which would limit the RTC's exercise of
its appellate jurisdiction over cases decided by first level courts. Clearly then, in the
instant case, contrary to the ruling of the CA, the assessed value of the disputed lot
is immaterial for purposes of the RTC's appellate jurisdiction. [12] Indeed, all cases
decided by the MTC are generally appealable to the RTC irrespective of the amount
involved.[13] Hence, the CA erred in nullifying the RTC decision for lack of
jurisdiction.
Finally, in coming up with its Decision, the RTC made an exhaustive and definitive
finding on Arrienda's main cause of action. It is within the RTC's competence to
make this finding in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, as it would, in the
exercise of its original jurisdiction.[14]
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is GRANTED. The Decision and Resolution of the
Court of Appeals, dated April 26, 2012 and October 30, 2012, respectively, in CAG.R. SP No. 118687 are SET ASIDE. The Decision of the Regional Trial Court of
Calamba City, Branch 35, dated April 6, 2010, in Civil Case No. 3361-03-C,
isREINSTATED.
SO ORDERED.
April 25, 2016

NOTICE OF JUDGMENT
Sirs / Mesdames:
was received by this Office on April 25, 2016 at 8:50 a.m.
Very truly yours,

Penned by Associate Justice Marlene Gonzales-Sison, with Associate Justices

Hakim S. Abdulwahid and Leoncia R. Dimagiba, concurring; Annex "A" to
Petition,rollo, pp. 34-42.
[1]
[2]
Id. at 44-45.
[3]
Records, Vol. I, pp. 5-8.
[4]
Id. at 20-27.
[5]
Id. at 48-52.
[6]
Rollo, pp. 103-106.
[7]
Id. at 106.
[8]
Id. at 193. (Emphasis in the original)
[9]
Id. at 19.
[10]
Emphasis supplied.
[11]
See Serrano v. Gutierrez, 537 Phil. 187, 196 (2006).
[12]
Wilfred De Vera, et al. v. Spouses Engenio, Sr. and Esperanza H. Santiago, G.R.
No. 179457, June 22, 2015.

[13]
Id.
[14]
Serrano v. Gutierrez, supra note 10.

A.C.
HELEN
No.
CHANG,
COMPLAINANT,
VS.
ATTY.
6934
JOSE
R.
HIDALGO,
RESPONDENT.
April 06, 2016
SECOND DIVISION
[ A.C. No. 6934, April 06, 2016 ]
HELEN CHANG, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. JOSE R. HIDALGO,
RESPONDENT.
RESOLUTION
LEONEN, J.:
A lawyer cannot simply withdraw from a case without notice to the client and
complying with the requirements in Rule 138, Section 26 of the Rules of Court.
Otherwise, the lawyer will be held liable for violating Canons 17 and 18 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility.
Complainant Helen Chang (Chang) filed this administrative Complaint [1] before the
Office of the Bar Confidant of this Court on November 7, 2005. Chang prayed that
this Court discipline respondent Atty. Jose R. Hidalgo (Atty. Hidalgo) for being
remiss in his duties as her counsel and as an officer of the court. [2] She claimed that
Atty. Hidalgo failed to "handle [her] cases to the best of his ability and to deal with
[her] in all honesty and candor."[3]
In her Complaint, Chang alleged that she engaged the services of Atty. Hidalgo as
legal counsel to represent her in several collection cases pending in various courts.
[4]
Pursuant to the contract they executed, Chang issued five (5) checks in favor of
Atty. Hidalgo totaling P52,000.00.[5] Atty. Hidalgo also collected P9,500.00 as
"hearing fee."[6] Chang claimed that despite receiving a total of P61,500.00, Atty.
Hidalgo did not attend any of the hearings in the collection cases and, instead, sent
another lawyer without her consent.[7] The other lawyer failed to attend all hearings,
which resulted in the dismissal of the cases.[8] Chang prayed that Atty. Hidalgo be
administratively disciplined by this Court.[9]
On December 12, 2005, Atty. Hidalgo was required to comment on the Complaint in
the Resolution[10]. The Notice of Resolution sent to Atty. Hidalgo in the address
provided by Chang was returned unserved with the notation that Atty. Hidalgo had
moved out from the address.[11]
Chang was then ordered to submit Atty. Hidalgo's correct and present address.
[12]
She filed her Compliance[13] and attached a Certification[14] from the Integrated
Bar of the Philippines stating Atty. Hidalgo's known address. This Court also ordered
the Office of the Bar Confidant to provide Atty. Hidalgo's address "as appearing in
its files[.]"[15]
Still, notices of the Resolution dated December 12, 2005 sent to these addresses
were returned unserved with the notation that the addressee, Atty. Hildalgo, had
already moved out.[16]
Finally, on October 31, 2007, Atty. Hidalgo received the Notice of the Resolution
requiring him to comment.[17] However, he still failed to do so.[18] Thus, in the
Resolution[19] dated June 2, 2008, this Court considered the submission of the
comment as waived and referred the case "to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
for investigation, report[,] and recommendation[.]"[20]
The Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines then set a
Mandatory Conference/Hearing on September 30, 2008. [21] During the mandatory
conference, only Chang appeared.[22] The Investigating Commissioner noted that
the notice for Atty. Hidalgo was returned and not served on him, [23] In the
Order[24]dated September 30, 2008, the Investigating Commissioner directed Atty.
Hidalgo to file his Comment.[25] This Order was received by Atty. Hidalgo.[26]
On November 10, 2008, the Commission on Bar Discipline received a handwritten

and unverified Comment[27] from Atty. Hidalgo.[28] In his Comment, Atty. Hidalgo
admitted that Chang retained him as counsel but countered that he attended the
hearings.[29] He denied allowing another lawyer to appear on his behalf.[30] Although
he denied waiving his appearance fee, he claimed that he did not receive "such a
sum [referring to the acceptance fee] from [Chang] mainly because of the length of
time [that] passed."[31] Atty. Hidalgo insisted that due to the "transigient [sic] and
uncooperative"[32] attitude of Chang, he decided that he "could no longer perform
[his job as Chang's counsel] adequately."[33] He reasoned that he could not put up
an effective defense due to his illness and his impoverished state. [34] He prayed that
the administrative case against him be dismissed.[35]
After receiving the Comment, the Investigating Commissioner noted that it was not
verified, in violation of the Rules of Procedure of the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines.[36] Thus, the Investigating Commissioner did not consider it. [37] Instead,
he set another mandatory conference on January 13, 2009. [38]
This Order was again returned unserved.[39] The notation in the returned Order
stated "RTS [Return To Sender], Refused to Accept[.]"[40] The Investigating
Commissioner set another mandatory conference on February 11, 2009. [41] Chang
appeared, but Atty. Hidalgo again failed to appear.[42]
On August 6, 2010, the Investigating Commissioner found Atty. Hidalgo guilty of
gross misconduct and of violating Canons 17, 18, and 19 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility.[43] Investigating Commissioner Albert R. Sordan
discussed:
While this Commission commiserates with the hard luck story and plight of the
impecunious respondent, the indubitable fact remains that his misconduct runs
afoul with the Code of Professional Responsibility. Further, it is incumbent upon
respondent to meet the issue head-on and overcome the evidence against him. He
must show proof that he still maintains that degree of morality and integrity which
at all times is expected of him. These, respondent has failed miserably to do. The
record is bereft of any evidence to show that respondent has presented any
countervailing evidence to dispute the charges against him. In his unverified and
belated answer, he has not even denied complainant's allegations. He has only
prayed that the complaint be dismissed out of pity for a man of straw.[44]
The dispositive portion of the Investigating Commissioner's Report and
Recommendation[45] reads:
WHEREFORE, premised [sic] considered, respondent Atty. Joel R. Hidalgo has
been found GUILTY of gross misconduct. Accordingly, it is hereby recommended
that he be SUSPENDED for a period of TWO (2) YEARS from the practice of law,
with a STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same or a similar act will be dealt
with more severely.[46] (Emphasis in the original)
On December 14, 2012, the Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines passed the Resolution[47] adopting with modification the Report and
Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner. The Board of Governors
recommended decreasing the penalty to one (1) year suspension from the practice
of law and "[ordering [him] to [r]eturn the amount of Sixty One thousand
(P61,000.00) [sic] Pesos to complainant [Chang] within thirty (30) days from
receipt of notice with legal interest reckoned from the time the demand was
made."[48]
On April 11, 2013, Atty. Hidalgo moved for reconsideration. [49] This time, he
admitted receiving money from Chang as agreed attorney's fees. [50] He reiterated
that he attended the hearings set for the cases.[51] However, he claimed that he filed
a Notice of Withdrawal as Counsel due to Chang's stubbornness and uncooperative
behavior in the handling of the cases.[52] Since he transferred residence, he was not
able to verify if the court granted his Notice of Withdrawal.[53] Nonetheless, Atty.
Hidalgo alleged that he was entitled to the acceptance fees for exerting time and
effort in the preparation of the cases and in the collation of evidence. [54] He
maintained that the return of the fees, as ordered by the Board of Governors of the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines, was not possible because his only means of
income was the Social Security System pension he has been receiving, and even
that was not enough for his health maintenance.[55]
On February 11, 2014, the Board of Governors denied [56] Atty. Hidalgo's Motion for
Reconsideration.
We resolve whether respondent Atty. Jose R. Hidalgo is guilty of gross misconduct
for failing to render legal services despite receipt of payment of legal fees.
In an administrative case against a lawyer, the complainant has the burden of proof
to show by preponderance of evidence that the respondent lawyer was remiss of his
or her duties and has violated the provisions of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.[57]
Here, it is established that respondent was engaged as counsel for complainant to
represent her in various collection cases and that he received P61,500.00 from her
as attorney's fees. Respondent also admitted withdrawing from the cases allegedly
due to complainant's uncooperative demeanor. However, there is no showing that
complainant agreed to the withdrawal, or that respondent filed the proper motion
before the courts where the cases were pending.
During the mandatory conferences before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines,
complainant appeared but respondent did not make any appearance despite
receiving notice.
Respondent failed to present proof that he performed any act in relation to

complainant's collection cases or attended the hearings for the collection cases.
Instead, respondent merely claimed:
Also, respondent [Atty. Hidalgo] devoted substantial time and energy in researching
and preparing the case for trial, and he even attended hearings to that effect. He
exerted his best efforts in collating their evidences [sic] and their defense. However,
the complainant [Helen Chang] would not listen to respondent. Complainant has
other matters and line of defense on her mind because she keeps on insisting they
do things her way. Respondent felt that he could no longer work for the
complainant as [sic]. Left without any recourse, respondent advised the complaint
[sic] to seek the services of another lawyer as he could no longer perform
adequately and this; was done in good faith. And the actuations of the complainant
apparently precipitated the respondent to file the withdrawal as counsel. The
respondent is entitled to the acceptance fees he collected from the complainant, or
at least a portion of it.[58]
The Investigating Commissioner found that respondent failed to refute
complainant's allegations. Thus:
Prescinding from the foregoing, Atty. Hidalgo acknowledged the special retainer he
had with Helen Chang. Atty. Hidalgo failed to debunk claims of Helen Chang that he
failed to perform his bounden duty despite receipt of the sixty-one thousand five
hundred pesos (P61,500.00). Worse, the cases were dismissed summarily.[59]
We find respondent remiss of his duties as complainant's counsel.
Respondent's acts constitute violations of Canon 17 and Canon 18, Rule 18.03 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility, which state:
CANON 17 A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and he shall be
mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him.
CANON 18 A lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence.
....
Rule 18.03 A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his
negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.
In Layos v. Villanueva,[60] this Court reiterated that a "lawyer must constantly keep
in mind that his [or her] actions, omissions, or nonfeasance would be binding upon
his [or her] client."[61]
Due to respondent's withdrawal as complainant's counsel for the cases, he did not
anymore attend any of the hearings, Since the withdrawal was without the
conformity of complainant, new counsel was not engaged. This necessarily resulted
in the summary dismissal of the collection cases as alleged by complainant.
Complainant could have obtained the services of another lawyer to represent her
and handle her cases with the utmost zeal and diligence expected from officers of
the court. However, respondent simply opted to withdraw from the cases without
complying with the requirements under the Rules of Court and in complete
disregard of his obligations towards his client.
Rule 138, Section 26 of the Rules of Court provides, in part:
RULE 138
Attorneys and Admission to Bar
....
SECTION 26. Change of attorneys. An attorney may retire at any time from any
action or special proceeding, by the written consent of his client filed in court. He
may also retire at any time from an action or special proceeding, without the
consent of his client, should the court, on notice to the client and attorney, and on
hearing, determine that he ought to be allowed to retire. In case of substitution,
the name of the attorney newly employed shall be entered on the docket of the
court in place of the former one, and written notice of the change shall be given to
the adverse party.
Respondent admittedly withdrew from the cases but he failed to provide any
evidence to show that complainant, his client, agreed to the withdrawal or, at the
very least, knew about it. The offensive attitude of a client is not an excuse to just
disappear and withdraw from a case without notice to the court and to the client,
especially when attorney's fees have already been paid.
In Ramirez v. Buhayang-Margallo:[62]
The relationship between a lawyer and a client is "imbued with utmost trust and
confidence." Lawyers are expected to exercise the necessary diligence and
competence in managing cases entrusted to them. They commit not only to review
cases or give legal advice, but also to represent their clients to the best of their
ability without need to be reminded by either the client or the court. [63] (Citations
omitted)
Similarly, in Nonato v. Fudolin, Jr.:[64]
A lawyer is bound to protect his client's interests to the best of his ability and with
utmost diligence. He should serve his client in a conscientious, diligent, and efficient
manner; and provide the quality of service at least equal to that which he, himself,
would expect from a competent lawyer in a similar situation. By consenting to be
his client's counsel, a lawyer impliedly represents that he will exercise ordinary
diligence or that reasonable degree of care and skill demanded by his profession,
and his client may reasonably expect him to perform his obligations diligently. The
failure to meet these standards warrants the imposition of disciplinary action.

[65]
(Citations omitted)
We sustain the Integrated Bar of the Philippines' recommended penalty of
suspension from the practice of law for a period of one (1) year.
In several cases, this Court has imposed the penalty of one (1) year suspension
from the practice of law for violation of Canons 17 and 18 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility.[66]
Further, restitution of acceptance fees to complainant is proper. Respondent failed
to present any evidence to show his alleged efforts for the cases. He failed to
attend any of the hearings before the Commission on Bar Discipline. There is no
reason for respondent to retain the professional fees paid by complainant for her
collection cases when there was no showing that respondent performed any act in
furtherance of these cases.[67]
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Jose R. Hidalgo is found guilty of violating Canon
17 and Canon 18, Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. He
isSUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of one (1) year, with warning
that repetition of the same or similar acts will merit a more severe penalty.
Respondent is also ORDERED to return to complainant Helen Chang the amount of
P61,500.00, with interest at 6% per annum from the date of promulgation of this
Resolution until fully paid.
Let a copy of this Resolution be furnished to the Office of the Bar Confidant to be
appended to respondent's personal record as attorney, to the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines, and to the Office of the Court Administrator for dissemination to all
courts throughout the country for their information and guidance.
SO ORDERED.
[1]
Rollo, pp. 1-3.
[2]
Id. at 2-3.
[3]
Id. at 2.
[4]
Id. at 1.
[5]
Id.
[6]
Id. at 2.
[7]
Id.
[8]
Id.
[9]
Id. at 3.
[10]
Id. at 4.
[11]
Id. at 16, Supreme Court Resolution dated November 13, 2006.
[12]
Id.
[13]
Id. at 17.
[14]
Id. at 18.
[15]
Id. at 19, Supreme Court: Resolution dated March 12, 2007.
[16]
[17]
[18]
Id.
[19]
Id.
[20]
Id.
[21]
Id. at 47.
[22]
Id. at 48, Minutes of the Hearing dated September 30, 2008.
[23]
Id. at 49, IBP Commission on Bar Discipline's Order dated September 30, 2008.
[24]
Id. at 49-50.
[25]
Id. at 50.
[26]
Id. at 51, Atty. Jose R. Hidalgo's unverified Comment.
[27]
Id. at 51-53.
[28]
Id. at 55, IBP Commission on Bar Discipline's Order dated December 12, 2008.
[29]
Id. at 51, Atty. Jose R. Hidalgo's unverified Comment.
[30]
Id. at 52.
[31]
Id. at 51.
[32]
Id.
[33]
Id.
[34]
Id. at 52-53.
[35]
Id. at 53.
[36]
Id. at 55, IBP Commission on Bar Discipline's Order dated December 12, 2008.
[37]
Id.
Id. The Order dated December 12, 2008 mistakenly scheduled the mandatory
conference on January 13, 2008 instead of January 13, 2009.
[38]
[39]
Id. at 56, attached envelope.
[40]
Id.
[41]
Id. at 58, IBP Commission on Bar Discipline's Order dated January 13, 2009.
[42]
Id. at 59, Minutes of the Hearing dated February 11, 2009.
[43]
Id. at 66-68, IBP Commission on Bar Discipline's Report and Recommendation.
[44]
Id. at 67-68.
[45]
Id. at 63-69.
[46]
Id. at 68.
[47]
Id. at 62.
[48]
Id.
[49]
Id. at 70-73.
[50]
Id. at 70.
[51]
Id.
[52]
Id. at 70-71.
[53]
Id. at 71.
[54]
Id. at 72.
[55]
Id.
[56]
Id. at 83.
Penilla v. Atty. Alcid, Jr., A.C. No. 9149, September 4, 2013, 705 SCRA 1, 15
[Per J. Villarama, Jr., First Division].
[57]
Rollo, p. 72, Motion for Reconsideration filed before the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines.
[58]
[59]
Id. at 66, IBP Commission on Bar Discipline's Report and Recommendation.
A.C. No. 8085, December 1, 2014

file=/jurisprudence/2014/december2014/8085.pdf> [Per J. Perlas-Bernabe, First
Division].
[60]
[61]
Id. at 4.
A.C. No. 10537, February 3, 2015

file=/jurisprudence/2015/february2015/10537.pdf> [Per J. Leonen, En Banc].
[62]
[63]
Id. at 5.
A.C. No. 10138, June 16, 2015 <http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?

file=/jurispruderice/2015/june2015/10138.pdf> [Per Curiam, En Banc].
[64]
[65]
Id. at 4-5.
See Nebreja v. Reonal, A.C. No. 9896, March 19, 2014, 719 SCRA 385, 394 [Per
J. Mendoza, Third Division]; Dagala v. Quesada, Jr., A.C. No. 5044, December 2,
2013, 711 SCRA 206, 217-218 [Per J. Perlas-Bernabe, Second Division]; Cabauatan
v. Venida, 721 Phil. 733, 739 (2013) [Per J. Del Castillo, Second Division]; Dagohoy
v. San Juan, 710 Phil. 1, 9 (2013) [Per J. Brion, Second Division]; Carandang v.
Obmina, 604 Phil. 13, 23 (2009) [Per J. Carpio, First Division]; Talento v. Paneda,
623 Phil. 662, 672 (2009) [Per J. Leonardo-De Castro, First Division].
[66]
See Emiliano Court Townhouses Homeowners Association v. Atty. Dioneda, 447

Phil. 408, 413-415 (2003) [Per J. Bellosillo, Second Division].
[67]

G.R.
No.
202756
HEIRS OF CORAZON AFABLE SALUD, REPRESENTED BY DEOGRACIAS A. SALUD, NAPOLA Y. SALUD, JOSEPH Y. SALUD,
AND
JOE
VINCENT
Y.
SALUD,
PETITIONERS,
VS.
RURAL
BANK
OF
SALINAS,
INC.
RESPONDENT.
April 06, 2016
SECOND DIVISION
[ G.R. No. 202756, April 06, 2016 ]
HEIRS OF CORAZON AFABLE SALUD, REPRESENTED BY
DEOGRACIAS A. SALUD, NAPOLA Y. SALUD, JOSEPH Y.
SALUD, AND JOE VINCENT Y. SALUD, PETITIONERS, VS.
RURAL BANK OF SALINAS, INC. RESPONDENT.
DECISION
DEL CASTILLO, J.:

This Petition for Review on Certiorari[1] seeks to set aside: 1) the February 23, 2012
Decision[2] of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 90854 which reversed
and set aside the November 15, 2007 Order[3] of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
Cavite City, Branch 16 in Civil Case No. N-7469, and reinstated the RTC's June 8,
2007 Decision;[4] and 2) the CA's July 12, 2012 Resolution[5] denying petitioners'
Motion for Reconsideration.[6]
Factual Antecedents
Corazon Afable Salud (Corazon) was the registered owner of a parcel of land with
building (the Silver Coin Bldg.) in Marseilla Street, Rosario, Cavite (the subject
property), covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. RT-19394 (TCT RT-19394).
[7]
On May 30, 1998 or at the age of 80, she passed away leaving behind as her
heirs her two adopted children, petitioner Deogracias A. Salud (Deogracias) and
Carmencita Salud Condol (Carmencita). Deogracias is married to Napola Y. Salud
(Napola); Joseph Y. Salud (Joseph) and Joe Vincent Y. Salud (Vincent) are their
children.
On January 8,2004, Deogracias, Napola, Joseph and Vincent instituted Civil Case
No. N-7469 against respondent Rural Bank of Salinas, Inc. (RBSI), Carmencita, the
Clerk of Court and Ex-Officio Sheriff of the RTC-Cavite City, and the Cavite Register
of Deeds. In their Complaint[8] for Declaration of Nullity of Deeds of Mortgage,
Special Power of Attorney, Extrajudicial Foreclosure Sale, Certificate of Sale and
Damages, with injunctive relief, they essentially claimed that in 2000, Deogracias
and Napola learned that Carmencita obtained a P2 million loan from RBSI secured
by three Deeds of Mortgage[9] over the subject property executed by Carmencita on
August 20, October 8 and October 31, 1996; that RBSI granted the loan on the
basis of a pro forma bank Special Power of Attorney[10] (August 20 SPA) purportedly
executed and signed by Corazon on August 20, 1996, specifically authorizing
Carmencita to utilize the subject property as security for any loan/s obtained by the
latter from RBSI; that they immediately informed RBSI President and Manager
Teodoro G. Salud (Teodoro) who is their close relative that Corazon never
authorized Carmencita to mortgage the subject property, and that Corazon's
signature on the August 20 SPA was a forgery; that they showed Teodoro another
special power of attorney (SPA) dated August 23, 1996[11] executed by Corazon
which contained her true and genuine signature, and which authorized Deogracias
to 1) specifically collect the rentals from tenants of the Silver Coin Bldg. and
another building, 2) represent Corazon in any transaction with said tenants and the
utility companies, and 3) execute and sign any paper or document relating to the
tenants and utility companies; that in 1990, the subject property was duly
constituted as their family home as inscribed in TCT RT-19394;[12] that for
Carmencita's failure to pay her loan obligation, the subject property was unduly
foreclosed upon and sold to RBSI in 2002; that the foreclosure process was
defective in that a) notice of extrajudicial sale was not given to Corazon, b) the
notice of sale was not posted in a conspicuous place, and c) the certificate of
posting was executed only after the auction sale;[13] that it is evident from the
Promissory Notes[14] executed by Carmencita that the loan she secured from RBSI is
her sole obligation and responsibility, and Corazon did not obtain any benefit or
advantage therefrom; that RBSI is in possession of the certificate of title to the
subject property, and refused to surrender the same despite demand; and that the
defendants were acting with malice and bad faith in committing and perpetrating a
forgery. Petitioners thus prayed that injunctive relief be issued to enjoin RBSI from
consolidating title; that the mortgage deeds, August 20 SPA, and foreclosure and
sale proceedings be nullified and voided; that RBSI be ordered to surrender TCT RT19394 to them; and that P1 million as moral damages, P250,000.00 as exemplary
damages, P300,000.00 as attorney's fees plus appearance fees, P50,000.00 as
litigation expenses, and costs be awarded to them.
In its Answer, RBSI essentially alleged that Carmencita was duly authorized by
Corazon to secure a loan and mortgage the subject property in August 1996; that
the proceeds of the loan was used to repair Corazon's 10-door apartment building
in Makati and to pay for her medical and hospital expenses; and that Corazon's
signature on the questioned August 20 SPA was genuine and true.
On January 8, 2004, or after the filing of the Complaint, a 72-hour Temporary
Restraining Order (TRO) was issued enjoining the Cavite Register of Deeds from
acting on RBSI's application for consolidation of ownership and from canceling TCT
RT-19394, The TRO was extended until January 28, 2004.
After Civil Case No. N-7469 was raffled to Branch 16, the application for injunctive
relief was heard. On January 27, 2004, the RTC issued a Writ of Preliminary
Injunction.
At the pre-trial conference, the parties agreed that the only issue to be resolved in
the case is whether the signature of Corazon appearing on the August 20 SPA was
genuine, and that the August 20 SPA shall be subjected to examination by a
National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) handwriting expert whose finding shall be
binding upon them.[15]
On April 29, 2005, the designated NBI Documents Examiner, Jennifer Dominguez
(Dominguez), issued Questioned Document Report No. 231-405 (NBI report) with
the conclusion that the questioned signature of Corazon on the August 20 SPA and
her standard signatures on sample documents submitted for comparison "were not
written by one and the same person."[16] The NBI report was based on 19 sample
signatures submitted by petitioners, but one of the two that were submitted by
RBSI was disregarded by Dominguez.[17]
During trial, Deogracias admitted that the signature appearing on one of the sample
documents submitted by RBSI tagged as sample "S-D-2" and also marked as
Exhibit "5-A" for RBSI was affixed by Corazon.[18]
Napola testified on the issue of damages and attorney's fees. [19]
For the defense, Teodoro testified among others that Corazon has been a borrower
of RBSI even prior to 1996; that in 1996, he was approached by Corazon and
Carmencita who indicated their desire to apply for another loan with the subject
property as collateral; that Corazon asked him if she can allow Carmencita to be the
borrower so that she would not have to keep going to the bank; that he later
informed Corazon that the RBSI board of directors agreed to approve her loan
application; that one week thereafter or on August 20, 1996, Corazon and
Carmencita returned and filled out a P1 million loan application; that Corazon
signed the August 20 SPA in his presence; that thereafter, he directed the bank's
loan supervisor to process the necessary loan documents and have the same
notarized; that later on, Deogracias approached him on several occasions and
signified his intention to pay the loan but he was unable to do so and instead,
Deogracias filed the instant case; and that RBSI was compelled to hire legal counsel
to prosecute Civil Case No. N-7469.[20]
Arty. Gregorio M. Trias (Arty. Trias), the notary public who notarized the August 20
SPA, testified that on August 20, 1996, Corazon appeared before him to have the
August 20 SPA notarized although when the said document was brought to him the
same was already signed by Corazon; that he knew Corazon because in the past he
notarized documents signed by her; and that when he notarized the August 20 SPA,
he did not inquire whether the signature thereon was Corazon's nor did he ask
whether she understood what the document meant. [21]
Dominguez, the NBI Document Examiner, testified and essentially reiterated her
original finding that there exist significant differences between Corazon's questioned
signature on the August 20 SPA and the standard sample signatures submitted for
comparison, and that her signature on the August 20 SPA and the sample
documents submitted were not written by one and the same person. [22] At the same
time, she also admitted that the signature on RBSI's "S-D-2" or Exhibit "5-A" and
that appearing on the questioned August 20 SPA could have been written by one
and the same person.[23]
On June 8, 2007, the RTC issued its Decision, dismissing the complaint, viz.:
As a general rule, forgery cannot be presumed and must be proved by clear,
positive and convincing evidence. The burden of proof lies on the party alleging
forgery. In the examination of forged documents, the expertise of questioned
documents examiners is not mandatory and while probably useful, they are
indispensable [sic][24] in examining or comparing handwriting. Hence, a finding of
forgery does not depend entirely on the testimony of handwriting experts. x x x
In the instant case, the presumption of validity and regularity prevails over
allegations of forgery and fraud. As against direct evidence consisting of the
testimony of a witness who was physically present at the signing of the contract
and who had personal knowledge thereof, the testimony of Dominguez constitutes
indirect or circumstantial evidence at best. x x x Teodoro Salud, the witness to the
special power of attorney confirmed the genuineness, authenticity and due
execution thereof. Said witness having been physically present to see the decedent
Corazon x x x affix her signature to the questioned document, the weight of
evidence preponderates in favor of defendants.
xxxx
It is emphasized that it was never denied by the plaintiffs that the subject Special
Power of Attorney was in fact notarized by Atty. Gregorio M. Trias, a Notary Public,
and the same was registered in his notarial book. As Atty. Trias had testified,
Corazon Salud appeared before him on August 20, 1996, the date of the special
power of attorney x x x.
xxxx
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant complaint for declaration of nullity of
deeds of mortgage, special power of attorney, extrajudicial foreclosure sale,
certificate of sale and damages is, as it is hereby, ordered DISMISSED. The writ of
preliminary injunction is likewise DISSOLVED.
SO ORDERED.[25]
Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration[26] which was granted by the RTC in its
November 15, 2007 Order. The trial court held that since the parties agreed to
abide by, and submit the case for decision based on, the NBI findings, then the
resolution of this case should hinge on the NBI findings. The RTC recalled that
based on the NBI report, the questioned signature in the August 20 SPA and the
standard/sample signatures of Corazon were not written by one and the same
person. As regards Dominguez's failure to include Exhibit "5" and "S-D-2" in her
examination, the RTC brushed aside the same for being inconsequential.
In addition, the RTC ruled that based on its own examination there were indeed
striking differences in the August 20 SPA signature vis-a-vis Corazon's standard
signatures. Thus, it concluded that Corazon's signature in the August 20 SPA was a
forgery.
Moreover, the RTC ruled as follows:
Since the Court has already found that the SPA is a forged document, it is useless
to further ventilate on the invalidity of the notarization made by Atty. Trias. It must
be stated, nonetheless, that by notarizing this forged document, Atty. Trias
committed falsehood and misled or allowed the Court to be misled by an artifice.
xxxx
Moreover, the Court doubts the impartiality of Atty. Trias. When he notarized the
forged SPA, he was working for defendant bank and was holding office at defendant
bank's premises for more than ten (10) years x x x His testimony is therefore
tainted with manifest bias and partiality. x x x
While Teodoro maintained that the SPA was signed by Corazon in his presence, save
from this bare allegation, however, there is no iota of proof to support his claim. It
has not been shown that he affixed his signature as witness to the execution of the
SPA and no one among the attesting witnesses came forward to corroborate his
claim. Even Carmencita, who was allegedly present when the SPA was signed by
Corazon, failed to appear to substantiate Teodoro's claim. The Court notes that
Carmencita was impleaded as defendant in this case, but she neither filed her
Answer nor came forward to refute plaintiffs' charges. As it were, Teodoro's
testimony should be taken with utmost circumspection. x x x
xxxx
More importantly, the act of requiring Corazon to execute an SPA in favor of
Carmencita for a loan that would be processed and released on the same day defies
reason and common sense. x x x
xxxx
All told, although the special power of attorney was a public document having in its
favor the presumption of regularity, such presumption was adequately refuted by
competent witnesses and this Court's visual analysis of the documents. Due to its
knowledge of the defect of the questioned document which it did not question,
defendant bank could not be considered a mortgagee in good faith. Though it is not
expected to conduct an exhaustive investigation on the history of the mortgagor's
title, it cannot be excused from the duty of exercising the due diligence required of
a banking institution. Banks are expected to exercise more care and prudence than
private individuals in their dealings, even those that involve registered lands, for
their business is affected with public interest.
xxxx
WHEREFORE, as prayed for by plaintiffs, the Decision dated June 8, 2007 is
reconsidered and set aside. x x x
xxxx
SO ORDERED.[27]
In an appeal to the CA, RBSI asserted that the RTC erred in reconsidering its
original Decision; that the trial court disregarded the sample signatures it submitted
(Exhibits "5" and "S-D-2"); that the NBI's Dominguez herself admitted that the
questioned signature and its Exhibits "5" and "S-D-2" could have been written by
one and the same person; and that as a public document and with the testimonies
of Teodoro and Atty. Trias, the August 20 SPA must be presumed to be regular.
On February 23, 2012, the CA issued the assailed Decision finding merit in the
appeal. It held that the opinions of handwriting experts are merely persuasive and
not conclusive hence not binding on the courts.
Based on its own assessment, the CA found that petitioners failed to overcome the
presumption that Corazon's signature in the August 20 SPA was genuine and not
forged. The CA observed that petitioners submitted 19 sample signatures of
Corazon, denominated as "S-1" through "S-19," while the respondent presented
two signatures tagged as "S-D-1" and "S-D-2." However, Dominguez failed to
include in her examination "S-D-2." The CA observed that the RTC failed to take
into account that during her cross-examination, Dominguez admitted that the
signatures appearing on "S-D-2" and the August 20 SPA could be written by one
and the same person. More important, even Deogracias admitted that the signature
on "S-D-2" was Corazon's.
In addition, the CA held that the NBI handwriting expert herself admitted that age
and health conditions could affect one's handwriting. In fact, in her February 21,
1995 letter, Corazon expressed that she had difficulty in writing because she was
suffering from tremors. The CA pointed out that Corazon was 77 years old when
she wrote the letter, or one year before the execution of the questioned August 20
SPA. According to the CA, slight dissimilarities in handwriting are only natural and
not indicative of forgery.

Moreover, the CA declared that the case should not be resolved based solely on the
NBI report. It noted that petitioner's claim of forgery hinged exclusively on the NBI
report whereas RSBI erected its case not only on the sample signatures of Corazon
but also on the testimonies of Teodoro, who testified that Corazon signed the
August 20 SPA in his presence, and of Atty. Trias who claimed that Corazon and
Carmencita appeared before him when he notarized the documents. As a notarized
document, the August 20 SPA is presumed valid and regular; petitioners failed to
submit convincing proof of its falsity or nullity.
Finally, the appellate court took note of Deogracias's admissions that Corazon had
on previous occasion constituted Carmencita as her attorney-in-fact in selling her
property; that Camiencita took care of Corazon during her hospital confinement in
late 1996 until her death in 1998; and that Carmencita paid Corazon's hospital bills
amounting to more than P5 million. The CA concluded that based on the foregoing,
the likelihood that Corazon executed the August 20 SPA in favor of Carmencita, is
not remote.
The dispositive portion of the CA Decision reads as follows:
WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The Order dated November 15, 2007 of the
Regional Trial Court of Cavite City, Branch 16 in Civil Case No. N-7469 is hereby
REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Decision dated June 8, 2007 of the same court is
hereby REINSTATED.
SO ORDERED.[28]
Petitioners moved for reconsideration, but in its July 12, 2012 Resolution, the CA
stood its ground. Hence, the instant Petition.
Issues
Petitioners raise the following issues in this Petition:
22. The Court of Appeals erred in setting aside the pre-trial agreement that the
petitioners and respondent Bank are bound by the result of the NBI's document
examination.
23. The Court of Appeals erred in concluding that petitioners as plaintiffs below
failed to adduce preponderant evidence to prove that the signature on the Special
Power of Attorney purportedly belonging to Corazon Afable Salud was forged.
Particularly:
a. NBI Document Examiner Jennifer Dominguez was not categorical in her finding
that the subject signature was forged, all because it was "possible" that an alleged
standard signature of Corazon Afable Salud (Exhibit "5" or Exhibit "S-D-2") and the
subject signature were written by one and the same person.

b. The NBI Document Examiner did not rule out that several factors could affect an
individual's handwriting.
c. The testimony of respondent Bank's Manager, Teodoro Salud, that he saw
Corazon Afable Salud signing the Special Power of Attorney is a credible direct
evidence of the authenticity of the subject signature.
d. The Special Power of Attorney is a notarized document and is therefore
presumed regular and genuine.
e. Petitioner Deogracias Salud admitted that Corazon Afable Salud appointed in the
past Carmencita Salud Condol as her attorney-in-fact and thus it was not
improbable that she appointed her for this particular transaction.
f. Petitioner Deogracias Salud admitted that Carmencita Salud Condol paid for
Corazon Afable Salud's hospital expenses, the funding for which could not have
been but the proceeds of the transaction involved in this case. [29]
In their Petition and Reply,[30] petitioners seek a reversal of the assailed CA
dispositions and reinstatement of the RTC's November 15,2007 Order, arguing that
RBSI is estopped from questioning or rejecting the NBI report since it agreed during
the pre-trial proceedings to abide by the results of the NBI examination; that RBSI
is bound by such stipulation and agreement made during pre-trial which thus
constitutes a judicial admission of the findings contained in the NBI report.
Petitioners also argue that the NBI report deserves great weight and probative
value; that Dominguez's admission that there is a possibility that Exhibit "5-A" and
the August 20 SPA could have been signed by one and the same person should be
disregarded, because the preponderance of evidence points to the fact that
Carmencita forged Corazon's signature in the August 20 SPA in order to offer the
subject property as collateral, thus insuring that her personal loan application would
be approved; that Deogracias's testimony to the effect that Corazon "got mad"
when she learned that Carmencita forged her signature and mortgaged the subject
property for a personal loan, and that Corazon did not need to secure a loan to pay
off her hospital bills since she had P14 million, and that it was Carmencita who
actually paid for the RBSI loans, cannot simply be ignored.
Petitioners add that it was erroneous for the CA to have considered RBSI's Exhibit
"5-A" or "S-D-2" since Dominguez herself did not utilize the same in her
examination of Corazon's signature as it was already doubtful in the first place; that
even if Deogracias admitted that the signature (RBSI's Exhibit "5-A") was
Corazon's, his opinion does not count as against that of Dominguez's, which is
scientific and more credible; that Teodoro's testimony is doubtful; that it made no
sense that while Corazon's property was being mortgaged, she was not named as
one of the principal debtors; that if Teodoro wanted to spare Corazon the trouble of
having to come to the bank since she was then already old, then he should have
asked her to execute a SPA when she and Carmencita first came to the bank,
instead of asking her to return as she did one week later or on August 20, 1996;
and that the presumption of regularity attached to a notarized document is not
absolute, as such document may be shown to be a forgery instead.
Petitioners further contend that Atty. Trias's testimony is suspect, since he was
negligent in his duties as a notary public in failing to check the veracity of the
entries in the bank documents submitted to him for notarization and in not verifying
Corazon's signature on the August 20 SPA when she appeared before him; that
Atty. Trias's impartiality is questionable considering that he was connected with
RBSI and held office at the bank; and that as against the accounts of Teodoro and
Atty. Trias, Dominguez's is more credible as she is a disinterested witness, while the
two work for RBSI and are interested in securing a favorable judgment for the
bank.
Petitioners add that the circumstances surrounding Carmencita's loan application
are suspicious in that her loan was granted and released in just one day: when
Corazon and Carmencita returned to the bank on August 20, 1996 and submitted
the required documents, the promissory note, real estate mortgage and SPA were
simultaneously executed and notarized, and the loan proceeds were released.
Corazon was not made a co-debtor and the proceeds were released to Carmencita
instead of Corazon who is supposedly the beneficiary of the loan.
Finally, petitioners observed that since the CA did not make its own independent
assessment of the signatures in question, it was not in a position to reverse the
RTC's findings thereon.
On the other hand, respondent argues in its Comment[31] that while it was agreed
during pre-trial that the parties shall abide by the findings of the NBI, still, forgery
cannot be presumed, and it must be proved by clear and convincing evidence
during trial; that the opinions of handwriting experts are not binding upon the
courts since they are not conclusive and are merely persuasive; that the CA
correctly relied on Exhibit "5-A"/"S-D-2" which is genuine and authentic as it was
confirmed by Deogracias himself to be Corazon's signature; that the NBI report
cannot be relied upon completely in view of the fact that the signature (Exhibit "5A") in one of the sample documents (Exhibit "5") was intentionally disregarded, and
yet Dominguez later testified and admitted that the signature thereon and that on
the questioned August 20 SPA could have been affixed by one and the same
person; that the NBI report was defective in that it utilized an erroneous
methodology since Dominguez disregarded the sample signatures submitted by
RBSI; and that if Dominguez did not disregard Exhibit "5-A"/"S-D-2," the conclusion
in the NBI report would have been different; instead, the only and inevitable
conclusion would have been that the questioned signature of Corazon in the August
20 SPA is genuine and not a forgery.
Respondent adds that in arriving at its conclusions, the CA carefully considered: a)
the applicable provisions of law; b) the inaccurate, inconclusive and unreliable
findings of the NBI; c) the apparent conflict between the conclusion in the NBI
report and Dominguez's admission on the witness stand; and d) that petitioners'
evidence failed to defeat the August 20 SPA, a notarized public document which
enjoys the presumption of regularity. It further contends that the issue of Corazon's
signature may not be the subject of stipulation and instead, the parties should be
allowed to test the NBI report and Dominguez's competence.
Consequently, respondent prays for the denial of the instant Petition and affirmance
of the assailed CA dispositions.
Our Ruling
The Court denies the Petition.
Considering that the trial and appellate courts rendered diametrically opposed
opinions, the Court must examine the case at length.
Pursuant to Section 22, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court, "[t]he handwriting of a
person may be proved by any witness who believes it to be the handwriting of such
person because he has seen the person write, or has seen writing purporting to
be his upon which the witness has acted or been charged, and has thus acquired
knowledge of the handwriting of such person. Evidence respecting the handwriting
may also be given by a comparison, made by the witness or the court, with writings
admitted or treated as genuine by the party against whom the evidence is offered,
or proved to be genuine to the satisfaction of the judge." [32]
Under the Rules of Court, the genuineness of a handwriting may be proved by the
following:
(1) A witness who actually saw the person writing the instrument;
(2) A witness familiar with such handwriting and who can give his opinion thereon,
such opinion being an exception to the opinion rule;
(3) A comparison by the court of the questioned handwriting and admitted genuine
specimen thereof; and
(4) Expert evidence.
The law makes no preference, much less distinction among and between the
different means stated above in proving the handwriting of a person. It is likewise
clear from the foregoing that courts are not bound to give probative value or
evidentiary value to the opinions of handwriting experts, as resort to handwriting
experts is not mandatory.[33]
While RBSI may have agreed to abide by the conclusions in the NBI report relative
to Corazon's signature, the courts may not be compelled to adopt such findings.
Besides, RBSI's evidence does not depend upon the NBI report and Dominguez's
testimony; expert testimony is irrelevant to RBSI in view of positive testimony from
its witnesses to the effect that Corazon appeared before them and signed the
questioned August 20 SPA. Besides, the questioned August 20 SPA is a notarized
document. Only petitioners are entirely dependent on the NBI report and
Dominguez's testimony, since they have no other way of proving that Corazon did
not sign the questioned SPA.
Essentially, petitioners' evidence relative to Corazon's handwriting consists of: a)
Deogracias' testimony to the effect that Corazon "got mad" when she learned that
Carmencita forged her signature, that Corazon did not need to secure a loan to pay
off her hospital bills since she had P14 million, and that it was Carmencita who
actually paid for the RBSI loan; b) the NBI report which concludes that the
questioned signature of Corazon on the August 20 SPA and her standard signatures
on sample documents submitted for comparison "were not written by one and the
same person"; and c) Dominguez's testimony.
For respondent, evidence consists primarily of the testimonies of Teodoro and Atty.
Trias.
After due consideration of the evidence, this Court finds that on August 20, 1996,
Corazon was present at the RBSI premises with Carmencita who applied for a loan.
It is also established that prior to the transaction in question, Corazon has been a
borrower of RBSI and was not a stranger to the bank and its loan arrangements;
and annotations on TCT RT-19394 reveal that the subject property was mortgaged
twice in 1992 and 1993 to secure loans obtained by her from RBSI. [34] It likewise
appears that one week prior to August 20, 1996 Corazon and Carmencita met with
Teodoro to explore the possibility of Corazon taking out another loan which thus
prompted Teodoro to seek prior approval from the bank's board of directors. Since
Corazon was not a first-time borrower or client of the bank, Teodoro who is also a
close relative of the family as admitted by Deogracias himself in his Complaint was
able to secure prior board approval of a credit accommodation for her, such that
when Corazon and Carmencita returned to the RBSI on August 20, 1996, the bank
was able to complete all the loan documentation and release the proceeds that
same day. During the documentation process, Corazon executed and signed the
questioned August 20 SPA in Teodoro's presence. Thereafter, the said document and
other loan documents were submitted to Atty. Trias for notarization. Corazon
appeared before Atty. Trias who then notarized the August 20 SPA and other loan
documents without inquiring whether the signature affixed on the SPA was hers
indeed or that the said document was her free act and deed, although he knew her
very well as he has dealt with her in the past when he notarized the loan,
mortgage, and mortgage: cancellation documents relative to the two previous loan
and mortgage transactions executed by Corazon in 1992 and 1993. [35]
There is no reason to doubt the testimonies of Teodoro and Atty. Trias. They are
straightforward, candid, and in some respects, they are supported by admissions
made by petitioners themselves. Notable is the undisputed fact and fundamental
premise that Corazon was physically present at RBSI on August 20, 1996, when the
questioned August 20 SPA was purportedly executed. Since she was at the bank
premises on said date, there is no reason to doubt RBSI's claim that she executed
and signed the August 20 SPA and in Teodoro's presence, and that thereafter the
said document was notarized by Atty. Trias in the presence of Corazon; there was
no need for Carmencita to forge her signature because Corazon was already there.
It is more in accord with experience and logic to conclude that since Corazon was
already inside the bank, then she voluntarily executed and signed the August 20
SPA in Teodoro and Carmencita's presence; any supposition that Carmencita had to
forge her signature on such document becomes unnecessary and absurd.
As petitioners themselves claim in their Complaint, Teodoro is a close relative; as
such, he is more inclined toward telling the truth rather than fabricate lies to
prejudice petitioners. His loyalty is foremost to his family and to his employer or
business merely secondary. Either way, his actions on August 20, 1996 betray his
fidelity to his clients who are also his relatives and to RBSI his employer. It may be
added that contrary to petitioners' assertions, there is nothing unusual in the
procedure taken by the bank in approving and releasing the loan posthaste. Quite
the contrary, from a business point of view, Teodoro's actions in performing service
to a valued client with alacrity were laudable; at the same time he created good
business for RBSI at record speed. As Corazon was a valued client and with her
valuable property put up as sufficient collateral, there is no reason to delay
Carmencita's loan application.
For his part, Atty. Trias was equally candid in his testimony. Against his own
interest, he admitted that he failed to inquire if the signature appearing on the
August 20 SPA was Corazon's but that this was so because he already knew
Corazon very well for having dealt with her in the past. Indeed, what matters is
that the party who executed these documents appeared before him and that the
person acknowledging the instrument or document is known to him and that he/she
is the same person who executed it and acknowledged that the same is his/her free
act and deed. Thus, while Atty. Trias did not verify Corazon's identity and signature,
he already knew her well as he had dealt with her in the past; and from an
examination of the loan documents, he would have known that the party involved
therein was Corazon who was then present in person before him. Indeed, Corazon
was a valued RBSI client who was well-known by the bank officers and staff. The
fact that she is a prominent businessperson and individual in the community; that
Teodoro was her close relative; and that her million-peso loan was pre-approved by
the RBSI board even before she could submit a loan application betray her stature
as such.
Apart from being candid and credible, it may be said as well that Atty. Trias has no
reason to fabricate his testimony in order to favor RBSI or Corazon. The little
benefit he may obtain from doing so is not enough for him to gamble his vocation
as a lawyer. His testimony forms part of a credible chain that extends to Teodoro's
convincing account of Corazon's whereabouts and actions on August 20, 1996.
Thus, while Atty. Trias was remiss in his duties as a notary, this does not affect the
Court's conclusion; the preponderance of evidence still points toward the direction
of RBSI. Atty. Trias should be reminded, however, not to repeat the same mistake,
or else the corresponding sanctions shall be meted upon him. Indeed, care should
be taken by notaries in the notarization process because at the extreme, "[a]
defective notarization will strip the document of its public character and reduce it to
a private instrument. Consequently, when there is a defect in the notarization of a
document, the clear and convincing evidentiary standard normally attached to a
duly-notarized document is dispensed with, and the measure to test the validity of
such document is preponderance of evidence." [36]
Petitioners argue that it was more in keeping with logic and common sense that
Corazon should have made herself a co-maker in the loan transaction. They cite in
the instant Petition that the "Special Power of Attorney was unnecessary in the
perfection and consummation of the (loan) transaction because all it took for
respondent Bank to release the loan proceeds was just a day from the time the loan
was applied for and allegedly Corazon x x x was in the Bank's premises when the
entire transaction, from start to finish, was being done." [37] The opposite, however,
is true. Since Corazon permitted the subject property to be put up as collateral
through a special power of attorney issued to Carmencita, there was no need to
make her a co-maker of the loan. Petitioners concede that Teodoro wanted to spare
Corazon the trouble of having to personally appear at the bank each time a loan is
applied for and processed, since she was then already old. [38] If this is the case,
then making her a co-maker of the loan defeats the declared purpose.
Also, the fact that Carmencita was the sole beneficiary of the loan suggests
nothing. Three days after the August 20 SPA was executed and loan proceeds were
released to Carmencita, or on August 23, 1996, Deogracias was himself granted a
SPA by Corazon authorizing him to collect the rentals due from tenants of the Silver
Coin Bldg. and another building that his mother owned. If there is anything that
may be seen from these circumstances, it is that Corazon loved her adopted
children dearly and gave to them generously. Besides, the fact that Deogracias
himself was issued a SPA by Corazon lends credence to the fact that Carmencita
was herself granted one just three days before.
While Deogracias testified that Corazon "got mad" when she learned that
Carmencita forged her signature, that Corazon did not need to secure a loan to pay
off her hospital bills since she had 514 million, and that it was Carmencita who
actually paid for the RBSI loan, his testimony cannot thwart the accounts of
Teodoro and Atty. Trias. Their testimonies are credible while that of Deogracias is
uncorroborated and self-serving. The fact remains that Corazon freely and
voluntarily accompanied Carmencita to RBSI with the intention of assisting the
latter in securing a loan by offering her property as collateral. The motive for
securing the loan is irrelevant.
As for the NBI report and Dominguez's testimony, the Court agrees with the CA's
pronouncement that with Dominguez's admission during cross-examination that the
questioned signature on the August 20 SPA and Exhibit "5-A"/"S-D-2" could have
been written by one and the same person, and that with the changing
circumstances such as age and health of the individual whose signature is placed in
issue, the handwriting or signature could change, but that such change does not
necessarily equate with forgery. With these findings, the NBI report is consequently
rendered inconclusive and thus unreliable. Resultantly as well, petitioners' main
piece of evidence has been debunked and discredited; their cause of action has no
leg to stand on. Even then, "[t]he opinion of handwriting experts are not
necessarily binding upon the court, the expert's function being to place before the
court data upon which the court can form its own opinion." [39]
Finally, since the Court has found that Corazon was then physically present at RBSI
on August 20, 1996, where she voluntarily executed and signed the August 20 SPA
in favor of Carmencita and in the presence of the bank's President and Manager,
and thereafter she personally caused the same to be notarized before the bank's
notary public, then there is no need to further examine and analyze her signature.
The issue of the CA's failure to conduct its own independent examination of
Corazon's questioned signature is rendered moot and academic.
WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED. The February 23, 2012 Decision and July
12, 2012 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 90854
are AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
[1]
Rollo, pp. 10-49.
Id. at 51-64; penned by Associate Justice Jose C. Reyes, Jr. and concurred in by
Associate Justices Priscilla J. Baltazar-Padilla and Agnes Reyes-Carpio.
[2]
[3]
Id. at 142-166; penned by Judge Manuel A. Mayo.
[4]
Id. at 112-128.
[5]
Id. at 66.
[6]
Id. at 167-190.
[7]
Id. at 87-91.
[8]
Id. at 73-85.
[9]
Id. at 95-100.
[10]
Id. at 101.
[11]
Id. at 102.
[12]
Id. at 90.
[13]
Id. at 103-111.
[14]
Id. at 93-94.
[15]
Id. at 54; 204-208, April 5, 2004 Pre-Trial Order in Civil Case No. N-7469.
[16]
Id. at 56; 121; 150; 210.
[17]
Id. at 32-33; 59; 218-220; 274; 277.
[18]
Id. at 60; 273-274.
[19]
Id. at 117-118; 122-124.
[20]
Id. at 118-119; 226-228.
[21]
Id. at 37; 119-120; 126; 229-231.
[22]
Id. at 209-223.
[23]
Id. at 59-60; 275-276.
[24]
Should be "not indispensable."
[25]
Rollo, pp. 125-128.
[26]
Id. at 129-141.
[27]
Id. at 158-166.
[28]
Id. at 64.
[29]
Id. at 23-24.
[30]
Id. at 303-316.
[31]
Id. at 269-290.
[32]
Emphasis supplied.
[33]
Domingo v. Domingo, 495 Phil. 213, 219-220 (2005).
[34]
Rollo, pp. 89-90.
[35]
Id.
Meneses v. Venturozo, 675 Phil. 641, 652 (2011), citing Fuentes v. Roca, 633
Phil. 9 (2010), and Dela Rama v. Papa, 597 Phil. 227 (2009).
[36]
[37]
Rollo, p. 21.
[38]
Id. at 35.
[39]
Gepulle-Garbo v. Garabato, G.R. No. 200013, January 14, 2015.

G.R.
Nos.
210220-21
EDWARD THOMAS F. JOSON, PETITIONER, VS. THE OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, GOV. AURELIO M. UMALI,
ALEJANDRO R. ABESAMIS, EDILBERTO M. PANCHO, MA. CHRISTINA G. ROXAS, AND FERDINAND R. ABESAMIS,
RESPONDENTS.
April 06, 2016
SECOND DIVISION
[ G.R. Nos. 210220-21, April 06, 2016 ]
EDWARD THOMAS F. JOSON, PETITIONER, VS. THE OFFICE
OF THE OMBUDSMAN, GOV. AURELIO M. UMALI, ALEJANDRO
R. ABESAMIS, EDILBERTO M. PANCHO, MA. CHRISTINA G.
ROXAS, AND FERDINAND R. ABESAMIS, RESPONDENTS.
DECISION
MENDOZA, J.:
Before the Court is a petition for certiorari seeking to reverse and set aside the
September 8, 2011 Joint Resolution[1] and the September- 23, 2013 Joint Order[2] of
the Office of the Ombudsman (Ombudsman) in OMB-L-C-08-0315-D and OMB-L-A08-0245-D, dismissing the criminal and administrative complaints against the
respondents.
The Antecedents
Petitioner Edward Thomas F. Joson (Joson) filed his Affidavit-Complaint,[3] dated
April 21, 2008, before the Ombudsman charging the respondents - Governor
Aurelio M. Umali (Governor Umali), Provincial Administrator Atty. Alejandro R.
Abesamis (Alejandro), Consultant Atty. Ferdinand R. Abesamis (Ferdinand),
Provincial Treasurer Edilberto M. Pancho (Pancho), and Officer-in Charge Ma.
Cristina G. Roxas (Roxas) of the Office of the Provincial Accountant, all of the
Province of Nueva Ecija, with the criminal offenses of Violation of Section 3(e) of
Republic Act (R.A.) No. 3019, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt
Practices Act, and Unlawful Appointment, defined and penalized under Article 244 of
the Revised Penal Code (RPC), docketed as OMB-L-C-08-0315-D, and offense of
Grave Misconduct, docketed as OMB-L-A-08-0245-D.
The filing of the above charges stemmed from the alleged appointment of Ferdinand
as Consultant-Technical Assistant in the Office of the Governor of Nueva Ecija.
In his affidavit-complaint, Joson alleged that on July 2, 2007, the Province of Nueva
Ecija, represented by Governor Umali, entered into a contract of consultancy with
Ferdinand wherein the latter was appointed or employed as Consultant-Technical
Assistant in the Office of the Governor. On February 28, 2008, Governor Umali and
Ferdinand entered into another contract of consultancy on February 28, 2008,
wherein the former, representing the Provincial Government of Nueva Ecija, again
appointed or re-employed the latter in the same position. Joson asserted that
Governor Umali appointed Ferdinand despite his knowledge of the latter's
disqualification for appointment or re-employment in any government position. He
claimed that Ferdinand was dismissed from the service as Senior State Prosecutor
of the Department of Justice for "conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the
service" pursuant to Administrative Order (A.O.) No. 14, dated August 27, 1998;
and that such penalty of dismissal carried with it his perpetual disqualification for
re-employment in the government service. According to Joson, because Ferdinand
was meted out the penalty of dismissal from service with all accessory penalties
attached to it and that he was never granted any executive clemency, his
appointment as legal consultant was unlawful, illegal and invalid being in violation
of the Administrative Code of 1987 and the Civil Service Law, Rules and
Regulations. Joson added that for the same reason as above, the twin contracts of
consultancy were likewise invalid and unlawful.
Joson further averred that the execution of the contract of consultancy, dated
February 28, 2008, was legally defective because its effectivity was made to
retroact to January 2, 2008 in violation of the rule that "[i]n no case shall an
appointment take effect earlier than the date of its issuance."[4] He argued that
because no consultancy contract existed from January 2, 2008 to February 28,

2008, Ferdinand should not have been paid any honorarium for his alleged services
rendered during the said period. With respect to the rest of the respondents, Joson
asserted that they should be held liable for the above charges considering that they
processed the payment of honoraria to Ferdinand arising out of the illegal and
invalid contracts of consultancy.
Joson also contended that the appointment of Ferdinand as consultant by Governor
Umali in spite of being disqualified to hold public office, and the payment of his
monthly honorarium from the coffers of the provincial government by the other
respondents, were done with manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross
inexcusable negligence, giving unwarranted benefit to Ferdinand and causing great
and irreparable damage and prejudice to the taxpayers of the Province of Nueva
Ecija. In view of this, Joson submitted that the private respondents should be made
liable for violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019. Joson added that Governor
Umali should also be held liable for violation of Article 244 of the RPC for knowingly
extending appointments to Ferdinand as legal consultant regardless of the latter's
lack of legal qualification to the said position. Lastly, Joson asserted that Governor
Umali's act of illegally and unlawfully hiring the services of Ferdinand could be
reasonably viewed as gross misconduct in office because such act involved the
transgression of some established and definite rules.
In his Counter-Affidavit,[5] Governor Umali responded that, the legal arguments
advanced by Joson in his affidavit-complaint were fatally defective and had no basis
in fact and in law. He averred that the consultancy services rendered by Ferdinand
could not be considered as government service within the contemplation of law and,
hence, not governed by the Civil Service Law, Rules and Regulations. He pointed
out that under the twin contracts of consultancy, Ferdinand had been engaged to
render Jump sum consultancy services for a short duration of six (6) months on a
daily basis and had not been paid any salary or given any benefits enjoyed by
government employees such as PERA, COLA and RATA, but merely paid honoraria
as stipulated in the contracts.
Governor Umali argued that if Ferdinand was indeed appointed or re-employed by
the provincial government, as erroneously perceived by Joson, then there would, be
no need for him to execute the second consultancy contract which was merely a
renewal of his previous contract of July 2, 2007. He submitted that the consultancy
contracts were mere agreements to render service and could not in themselves
create public office to which the Revised Omnibus Rules on Appointments and other
Personnel Actions would apply. To bolster his claim, Governor Umali cited the
Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG) Opinion No. 72 series of
2004, dated August 23, 2004[6] and DILG Opinion No. 100 series of 2004, dated
October 14, 2004,[7] wherein then DILG Secretary Angelo T. Reyes opined that a
consultancy service was not covered by the phrase "any office in the government."
Governor Umali alleged that he could not be adjudged guilty of gross misconduct
because prior to his signing of the subject consultancy contracts, he sought the
legal opinion[8] of the Provincial Legal Office which assured him that there was no
legal impediment in engaging the services of Ferdinand. He merely relied in good
faith on its advice, which he presumed to be in accordance with law and existing
jurisprudence.
Governor Umali averred that the true and actual date of the execution of the second
consultancy contract was January 2, 2008 as clearly shown by the effectivity of the
engagement of Ferdinand stated in paragraph 1 thereof. The said contract was a
renewal of the earlier contract, dated July 2, 2007, which expired on December 31,
2007. He explained that the date of execution of the second contract was
inadvertently left blank and the secretary of the notary public, Mary Grace Cauzon,
mistakenly stamped the date of the notarial act, February 28, 2008, on the said
blank space on the first page of the contract supposedly pertaining to its date of
execution.
Ferdinand, on the other hand, posited in his Counter-Affidavit, [9] dated June 16,
2008, that although his dismissal from government service was not yet final as his
motion for reconsideration had not yet been resolved by the Office of the President
at the time of his appointment, there was no way that his service contract with the
Provincial Government of Nueva Ecija could be construed as to create a public
office. He alleged that his engagements squarely fell within the ambit of contracts
of service/job orders under Section 2(a), Rule XI of the Civil Service Commission
Circular No. 40 series of 1998. He insisted that he was not a government employee
and the specifics of his contracts were governed by the Commission on Audit
(COA). He adopted Governor Umali's explanation anent the true date of execution
of the second consultancy contract.
In their Joint Counter-Affidavit,[10] Alejandro, Pancho and Roxas stressed that they
committed no infraction of the law in affixing their respective signatures in the
obligation requests and disbursement vouchers which authorized the payment of
honoraria in favor of Ferdinand for the consultancy services he rendered. They
explained that the signing of the obligation requests and disbursement vouchers
were done in the ordinary course of business and in the normal processing of the
said documents. They added that the charges against them were premature
considering that the payment of honoraria to Ferdinand had not yet been subjected
to post audit by the COA which had the sole authority and jurisdiction to suspend or
disallow disbursements of public funds.
On July 17, 2008, Joson filed his Reply-Affidavit [11] in amplification of his
contentions and arguments in his affidavit-complaint. He further argued that by
entering in the subject consultancy contracts, Ferdinand became a government

employee and a public officer because he was holding a non-career service position
in accordance with Section 9, Chapter 2, Title I, Book V of Executive Order (E.O.)
No. 292 (the Administrative Code of 1987).
The Ruling of the Ombudsman
On September 8, 2011, the Office of the Ombudsman issued a joint resolution
dismissing the criminal and administrative-complaints against all the respondents.
The Ombudsman disposed of the case as follows:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully recommended that:
1. The criminal charges for Violation of Section 3(e) of the Anti-Graft and
Corrupt Practices Act and for Unlawful Appointments against respondents
Aurelio M. Umali, Alejandro R. Abesamis, Ferdinand R. Abesamis, Edilberto
Pancho and Ma. Cristina G. Roxas be DISMISSED for lack of sufficient
evidence; and
2. The administrative charges for Grave Misconduct against respondents Aurelio
M. Umali, Alejandro R. Abesamis, Ferdinand R. Abesamis, Edilberto Pancho
and Ma. Cristina G. Roxas be DISMISSED for lack of merit.
SO RESOLVED.[12]
Joson moved for reconsideration of the joint resolution, but his motion was denied
by the Ombudsman in its September 23, 2013 Joint Order. It decreed:
WHEREFORE, the Motion for Reconsideration is hereby DENIED. The JOINT
RESOLUTION dated September 8, 2011 DISMISSING OMB-L-C-O8-O315-D and
OMB-L-A-O8-O245-D STANDS.
SO ORDERED.[13]
Undaunted, Joson comes to this Court via a certiorari petition ascribing grave abuse
of discretion on the part of the Ombudsman in dismissing the criminal charges for
lack of probable cause and the administrative charges for lack of merit. Joson raised
the following
ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS
I.
THE OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF

DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION
WHEN IT DISMISSED THE CHARGES AGAINST THE RESPONDENTS.
II.
THE OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF

DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION
WHEN IT DENIED THE PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION.[14]
The Court's Ruling
The petition is devoid of merit.
The Court agrees with the findings of the Ombudsman that there was no sufficient
evidence to indict the respondents for the crimes of violation of Section 3(e) of R.A.
No. 3019 and unlawful appointment; and that the charge of grave misconduct was
not established by substantial evidence.
The Ombudsman is endowed with wide latitude, in the exercise of its investigatory
and prosecutory powers, to pass upon criminal complaints involving public officials
and employees. Specifically, the determination of whether probable cause exists or
not is a function that belongs to the Ombudsman. In other words, the Ombudsman
has the discretion to determine whether a criminal case, given its attendant facts
and circumstances, should be filed or not.[15]
In the present petition, the Court does not perceive any showing of manifest error
or grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Ombudsman when it issued the
assailed Joint Resolution, dated September 8, 2011 and Joint Order, dated
September 23, 2013 which dismissed the criminal complaint against the private
respondents for violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 and Unlawful
Appointment for want of sufficient evidence.
To begin with, a finding of probable cause needs only to rest on evidence showing
that more likely than not a crime has been committed and that there is enough
reason to believe that it was committed by the accused. It need not be based on
clear and convincing evidence of guilt, or on evidence establishing absolute
certainty of guilt. The case of Vergara v. The Hon. Ombudsman [16] is instructive on
this score:
Probable cause is defined as the existence of such facts and circumstances as would
excite the belief in a reasonable mind, acting on the facts within the knowledge of
the prosecutor, that the person charged was guilty of the crime for which he was
prosecuted. Probable cause need not be based on clear and convincing evidence of
guilt, or on evidence establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and definitely not
on evidence establishing absolute certainty of guilt, but it certainly demands more
than bare suspicion and can never be left to presupposition, conjecture, or even
convincing logic.[17]
In this case, the allegations and evidence presented by the petitioners failed to
prove that the Ombudsman acted in such a capricious and whimsical exercise of
judgment in determining the non-existence of probable cause against the private
respondents. The Ombudsman dismissed the petitioner's complaint for lack of

probable cause based on its appreciation and review of the evidence presented. In
the Joint Resolution, dated September 8, 2011, the Ombudsman stated that
Ferdinand was not appointed to a public office through the contracts of consultancy
because of the following factors:
1. The rights, authority and duties of Ferdinand arose from contract, not law;
2. Ferdinand was not vested with a portion of the sovereign authority;
3. The consultancy contracts were for a limited duration, as the same were valid
for only six (6) months each and could be terminated by a mere written
notice given five (5) days prior;
4. Ferdinand did not enjoy the benefits given to government employees such as
PERA, COLA and RATA, but only received honoraria for consultancy services
actually rendered; and
5. The Revised Omnibus Rules on Appointments and other Personnel Actions
recognize that service contracts like the subject twin contracts of consultancy
were not considered government service.
The Ombudsman concluded that there could be no legal basis to support a finding
that Governor Umali violated Article 244 of the RPC considering that Ferdinand was
not appointed to a government office; and that, there could be no finding that the
respondents violated R.A. No. 3019 considering that the alleged irregularity in the
engagements of Ferdinand was not shown by substantial evidence.
In Posadas v. Sandiganbayan,[18] the Court stated that a consultancy service is not
considered government service.
Pursuant to CSC Resolution No. 93-1881 dated May 25, 1993, a contract for
consultancy services is not covered by Civil Service Law, rules and
regulations because the said position is not found in the index of position
titles approved by DBM. Accordingly, it does not need the approval of the CSC.
xxx A "consultant" is defined as one who provides professional advice on matters
within the field of his specific knowledge or training. There is no employeremployee relationship in the engagement of a consultant but that of clientprofessional relationship.[19]
[Emphases Supplied]
The Court notes that Ferdinand did not take an oath of office prior to his rendition
of consultancy services for the Provincial Government of Nueva Ecija. All public
officers and employees from the highest to the lowest rank are required to take an
oath of office which marks their assumption to duty. It is well-settled that on oath
of office is a qualifying requirement for public office, a prerequisite to the full
investiture of the office.[20] Ferdinand was not required to take an oath of office
because he rendered consultancy services for the provincial government not by
virtue of an appointment or election to a specific public office or position but by a
contractual engagement. In fine, those who have rendered services with the
government, without occupying a public office or without having been elected or
appointed as a public officer evidenced by a written appointment and recorded with
the Civil Service Commission, did so outside the concept of government service.
Although in its September 23, 2013 Joint Order, the Ombudsman stated that the
engagement of Ferdinand as consultant "comes within the purview of the term
'public office' and therefore, his dismissal from the service disqualifies him from
being hired as such xxx,"[21] it opined, and so held, that the. private respondents
could not be held criminally liable for violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019
because the two elements of the offense are wanting. According to the
Ombudsman, there was no undue injury amounting to actual damages to the
government as it was riot disputed that Ferdinand performed the tasks and duties
required of him under the questioned contracts and, thus, the payment of honoraria
to him was in order and did not cause damage to or result in prejudice to the
provincial government. The Ombudsman was also of the opinion that the private
respondents did not act with manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross
inexcusable negligence in entering into the consultancy contracts with Ferdinand
because Governor Umali relied on the issuances of the Civil Service Commission
and the opinions of the DILG and the Provincial Legal Office in good faith before
proceeding to engage Ferdinand.
Moreover, the Ombudsman stated that Governor Umali could not be held liable for
violation of Article 244 of the RPC for unlawful appointment explaining in this wise:
Umali believed in good faith that Ferdinand's dismissal from the service did not
disqualify him from being hired as a consultant, hence, Art. 244 cannot apply since
to commit the crime, one must knowingly appoint the disqualified person. The term
"knowingly" presupposes that the public officer knows of the disqualification and
despite such, he appointed said person.[22]
Verily, the foregoing sufficiently shows that the Ombudsman did not commit grave
abuse of discretion in dismissing the criminal charges against the private
respondents. As defined by this Court in United Coconut Planters Bank v. Looyuko:
[23]
By grave abuse of discretion is meant such capricious and whimsical exercise of

judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. The abuse of discretion must be
grave as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason
of passion or personal hostility, and must be so patent and gross as to amount to
an evasion of a positive duty or.to a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined or
to act at all in contemplation of law.[24]
It falls upon the petitioner to discharge the burden of proving there was grave
abuse of discretion on the part of the Ombudsman, in accordance with the definition
and standards set by law and jurisprudence. "Not every error in the proceedings, or
every erroneous conclusion of law or fact, constitutes grave abuse of discretion.
While the prosecutor, or in this case, the investigating officers of the Office of the
Ombudsman, may err or even abuse the discretion lodged in them by law, such
error or abuse alone does not render their act amenable to correction and
annulment by the extraordinary remedy of certiorari."[25] The requirement for
judicial intrusion is still for the petitioner to show clearly that the Ombudsman
committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
Joson, in this case, failed to do so. On the contrary, the record reveals that the
Ombudsman carefully perused and studied the documents and meticulously
weighed the evidence submitted by the parties before issuing the assailed joint
resolution and joint order which strongly negated any averment that they were
issued capriciously, whimsically, arbitrarily, or in a despotic manner.
Moreover, a finding of probable cause, or lack of it, is a finding of fact which is
generally not reviewable by this Court. Only when there is a clear case of grave
abuse of discretion will this Court interfere with the findings of the Office of the
Ombudsman. As a general rule, the Court does not interfere with the Ombudsman's
determination of the existence or absence of probable cause. As the Court is not a
trier of facts, it reposes immense respect to the factual determination and
appreciation made by the Ombudsman. The rationale behind this rule is explained
in Republic v. Desierto,[26] in this wise:
The rule is based not only upon respect for the investigatory and prosecutory
powers granted by the Constitution to the Office of the Ombudsman but upon
practicality as well. Otherwise, the functions of the courts will be grievously
hampered by innumerable petitions assailing the dismissal of investigatory
proceedings conducted by the Office of the Ombudsman with regard to complaints
filed before it, in much the same way that the courts would be extremely swamped
if they could be compelled to review the exercise of discretion on the part of the
fiscals or prosecuting attorneys each time they decide to file an information in court
or dismiss a complaint by a private complainant.[27]
It is readily.apparent from Joson's assertion in the petition that he was questioning
the correctness of the appreciation of facts by the Ombudsman. He presented an
issue which touched on the factual findings of the Ombudsman. Such issue is not
reviewable by this Court via certiorari.[28]
With respect to the dismissal of the administrative charge for gross misconduct, the
Court finds that the same has already attained finality because Joson failed to file a
petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals (CA).
The assailed ruling of the Ombudsman absolving the private respondents of the
administrative charge possesses the character of finality and, thus, not subject to
appeal. Section 7, Rule III of the Ombudsman Rules provides:
SECTION 7. Finality of decision. - Where the respondent is absolved of the
charge, and in case of conviction where the penalty imposed is public censure or
reprimand, suspension of not more than one month, or a fine equivalent to one
menth salary, the decision shall be final and unappealable. In all other cases, the
decision shall become final after the expiration of ten (10) days from receipt thereof
by the respondent, unless a motion for reconsideration or petition for certiorari shall
have been filed by him as prescribed in Section 27 of RA 6770.
[Emphasis Supplied]
In Reyes, Jr. v. Belisario,
the Court wrote:
The clear import of Section 7, Rule III of the Ombudsman Rules is to deny the
complainant in an administrative complaint the right to appeal where the
Ombudsman has exonerated the respondent of the administrative charge, as in this
case. The complainant, therefore, is not entitled to any corrective recourse,
whether by motion for reconsideration in the Office of the Ombudsman, or by
appeal to the courts, to effect a reversal of the exoneration. Only the respondent is
granted the right to appeal but only in case he is found liable and the penalty
imposed is higher than public censure, reprimand, one-month suspension or fine a
equivalent to one month salary.[30]
Though final and unappealable in the administrative level, the decisions of
administrative agencies are still subject to judicial review if they fail the.test of
arbitrariness, or upon proof of grave abuse of discretion, fraud or error of law, or
when such administrative or quasi-judicial bodies grossly misappreciate evidence of
such nature as to compel a contrary conclusion.[31] Specifically, the correct
procedure is to file a petition for certiorari before the CA to question the
Ombudsman's decision of dismissal of the administrative charge. [32] Joson, however,
failed to do this. Hence, the decision of the Ombudsman exonerating the private
respondents from the charge of grave misconduct had already become final. In any
event, the subject petition failed to show any grave abuse of discretion or any
reversible error on the part of the Ombudsman to compel this Court to overturn its
assailed administrative ruling.
[29]
This Court has maintained its policy of non-interference with the Ombudsman's
exercise of its investigatory and prosecutory powers in the absence of grave abuse
of discretion, not only out of respect for these constitutionally mandated powers but
also for practical considerations owing to the myriad functions of the courts. In the
case at bench, the Court will uphold the findings of the Ombudsman absent a clear
showing of grave abuse of discretion on its part.
At any rate, the Court notes that upon motion for reconsideration, A.O. No. 14,
which decreed the dismissal from service of respondent Atty. Ferdinand Abesamis
as Senior State Prosecutor, was already reversed and set aside per Resolution,
[33]
dated March 11, 2010, issued by the Office of the President. In effect, it affirmed
the May 21, 1998 Resolution[34] of then Justice Secretary Silvestre Bello III which
strongly admonished Ferdinand to be more circumspect in the discharge of his
public office.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
Rollo, pp. 24-31. Penned by Graft Investigation and Prosecution Officer I Francis
Euston R. Acero and Approved by Ombudsman Conchita Carpio Morales.
[1]
Id. at 32-50. Penned by Assistant Ombudsman Atty. Leilanie Bernadette C.

Cabras ansd Approved by Ombudsman Conchita Carpio Morales.
[2]
[3]
Id. at 52-61.
Rule IV, Effectivity of Appointment, Omnibus Rules on Appointment and Other

Personnel Actions.
[4]
[5]
Id. at 73-80.
[6]
Id. at 81-82.
[7]
Id. at 83-84.
[8]
Id. at 85.
[9]
Id. at 87-93.
[10]
Id. at 94-101.
[11]
Id. at 126-141.
[12]
Id. at 30.
[13]
Id. at 49.
[14]
Id. at 11.
[15]
Casing v. Hon. Ombudsman, 687 Phil. 468, 475 (2012).
[16]
600 Phil. 26 (2009).
[17]
Id. at 44.
[18]
714 Phil. 248 (2003).
[19]
Id. at 285.
Mendoza v. Laxina, Sr., 453 Phil. 1013, 1026-1027 (2003); Chavez v. Ronidel,
607 Phil. 76 (2009).
[20]
[21]
Rollo, p. 43.
[22]
Id. at 47.
[23]
560 Phil. 581 (2007).
[24]
Id. at 591-592.
Agdeppa v. Honorable Office of the Ombudsman, G.R. No. 146376, April 23,
2014, 723 SCRA 293, 332-333.
[25]
541 Phil. 57 (2007), citing Ocampo v. Ombudsman, G.R. Nos. 103446-47,

August 30, 1993, 225 SCRA 725, 730.
[26]
[27]
Id. at 67-68.
[28]
Brito v. Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon, 554 Phil. 112, 127 (2007).
[29]
612 Phil. 936 (2009).
[30]
Id. at 954.
[31]
Orais v. Almirante, 710 Phil. 662, 673 (2013).
[32]
Ruivivar v. Office of the Ombudsman, 587 Phil. 100, 113 (2008).
[33]
Rollo, pp. 223-225.
[34]
Id. at 219-222.

G.R.
REX
No.
DACLISON,
PETITIONER,
VS.
219811
EDUARDO
BAYTION,
RESPONDENT.
April 06, 2016
SECOND DIVISION
[ G.R. No. 219811, April 06, 2016 ]
REX DACLISON, PETITIONER, VS. EDUARDO BAYTION,
RESPONDENT.
DECISION
MENDOZA, J.:
Assailed in this petition for review[1] are the February 5, 2015 Decision[2] and the
August 3, 2015 Resolution[3] of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 99627,
which affirmed in toto the April 27, 2012 Decision[4] rendered by the Regional Trial
Court, Branch 224, Quezon City (RTC) in Civil Case No. Q-09-66145, a case for
forcible entry.
The Antecedents
On January 27, 2009, respondent Eduardo Baytion (Baytion) filed a complaint[5] for
Forcible Entry and Damages with Prayer for Issuance of Preliminary Mandatory
Injunction with the Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 43, Quezon City (MeTC) against
petitioner Rex Daclison (Daclison), which was docketed as Civil Case No. 39225.
In the complaint, Baytion alleged that he was a co-owner of a parcel of land
consisting of 1,500 square meters, covered by Transfer Certificate Title (TCT) No.
221507. The said property was inherited by him and his siblings from their parents
and, as agreed upon, was being administered by him. As administrator, he leased
portions of the property to third persons.
Erected on the said property was a one-storey building which was divided into
seven units or stalls. One of the stalls was leased to a certain Leonida Dela Cruz
(Leonida) who used it for her business of selling rocks, pebbles and similar
construction materials.
When the lease of Leonida expired sometime in May 2008, Daclison and other
persons acting under her took possession of the portion leased and occupied by
Leonida without the prior knowledge and consent of Baytion. Since then, Daclison
had been occupying the contested portion and using it for his business of selling
marble and other finishing materials without paying anything to Baytion.
Upon learning of Daclison's unauthorized entry into the subject portion of the
property, sometime in June 2008, Baytion demanded that he vacate it. Despite oral
and written demands to vacate, Daclison refused to do so. This prompted Baytion to
file the complaint for forcible entry and damages.
Daclison, in his answer, averred that sometime in 1978, Baytion leased the subject
portion to Antonio dela Cruz (Antonio) where the latter started a business; that ten
or fifteen years later, a stone walling, called a riprap, was erected at the creek lying
beside Baytion's property, leaving a deep down-sloping area; that Antonio
negotiated with a certain engineer so he could be in possession of the said downslope; that Antonio had the down-slope filled up until it was leveled with the leased
portion; that Antonio paid for the right to possess the same; that in 2000, Antonio's
business was taken over by Leonida, who suffered a stroke in December 2007; that
after her death, the business was taken over by Ernanie Dela Cruz (Ernanie); that
in February 2008, he (Daclison) entered into a business venture with Ernanie in the
same leased property and he took over the management of the business; that he
received a letter from Baytion addressed to Ernanie requesting the latter to vacate
the subject premises; that Baytion and Ernanie came to an agreement that the
latter would continue the lease of the property; that he issued a check in the
amount of P100,000.00 as payment for the rental arrears; that two weeks
thereafter, Baytion returned the check and demanded that Ernanie vacate the
property; that Baytion promised that he would no longer bother them if they would
just transfer to the filled-up and plane-leveled property; that on account of the said
promise, he and Ernanie vacated the leased area and transferred their business to
the filled-up portion; that despite the fact that they already vacated the leased
portion of the property, Baytion still filed a complaint with the barangay claiming
that the filled-up portion was part. of his property; that the executive officer of the
barangay who conducted the investigation made a report indicating that
a mojon was placed by him (Daclison) which showed the boundary of Baytion's
property; that Baytion acknowledged the said report and agreed to put an end to
the controversy; and that despite Baytion's agreement to put an end to the dispute,
he still sent a demand letter to vacate.[6]
On August 25, 2009, the MeTC dismissed the case on the ground that Baytion failed
to include his siblings or his co-owners, as plaintiffs in the case. The dismissal,
however, was without prejudice.
Baytion appealed the case to the RTC, which ruled that the MeTC lacked jurisdiction
to decide the case because the allegations in the complaint failed to constitute a
case of forcible entry. Pursuant to Section 8, Rule 40 of the Rules of Court, however,
the RTC did not dismiss the case and, instead, exercised its original jurisdiction over
the same.
The RTC then decided that Baytion had a better right of possession over the
property. The dispositive portion of its decision reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered ordering:
1) The defendant and other persons claiming under him to vacate and to turn over
the possession of the subject property to the plaintiff; and,
2) The defendant to pay plaintiff the amount of P20,000.00/monthly for the use of
the premises commencing from May 2008 until the subject premises is vacated.
SO ORDERED.[7]
Aggrieved, Daclison filed an appeal with the CA.
The CA tackled two issues, namely: a) whether the RTC committed a reversibleerror when it exercised original jurisdiction of the case and decided the same on its
merits pursuant to Section 8, Rule 40 of the Rules of Court; and, b) who, between
Baytion and Daclison, had a better right to possess the subject property.
The CA ruled that the MeTC had no jurisdiction to hear and decide the case in a
summary proceeding for forcible entry because Baytion failed to allege that he was
in prior physical possession of the property and that he was deprived of his
possession under Section 1, Rule 70 of the Revised Rules of Court. It was of the
view that the present action for forcible entry had actually ripened into one for
recovery of the right to possess or accion publiciana, which was an action in an

ordinary civil proceeding in the Regional Trial Court. The action was aimed at
determining who among the parties had a better right of possession of realty
independent of the issue of ownership or title. It was an ejectment suit filed after
the expiration of one year from the accrual of the cause of action or from the
unlawful withholding of possession of the realty.[8] Thus, it agreed with the RTC
when the latter correctly assumed jurisdiction over the case following the mandate
of Section 8, Rule 40 of the Revised Rules of Court.[9]
As to the issue of possession, the CA concluded that Baytion, as co-owner of the
subject property, had a better right to possess. It wrote:
Xxx, it is clear that Antonio, Leonida and Ernanie were all lessees of the subject
property and its improvements owned by the plaintiff. Ernanie, who is a sub-lessee
of the subject property, again sub-leased the same to appellant, without authority
or consent from appellee. Thus, since appellant have been possessing the subject
property in his capacity as a mere sub-lessee, he cannot own the subject property
and its improvements through open, continuous and adverse possession of the
property. It follows then that appellee has the right to repossess the subject
property.[10]
On February 5, 2015, the CA rendered the.assailed decision, disposing in this wise:
WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit, and the
Decision 27 April 2012 rendered by Branch 224 of the RTC of Quezon City in Civil
Case No. Q-09-66145 is AFFIRMED in toto.
SO ORDERED.[11]
Daclison filed a motion for reconsideration but it was denied by the CA in the
assailed resolution.
Hence, the present petition for review raising the following
ISSUES
I.
THE HONORABLE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED WHEN IT HELD THAT THE
INSTANT CASE IS AN ACCION PUBLICIANA, MORE SIGNIFICANTLY [WITH]
RESPECT TO THE LAND OUTSIDE TCT NO. 221507; THAT, EFFECTIVELY, THE
RESPONDENT HAS PRIOR POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY OUTSIDE TCT
NO. 221507.
II.
THE HONORABLE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED UNDER THE LAW WHEN IT
RULED THAT THE PETITIONER WAS A LESSEE OF THE SECOND PROPERTY.
III.
RULED THAT THE SECOND PROPERTY OR LAND WAS AN IMPROVEMENT ON
THE PROPERTY OF THE RESPONDENT.
IV.
RULED THAT THE RESPONDENT HAS LEGAL CAPACITY TO SUE.
V.
RULED THAT THE PETITIONER SHOULD PAY THE [RESPONDENT] THE
AMOUNT OF P20,000 MONTHLY FOR THE USE OF THE PREMISES.[12]
Daclison insists that what is really in dispute in the present controversy is the filledup portion between the riprap constructed by the government and the property of
Baytion and,[13] therefore, outside of the land co-owned by Baytion. Accordingly, the
RTC and the CA should have dismissed the case because the leased property was
already surrendered to its owner, thereby, mooting the complaint. [14]
Daclison insists that Antonio, from whom he derived his right over the contested
portion, made an open, continuous and adverse possession and use of the property
when the latter extended his place of business to the filled-up portion. [15] He claims
that the filled-up portion is not an improvement on the leased property as found by
the RTC and the court a quo. It is a property separate and distinct from the leased
property.[16]
The Respondent's Position
Baytion basically posits that although the disputed portion is outside the description
of the property covered by TCT No. 221507, it forms an integral part of the latter
because it is an accretion, construction, or improvement on the property and, under
the law, any accretion or anything built thereon belongs to him and his co-owners.
[17]
The Court's Ruling

At the .outset, it was clear that the disputed property was the filled-up portion
between the riprap constructed by the government and the property covered by
TCT No. 221507. According to Daclison, the property covered by TCT No. 221507
had already been surrendered to Baytion which the latter never disputed. As such,
the Court is now confronted with the question as to who between the parties has a
better right over this contested portion between the land co-owned by Baytion and
the constructed riprap.
Baytion does not have a better right over the contested portion
The RTC and the CA erred in holding that Baytion has a better right to possess the
contested portion.
Baytion's contention that he owns that portion by reason of accretion is misplaced.
Article 457 of the New Civil Code provides:
To the owners of lands adjoining the banks of rivers belongs the accretion which
they gradually receive from the effects of the current of the waters.
In other words, the following requisites must concur in order for an accretion to be
considered, namely:
(1) that the deposit be gradual and imperceptible;
(2) that it be made through the effects of the current of the water; and,
(3) that the land where accretion takes place is adjacent to the banks of rivers. [18]
In the case at bench, this contested portion cannot be considered an accretion. To
begin with, the land came about not by reason of a gradual and imperceptible
deposit. The deposits were artificial and man-made and not the exclusive result of
the current from the creek adjacent to his property. Baytion failed to prove the
attendance of the indispensable requirement that the deposit was due to the effect
of the current of the river or creek. Alluvion must be the exclusive work of nature
and not a result of human intervention.[19]
Furthermore, the disputed property cannot also be considered an improvement or
accession. Article 445 of the Civil Code provides:
Art. 445. Whatever is built, planted or sown on the land of another and the
improvements or repairs made thereon, belong to the owner of the land, subject
to the provisions of the following articles.
[Emphases supplied]
It must be noted that Article 445 uses the adverb "thereon" which is simply defined
as "on the thing that has been mentioned."[20] In other words, the supposed
improvement must be made, constructed or introduced within or on the property
and not outside so as to qualify as an improvement contemplated by law.
Otherwise, it would just be very convenient for land owners to expand or widen
their properties in the guise of improvements.
In view of all the foregoing, it is the opinion of this Court that Baytion, not being
the owner of the contested portion, does not have a better right to possess the
same. In fact, in his initiatory pleading, he never claimed to have been in prior
possession of this piece of property. His claim of ownership is without basis. As
earlier pointed out, the portion is neither an accretion nor an accession. That being
said, it is safe to conclude that he does not have any cause of action to eject
Daclison.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The February 5, 2015 Decision and the
August 3, 2015 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 99627
areREVERSED and SET ASIDE. The complaint for possession is hereby
ordered DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.
[1]
Rollo, pp. 11-32.
Id. at 33-44; Penned by Associate Justice Elihu A. Ybaez with Associate Justices
Isaias P. Dicdican and Victoria Isabel A. Paredes, concurring.
[2]
[3]
Id. at 45-46.
[4]
Id. at 88-92. Penned by Presiding Judge Tita Marilyn Payoyo-Villordon.
[5]
Id. at 47-52.
[6]
Id. at 83-84.
[7]
Id. at 92.
[8]
Id. at 41.
[9]
Id. at 41.
[10]
Id. at 43.
[11]
Id. at 43-44.
[12]
Id. at 21-22.
[13]
Id. at 23-24.
[14]
Id. at 23.
[15]
Id. at 26.
[16]
Id. at 29.
[17]
Id. at 125-126.
[18]
Republic of the Philippines v. CA, 217 Phil. 483, 489 (1984).
[19]
Id.
<http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/thereon> Last visited on March 2,

2016.
[20]

G.R.
No.
213394
SPOUSES EMMANUEL D. PACQUIAO AND JINKEE J. PACQUIAO, PETITIONERS, VS. THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS FIRST
DIVISION
AND
THE
COMMISSION
OF
INTERNAL
REVENUE,
RESPONDENTS.
April 06, 2016
SECOND DIVISION
[ G.R. No. 213394, April 06, 2016 ]
SPOUSES EMMANUEL D. PACQUIAO AND JINKEE J.
PACQUIAO, PETITIONERS, VS. THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS FIRST DIVISION AND THE COMMISSION OF INTERNAL
REVENUE, RESPONDENTS.
DECISION
MENDOZA, J.:
Before this Court is a petition for review on certiorari[1] under Rule 65 of the Rules
of Court filed by petitioner spouses, now Congressman Emmanuel D. Pacquiao
(Pacquiao) and Vice-Governor Jinkee J. Pacquiao (Jinkee), to set aside and annul
the April 22, 2014 Resolution[2] and the July 11, 2014 Resolution[3] of the Court of
Tax Appeals (CTA), First Division, in CTA Case No. 8683.
Through the assailed issuances, the CTA granted the petitioners' Urgent Motion to
Lift Warrants of Distraint & Levy and Garnishment and for the Issuance of an Order
to Suspend the Collection of Tax (with Prayer for the Issuance of a Temporary
Restraining Order[4] [Urgent Motion], dated October 18, 2013, but required them, as
a condition, to deposit a cash bond in the amount of P3,298,514,894.35-or post a
bond of P4,947,772,341.53.
The Antecedents
The genesis of the foregoing controversy began a few years before the petitioners
became elected officials in their own right. Prior to their election as public officers,
the petitioners relied heavily on Pacquiao's claim to fame as a world-class
professional boxer. Due to his success, Pacquiao was able to amass income from
both the Philippines and the United States of America (US). His income from the US
came primarily from the purses he received for the boxing matches he took part
under Top Rank, Inc. On the other hand, his income from the Philippines consisted
of talent fees received from various Philippine corporations for product
endorsements, advertising commercials and television appearances.
In compliance with his duty to his home country, Pacquiao filed his 2008 income tax
return on April 15, 2009 reporting his Philippine-sourced income. [5] It was
subsequently amended to include his US-sourced income.[6]
The controversy began on March 25, 2010, when Pacquiao received a Letter of
Authority[7] (March LA) from the Regional District Office No. 43 (RDO) of the Bureau
of Internal Revenue (BIR) for the examination of his books of accounts and other
accounting records for the period covering January 1, 2008 to December 31, 2008.
On April 15, 2010, Pacquiao filed his 2009 income tax return, [8] which although
reflecting his Philippines-sourced income, failed to include his income derived from
his earnings in the US.[9] He also failed to file his Value Added Tax (VAT) returns for
the years 2008 and 2009.[10]

Finding the need to directly conduct the investigation and determine the tax
liabilities of the petitioners, respondent Commissioner on Internal
Revenue (CIR) issued another Letter of Authority, dated July 27, 2010 (July LA),
authorizing the BIR's National Investigation Division (NID) to examine the books of
accounts and other accounting records of both Pacquiao and Jinkee for the last 15
years, from 1995 to 2009.[11] On September 21, 2010 and September 22, 2010, the
CIR replaced the July LA by issuing to both Pacquiao[12] and Jinkee[13] separate
electronic versions of the July LA pursuant to Revenue Memorandum
Circular (RMC) No. 56-2010.[14]
Due to these developments, the petitioners, through counsel, wrote a
letter[15] questioning the propriety of the CIR investigation. According to the
petitioners, they were already subjected to an earlier investigation by the BIR for
the years prior to 2007, and no fraud was ever found to have been committed.
They added that pursuant to the March LA issued by the RDO, they were already
being investigated for the year 2008.
In its letter,[16] dated December 13, 2010, the NID informed the counsel of the
petitioners that the July LA issued by the CIR had effectively cancelled and
superseded the March LA issued by its RDO. The same letter also stated that:
Although fraud had been established in the instant case as determined by
the Commissioner, your clients would still be given the opportunity to present
documents as part of their procedural rights to due process with regard to the civil
aspect thereof. Moreover, any tax credits and/or payments from the taxable year
2007 & prior years will be properly considered and credited in the current
investigation.[17]
[Emphasis Supplied]
The CIR informed the petitioners that its reinvestigation of years prior to 2007 was
justified because the assessment thereof was pursuant to a "fraud investigation"
against the petitioners under the "Run After Tax Evaders" (RATE) program of the
BIR.
On January 5 and 21, 2011, the petitioners submitted various income tax related
documents for the years 2007-2009.[18] As for the years 1995 to 2006, the
petitioners explained that they could not furnish the bureau with the books of
accounts and other, tax related documents as they had already been disposed in
accordance with Section 235 of the Tax Code.[19] They added that even if they
wanted to, they could no longer find copies of the documents because during those
years, their accounting records were then managed by previous counsels, who had
since passed away. Finally, the petitioners pointed out that their tax liabilities for
the said years had already been fully settled with then CIR Jose Mario Buag, who
after a review, found no fraud against them.[20]
On June 21; 2011, on the same day that the petitioners made their last compliance
in submitting their tax-related documents, the CIR issued a subpoena duces
tecum[21] requiring the petitioners rto submit additional income tax and VAT-related
documents for the years 1995-2009.
After conducting its own- investigation, the CIR made its initial assessment finding
that the petitioners were unable to fully settle their tax liabilities. Thus, the CIR
issued its Notice of Initial Assessment-Informal Conference (NIC),[22] dated January
31, 2012, directly addressed to the petitioners, informing them that based on
the best evidence obtainable, they were liable for deficiency income taxes in the
amount of P714,061,116.30 for 2008 and P1,446,245,864.33 for 2009, inclusive of
interests and surcharges. After being informed of this development, the counsel for
the petitioners sought to have the conference reset but he never received a
response.
Then, on "February 20, 2012, the CIR issued the Preliminary Assessment
Notice[23] (PAN), informing the petitioners that based on third-party
information allowed under Section 5(B)[24] and 6 of the National Internal Revenue
Code (NIRC),[25] they found the petitioners liable not only for deficiency income
taxes in the amount of P714,061,116.30 for 2008 and P1,446;245,864.33 for
2009, but aiso for their non-payment of their VAT liabilities in the amount
P4,104,360.01 for 2008 and P 24,901,276.77 for 2009.
The petitioners filed their protest against the PAN.[26]
After denying the protest, the BIR issued its Formal Letter Demand [27] (FLD), dated
May 2, 2012, finding the petitioners liable for deficiency income tax and VAT
amounting to P766,899,530.62 for taxable years 2008 and P1,433,421,214.61 for
2009, inclusive of interests and surcharges. Again, the petitioners questioned the
findings of the CIR.[28]
On May 14, 2013, the BIR issued its Final Decision on Disputed
Assessment (FDDA),[29] addressed to Pacquiao only, informing him that the CIR
found him liable for deficiency income tax and VAT for taxable years 2008 and 2009
which, inclusive of interests and surcharges, amounted to a total of
P2,261,217,439.92.
Seeking to collect the total outstanding tax liabilities of the petitioners, the
Accounts Receivable Monitoring Division of the BIR (BIR-ARMD), issued the

Preliminary Collection Letter (PCL),[30] dated July 19, 2013, demanding that both
Pacquiao and Jinkee pay the amount of P2,261,217,439.92, inclusive of interests
and surcharges.
Then, on August 7, 2013, the BIR-ARMD sent Pacquiao and Jinkee the Final Notice
Before Seizure (FNBS),[31] informing the petitioners of their last opportunity to make
the necessary settlement of deficiency income and VAT liabilities before the bureau
would proceed against their property.
Although they no longer questioned the BIR's assessment of their deficiency VAT
liability, the petitioners requested that they be allowed to pay the same in four (4)
quarterly installments. Eventually, through a series of installments, Pacquiao and
Jinkee paid a total P32,196,534.40 in satisfaction of their liability for deficiency VAT.
[32]
Proceedings at the CTA

Aggrieved that they were being made liable for deficiency income taxes for the
years 2008 and 2009, the petitioners sought redress and filed a petition for
review[33]with the CTA.
Before the CTA, the petitioners contended that the assessment of the CIR was
defective because it was predicated on its mere allegation that they were guilty of
fraud.[34]
They also questioned the validity of the attempt by the CIR to collect deficiency
taxes from Jinkee, arguing that she was denied due process. According to the
petitioners, as all previous communications and notices from the CIR were
addressed to both petitioners, the FDDA was void because it was only addressed to
Pacquiao. Moreover, considering that the PCL and FNBS were based on the FDDA,
the same should likewise be declared void.[35]
The petitioners added that the CIR assessment, which was not based on actual
transaction documents but simply on "best possible sources," was not
sanctioned by the Tax Code. They also argue that the assessment failed to consider
not only the taxes paid by Pacquiao to the US authorities for his fights, but also the
deductions claimed by him for his expenses. [36]
Pending the resolution by the CTA of their appeal, the petitioners sought the
suspension of the issuance of warrants of distraint and/or levy and warrants of
garnishment.[37]
Meanwhile, in a letter,[38] dated October 14, 2013, the BIR-ARMD informed the
petitioners that they were denying their request to defer the collection enforcement
action for lack of legal basis. The same letter also informed the petitioners that
despite their initial payment, the amount to be collected from both of them still
amounted to P3,259,643,792.24, for deficiency income tax for taxable years
2008 and 2009, and P46,920,235.74 for deficiency VAT for the same period. A
warrant of distraint and/or levy[39] against Pacquiao and Jinkee was included in the
letter.
Aggrieved, the petitioners filed the subject Urgent Motion for the CTA to lift the
warrants of distraint, levy and garnishments issued by the CIR against their .assets
and to enjoin the CIR from collecting the assessed deficiency taxes pending the
resolution of their appeal. As for- the cash deposit and bond requirement under
Section 11 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 1125, the petitioners question the necessity
thereof, arguing that the CIR's assessment of their tax liabilities was highly
questionable. At the same time, the petitioners manifested that they were willing to
file a bond for such reasonable amount to be fixed by the tax court.
On April 22, 2014, the CTA issued the first assailed resolution granting the
petitioner's Urgent Motion, ordering the CIR to desist from collecting on the
deficiency tax assessments against the petitioners. In its resolution, the CTA noted
that the amount sought to be collected was way beyond the petitioners' net worth,
which, based on Pacquiao's Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth (SALN),
only amounted to P1,185,984,697.00. Considering that the petitioners still needed
to cover the costs of their daily subsistence, the CTA opined that the collection of
the total amount of P3,298,514,894.35 from the petitioners would be highly
prejudicial to their interests and should, thus, be suspended pursuant to Section 11
of R.A. No. 1125, as amended.
The CTA, however, saw no justification that the petitioners should deposit less than
the disputed amount. They were, thus, required to deposit the amount of
P3,298,514,894.35 or post a bond in the amount of P4,947,772,341.53.
The petitioners sought partial reconsideration of the April 22, 2014 CTA resolution,
praying for the reduction of the amount of the bond required or an extension of 30
days to file the same. On July 11, 2014, the CTA issued the second assailed
resolution[40] denying the petitioner's motion to reduce the required cash deposit or
bond, but allowed them an extension of thirty (30) days within which to file the
same.
Hence, this petition, raising the following
GROUNDS
A.
Respondent Court acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack
or excess of jurisdiction in presuming the correctness of a fraud
assessment without evidentiary support other than the issuance of the
fraud assessments themselves, thereby violating Petitioner's constitutional
right to due process.
B.
or excess of jurisdiction when it required the Petitioners to post a bond
even if the tax collection processes employed by Respondent
Commissioner against Petitioners was patently in violation of law thereby
blatantly breaching Petitioners' constitutional right to due process, to wit:
1. Respondent Commissioner commenced tax collection process against
Jinkee without issuing or serving an FDDA against her.
2. Respondent Commissioner failed to comply with the procedural due
process requirements for summary tax collection remedies under
Sections 207(A) and (B) of the Tax Code when she commenced
summary collection remedies before the expiration of the period for
Petitioners to pay the assessed deficiency taxes.
3. Respondent Commissioner failed to comply with the procedural due
process requirements for summary tax collection remedies under
Section 208 of the Tax Code when she failed to serve Petitioners with
warrants of garnishment against their bank accounts.
4. The Chief of the ARMD, without any authority from Respondent
Commissioner, increased the aggregate amount of deficiency income
tax and VAT assessed against Petitioners from P2,261,217,439.92 to
P3,298,514,894.35 after the filing of the Petition for Review with the
Court of Tax Appeals.
5. Respondent Commissioner arbitrarily refused to admit that
Petitioners had already paid the deficiency VAT assessments for the
years 2008 and 2009.
C.
or excess of jurisdiction in requiring Petitioners to post a cash bond in the
amount of P3,298,514,894.35 or a surety bond in the amount of
P4,947,772,341.53, which is effectively an impossible condition given that
their undisputed net worth is only P1,185,984,697.00.
D.
or excess of jurisdiction when it imposed a bond requirement which will
effectively prevent Petitioners from continuing the prosecution of its
appeal from the arbitrary and bloated assessments issued by Respondent
Commissioner.[41]
Arguments of the Petitioners
Contending that the CTA En Bane has no certiorari jurisdiction over interlocutory
orders issued by its division, the petitioners come before the Court, asking it to 1]
direct the CTA to dispense with the bond requirement imposed under Section 11 of
R.A. No. 1125, as amended; and 2] direct the CIR to suspend the collection of the
deficiency income tax and VAT for the years 2008 and 2009. The petitioners also
pray that a temporary restraining order (TRO) be issued seeking a similar relief
pending the disposition of the subject petition.
In support of their position, the petitioners assert that the CTA acted with grave
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in requiring them to
provide security required under Section 11 of R.A. No. 1125. Under the
circumstances, they claim that they should not be required to make a cash deposit
or post a bond to stay the collection of the questioned deficiency taxes considering
that the assessment and collection efforts of the BIR was marred by both
procedural and substantive errors. They are synthesized as follows:
First. The CTA erred when it required them to make a cash deposit or post a bond
on the basis of the fraud assessment by the CIR. Similar to the argument they
raised in their petition for review with the CTA, they insist that the fraud
assessment by the CIR could not serve as basis for security because the amount
assessed by the CIR was made without evidentiary basis, [42] but just grounded on
the "best possible sources," without any detail.
Second... The BIR failed to accord them procedural due process when it initiated
summary collection remedies even before the expiration of the period allowed for
them to pay the assessed deficiency taxes.[43] They also claimed that they were not
served with warrants of garnishment and that the warrants of garnishment served
on their banks of account were made even before they received the FDDA and PCL.
[44]
Third. The BIR only served the FDDA to Pacquiao. There was no similar notice to
Jinkee. Considering such failure, the CIR effectively did not find Jinkee liable for
deficiency taxes. The collection of deficiency taxes against Jinkee was improper as it
violated her right to due process of law.[45] Accordingly, the petitioners question the
propriety of the CIR's attempt to collect deficiency taxes from Jinkee.
Fourth. The amount assessed by the BIR as deficiency taxes included the deficiency
VAT for the years 2008 and 2009 which they had already paid, albeit in
installments.
Fifth. The posting of the required security is effectively an impossible condition
given that their undisputed net worth is only P1,185,984,697.00
Considering the issues raised, it is the position of the petitioners that the
circumstances of the case warrant the application of the exception provided under
Section 11 of R.A. No. 1125 as affirmed by the ruling of the Court in Collector of
Internal Revenue v. Avelino[46] (Avelino) and Collector of Internal Revenue v.
Zulueta,[47](Zulueta) and that they should have been exempted from posting the
required security as a prerequisite to suspend the collection of deficiency taxes from
them.
On August 18, 2014, the Court resolved to grant the petitioners' prayer for the
issuance of a TRO and to require the CIR to file its comment. [48]
Arguments of the CIR
For its part,- the CIR asserts that the CTA was correct in insisting that the
petitioners post the required cash deposit or bond as a condition to suspend the
collection of deficiency taxes. According to. the tax administrator, Section 11 of R.A.
No. 1125, as amended, is without exception when it states that notwithstanding an
appeal to the CTA, a taxpayer, in order to suspend the payment of his tax liabilities,
is required to deposit the amount claimed by the CIR or to file a surety bond for not
more than double the amount due.[49]
As for the Court's rulings in Avelino and Zulueta invoked by the petitioners, the CIR
argues that they are inapplicable considering that in the said cases, it was ruled
that the requirement of posting a bond to suspend the collection of taxes could be
dispensed with only if the methods employed by the CIR in the tax collection were
clearly null and void and prejudicial to the taxpayer.[50] The CIR points out that, in
this case, the CTA itself made, no finding that its collection by summary methods
was void and even ruled that "the alleged illegality of the methods employed by the
respondent (CIR) to effect the collection of tax [is] not at all patent or evident xxx"
and could only be determined after a full-blown trial. [51] The CIR even suggests that
the Court revisit its ruling in Avelino and Zulueta as Section 11 of R.A. No. 1125, as
amended, gives the CTA no discretion to allow the dispensation of the required
bond as a condition to suspend the collection of taxes.
Finally, the CIR adds that whether the assessment and collection of the petitioners'
tax liabilities were proper as to justify the application of Avelino and Zulueta is a
question of fact which is not proper in a petition for certiorari under Rule 65,
considering that the rule is only confined to issues of jurisdiction. [52]
The Court's Ruling
Appeal will not suspend

the collection of tax;
Exception
Section 11 of R.A. No. 1125, as amended by R.A. No. 9282, [53] embodies the rule
that an appeal to the CTA from the decision of the CIR will not suspend the
payment, levy, distraint, and/or sale of any property of the taxpayer for the
satisfaction of his tax liability as provided by existing law. When, in the view of the
CTA, the collection may jeopardize the interest of the Government and/or the
taxpayer, it may suspend the said collection and require the taxpayer either to
deposit the amount claimed or to file a surety bond.
The application of the exception to the rule is the crux of the subject controversy.
Specifically, Section 11 provides:
SEC. 11. Who May Appeal; Mode of Appeal; Effect of Appeal. - Any party adversely
affected by a decision, ruling or inaction of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue,
the Commissioner of Customs, the Secretary of Finance, the Secretary of Trade and
Industry or the Secretary of Agriculture or the Central Board of Assessment Appeals
or the Regional Trial Courts may file an appeal with the CTA within thirty (30) days
after the receipt of such decision or ruling or after the expiration of the period fixed
by law for action as referred to in Section 7(a)(2) herein.
xxxx
No appeal taken to the CTA from the decision of the Commissioner of Internal
Revenue or the Commissioner of Customs or the Regional Trial Court, provincial,

city or municipal treasurer or the Secretary of Finance, the Secretary of Trade and
Industry and Secretary of Agriculture, as the case may be shall suspend the
payment, levy, distraint, and/or sale of any property of the taxpayer for the
satisfaction of his tax liability as provided by existing law:
Provided, however, That when in the opinion of the Court the collection by
the aforementioned government agencies may jeopardize the interest of
the Government and/or the taxpayer, the Court at any stage of the
proceeding may suspend the said collection and require the taxpayer
either to deposit the amount claimed or to file a surety bond for not more
than double the amount with the Court.
xxxx
[Emphasis Supplied]
Essentially, the petitioners ascribe grave abuse of discretion on the part of the CTA
when it issued the subject resolutions requiring them to deposit-the amount of
P3,298,514,894.35 or post a bond in the amount of P4,947,772,341.53 as a
condition for its order enjoining the CIR from collecting the taxes from them. The
petitioners anchor their contention on the premise that the assessment and
collection processes employed by the CIR in exacting their tax liabilities were in
patent violation of their constitutional right to due process of law. They, thus, posit
that pursuant to Avelino and Zulueta, the tax court should have not only ordered
the CIR to suspend the collection efforts it was pursuing in satisfaction of their tax
liability, but also dispensed with the requirement of depositing a cash or filing a
surety bond.
To recall, the Court in Avelino upheld the decision of the CTA to declare the
warrants of garnishment, distraint and levy and the notice of sale of the properties
of Jose Avelino null and void and ordered the CIR to desist from collecting the
deficiency income taxes which were assessed for the years 1946 to 1948 through
summary administrative methods. The Court therein found that the demand of the
then CIR was made without authority of law because it was made five (5) years and
thirty-five (35) days after the last two returns of Jose Avelino were filed - clearly
beyond the three (3)-year prescriptive period provided under what was then
Section 51(d) of the National Internal Revenue Code. Dismissing the contention of
the CIR that the deposit of the amount claimed or the filing of a bond as required
by law was a requisite before relief was granted, the Court therein concurred with
the opinion of the CTA that the courts were clothed with authority to dispense with
the requirement "if the method employed by the Collector of Internal Revenue in
the collection of tax is not sanctioned by law."[54]
In Zulueta, the Court likewise dismissed the argument that the CTA erred in issuing
the injunction without requiring the taxpayer either to deposit the amount claimed
or to file a surety bond for an amount not more than double the tax sought to be
collected. The Court cited Collector of Internal Revenue v. Aurelio P. Reyes and the
Court of Tax Appeals[55] where it was written:
Xxx. At first blush it might be as contended by the Solicitor General, but a careful
analysis of the second paragraph of said Section 11 will lead Us to the conclusion
that the requirement of the bond as a condition precedent to the issuance of a writ
of injunction applies only in cases where the processes by which the collection
sought to be made by means thereof are carried out in consonance with law for
such cases provided and not when said processes are obviously in violation of the
law to the extreme that they have to be SUSPENDED for jeopardizing the interests
of the taxpayer.[56]
[Italics included]
The Court went on to explain the reason for empowering the courts to issue such
injunctive writs. It wrote:
"Section 11 of Republic Act No. 1125 is therefore premised on the assumption that
the collection by summary proceedings is by itself in accordance with existing laws;
and then what is suspended is the act of collecting, whereas, in the case at bar
what the respondent Court suspended was the use of the method employed to
verify the collection which was evidently illegal after the lapse of the three-year
limitation period. The respondent Court issued the injunction in question on the
basis of its findings that the means intended to be used by petitioner in the
collection of the alleged deficiency taxes were in violation of law. It would
certainly be an absurdity on the part of the Court of Tax Appeals to declare
that the collection by the summary methods of distraint and levy was
violative of the law, and then, on the same breath require the petitioner to
deposit or file a bond as a prerequisite of the issuance of a writ of
injunction. Let us suppose, for the sake of argument, that the Court a quo would
have required the petitioner to post the bond in question and that the taxpayer
would refuse or fail to furnish said bond, would the Court a quo be obliged to
authorize or allow the Collector of Internal Revenue to proceed with the collection
from the petitioner of the taxes due by a means it previously declared to be
contrary to law?"[57]
[Italics included. Emphases and Underlining Supplied]
Thus, despite the amendments to the law, the Court still holds that the CTA has
ample authority to issue injunctive writs to restrain the collection of tax and to
even dispense with the deposit of the amount claimed or the filing of the
required bond, whenever the method employed by the CIR in the collection of.
tax jeopardizes the interests of a taxpayer for being patently in violation of the
law. Such authority emanates from the jurisdiction conferred to it not only by
Section 11 of R.A. No. 1125, but also by Section 7 of the same law, which, as
amended provides:
Sec. 7. Jurisdiction. - The Court of Tax Appeals shall exercise:
a. Exclusive appellate jurisdiction to review by appeal, as herein provided:
l. Decisions of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue in cases involving disputed
assessments, refunds of internal revenue taxes, fees or other charges, penalties
imposed in relation thereto, or other matters arising under the National
Revenue;
xxxx
[Emphasis Supplied]
From all the foregoing, it is clear that the authority of the courts to issue injunctive
writs to restrain the collection of tax and to dispense with the deposit of the amount
claimed or the filing of the required bond is not simply confined to cases where
prescription has set in. As explained by the Court in those cases,whenever it is
determined by the courts that the method employed by the Collector of
Internal Revenue in the collection of tax is not sanctioned by
law, the bond requirement under Section 11 of R.A. No. 1125 should be
dispensed with. The purpose of the rule is not only to prevent jeopardizing the
interest of the taxpayer, but more importantly, to prevent the absurd situation
wherein the court would declare "that the collection by the summary methods of
distraint and levy was violative of law, and then, in the same breath require the
petitioner to deposit or file a bond as a prerequisite for the issuance of a writ of
injunction."[58]
The determination of whether
the petitioners.' case falls
within the exception provided
under Section 11, R.A No. 1125
cannot be determined
at this point
Applying the foregoing precepts to the subject controversy, the Court finds no
sufficient basis in the records for the Court to determine whether the dispensation
of the required cash deposit or bond provided under Section 11, R.A No. 1125 is
appropriate.
It should first be highlighted that in rendering the assailed resolution, the CTA,
without stating the facts and law, made a determination that the illegality of the
methods employed by the CIR to effect the collection of tax was not patent. To
quote the CTA:
In this case, the alleged illegality of the methods employed by respondent to effect
the collection of tax is not at all patent or evident as in the foregoing cases.
At this early stage of the proceedings, it is premature for this Court to rule on the
issues of whether or not the warrants were defectively issued; or whether the
service thereof was done in violation of the rules; or whether or not respondent's
assessments were valid. These matters are evidentiary in nature, the
resolution of which can only be made after a full blown trial.
Apropos, the Court finds no legal basis to apply Avelino and Zulueta to the instant
case and exempt petitioners from depositing a cash bond or filing a surety bond
before a suspension order may be effected.[59]
Though it may be true that it would have been premature for the CTA to
immediately determine whether the assessment made against the petitioners was
valid or whether the warrants were properly issued and served, still, it behooved
upon the CTA to properly determine, at least preliminarily, whether the CIR, in
its assessment of the tax liability of the petitioners, and its effort of collecting the
same, complied with the law and the pertinent issuances of the BIR
itself. The CTA should have conducted a preliminary hearing and received evidence
so it could have properly determined whether the requirement of providing the
required security under Section 11, R.A. No. 1125 could be reduced or dispensed
with pendente lite.
The Court cannot make a
preliminary determination
on whether the CIR used
methods not sanctioned by law
Absent any evidence and preliminary determination by the CTA, the Court cannot
make any factual finding and settle the issue of whether the petitioners should
comply with the security requirement under Section 11, R.A. No. 1125. The
determination of whether the methods, employed by the CIR in its assessment,
jeopardized the interests of a taxpayer for being patently in violation of the law is a
question of fact that calls for the reception of evidence which would serve as
basis. In this regard, the CTA is in a better position to initiate this given its time and
resources. The remand of the "case to the CTA on this question is, therefore, more
sensible and proper.
For the Court to make any finding of fact on this point would be premature. As
stated earlier, there is no evidentiary basis. All the arguments are mere allegations
from both sides. Moreover, any finding by the Court would pre-empt the
CTA from properly exercising its jurisdiction and settle the main issues presented
before it, that is, whether the petitioners were afforded due process; whether the
CIR has valid basis for its assessment; and whether the petitioners should be held
liable for the deficiency taxes.
Petition to be remanded to
the CTA; CTA to conduct
preliminary hearing
As the CTA is in a better, position to make such a preliminary determination, a
remand to the CTA is in order. To resolve the issue of whether the petitioners should
be required to post the security bond under Section 11 of R.A. No. 1125, and, if so,
in what, amount, the CTA must take into account, among others, the following:
First. Whether the requirement of a Notice of Informal Conference was complied
with - The petitioners contend that the BIR issued the PAN without first sending a
NIC to petitioners. One of the first requirements of Section 3 of Revenue
Regulation (R.R.) No. 12-99,[60] the then prevailing regulation on the due process
requirement in tax audits and/or investigation,[61] is that a NIC be first accorded to
the taxpayer. The use of the word "shall" in subsection 3.1.1 describes the
mandatory nature of the service of a NIC. As with the other notices required under
the regulation, the purpose of sending a NIC is but part of the "due process
requirement in the issuance of a deficiency tax assessment," the absence of which
renders nugatory any assessment made by the tax authorities. [62]
Second. Whether the 15-year period subject of the CIR's investigation is arbitrary
and excessive. - Section 203[63] of the Tax Code provides a 3-year limit for the
assessment. of internal revenue taxes. While the prescriptive period to assess
deficiency taxes may be extended to 10 years in cases where there is false,
fraudulent, or non-filing of a tax return - the fraud contemplated by law must be
actual. It must be intentional, consisting of deception willfully and deliberately done
or resorted to in order to induce another to give up some right. [64]
Third. Whether fraud was duly established. - In its letter, dated December 13,
2010, the NID had been conducting a fraud investigation against the petitioners
under its RATE program and that it found that "fraud had been established in the
instant case as determined by the Commissioner." Under Revenue Memorandum

Order(RMO) No. 27-10, it is required that a preliminary investigation must first
be conducted before a LA is issued.[65]
Fourth. Whether the FLD issued against the petitioners was irregular. - The FLD
issued against the petitioners allegedly stated that the amounts therein were
"estimates based on best possible sources." A taxpayer should be informed in
writing of the law and the facts on which the assessment is made, otherwise, the
assessment is void.[66] An assessment, in order to stand judicial scrutiny, must be
based on facts. The presumption of the correctness of an assessment, being a mere
presumption, cannot be made to rest on another presumption. [67]
To stress, the petitioners had asserted that the assessment of the CIR was not
based on actual transactions but on "estimates based on best possible
sources."This assertion has not been satisfactorily addressed by the CIR in detail.
Thus, there is a need for the CTA to conduct a preliminary hearing.
Fifth. Whether the FDDA, the PCL, the FNBS, and the Warrants of Distraint and/or
Levy were validly issued. In its hearing, the CTA must also determine if the
following allegations of the petitioners have merit:,
a. The FDDA and PCL were issued against petitioner Pacquiao only. The Warrant
of Distraint and/or Levy/Garnishment issued by the CIR, however, were made
against the assets of both petitioners;
b. The warrants of garnishment had been served on the banks of both
petitioners even before the petitioners received the FDDA and PCL;
c. The Warrant of Distraint and/or Levy/Garnishment against the petitioners was
allegedly made prior to the expiration of the period allowed for the
petitioners to pay the assessed deficiency taxes;
d. The Warrant of Distraint and/or Levy/Garnishment against petitioners failed to
take into consideration that the deficiency VAT was already paid in full;and
e. Petitioners were not given a copy of the Warrants. Sections 207[68] and
208[69] of the Tax Code require the Warrant of Distraint and/or Levy/Garnishment be
served upon the taxpayer.
Additional Factors
In case the CTA finds that the petitioners should provide the necessary security
under Section 11 of R.A. 1125, a recomputation of the amount thereof is in order.-
If there would be a need for a bond or to reduce the same, the CTA should take
note that the Court, in A.M. No. 15-92-01-CTA, resolved to approve the CTA En
BancResolution No. 02-2015, where the phrase "amount claimed" stated in Section
11 of R.A. No. 1125 was construed to refer to the principal amount of the
deficiency taxes, excluding penalties, interests and surcharges.
Moreover, the CTA should.also consider the claim of the petitioners that they
already paid a total of P32,196,534.40 deficiency VAT assessed against' them..
Despite said payment, the CIR still assessed them the total amount of
P3,298,514,894.35, including the amount assessed as VAT deficiency, plus
surcharges, penalties and interest. If so, these should also be deducted from
the.amount of the bond to be computed and required.
In the conduct of its preliminary hearing, the CTA must balance the scale between
the inherent power of the State to tax and its right to prosecute perceived
transgressors of the law, on one side; and the constitutional rights of petitioners to
due process of law and the equal protection of the laws, on the other. In case of
doubt, the tax court must remember that as in all tax cases, such scale should
favor the taxpayer, for a citizen's right to due process and equal protection of the
law is amply protected by the Bill of Rights under the Constitution.[70]
In view of all the foregoing, the April 22, 2014 and July 11, 2014 Resolutions of the
CTA, in so far as it required the petitioners to deposit first a cash bond in the
amount of P3,298,514,894.35 or post a bond of P4,947,772,341.53, should be
further enjoined until the issues aforementioned are settled in a preliminary hearing
to be conducted by it. Thereafter, it should make a determination if the posting of a
bond would still be required and, if so, compute it taking into account the CTA En
BancResolution, which was approved by the Court in A.M. No. 15-02-01-CTA, and
the claimed payment of P32,196,534.40, among others.
WHEREFORE, the petition is PARTIALLY GRANTED. Let a Writ of Preliminary
Injunction be issued, enjoining the implementation of the April 22, 2014 and July
11, 2014 Resolutions of the Court of Tax Appeals, First Division, in CTA Case No.
8683, requiring the petitioners to first deposit a cash bond in the amount of
P3,298,514,894.35 or post a bond of P4,947,772,341.53, as a condition to restrain
the collection of the deficiency taxes assessed against them.
The writ shall remain in effect until the issues aforementioned are settled in a
preliminary hearing to be conducted by the Court of Tax Appeals, First Division.
Accordingly, the case is hereby REMANDED to the Court of Tax Appeals, First
Division, which is ordered to conduct a preliminary hearing to determine whether
the dispensation or reduction of the required cash deposit or bond provided under
Section 11, Republic Act No. 1125 is proper to restrain the collection of deficiency
taxes assessed against the petitioners.
If required, the Court of Tax Appeals, First Division, shall proceed to compute the
amount of the bond in accordance with the guidelines aforestated, particularly the
provisions of A.M. No. 15-02-01-CTA. It should also take into account the amounts
already paid by the petitioners.
After the posting of the required bond, or if the Court of Tax Appeals, First Division,
determines that no bond is necessary, it shall proceed to hear and resolve the
petition for review pending before it.
SO ORDERED.
Carpio, (Chairperson), Brion, Reyes,* and Leonen, JJ., concur.
Designated additional member per Raffle dated December 1, 2014.
[1]
Rollo, pp. 3-55.
[2]
Id. at 82-91.
[3]
Id. at 92-100.
[4]
Id. at 635-654.
[5]
Id. at 535-537.
[6]
Id. at 538-541.
[7]
Id. at 543.
[8]
Id. at 544-546.
[9]
Memorandum of Petitioners, p. 10; id. at 1418.
[10]
Memorandum of Respondent CIR, p. 4; id. at 1361.
[11]
Id. at 547.
[12]
Id. at 550.
[13]
Id. at 551.
[14]
Dated June 28, 2010.
[15]
Rollo; pp. 552-554.
[16]
Id at 555-556.
[17]
Id. at 558.
[18]
Id. at 559-561.
SEC. 235. Preservation of Books and Accounts and Other Accounting Records. All "the books of accounts, including the subsidiary books and other accounting
records of corporations, partnerships, or persons, shall be preserved by them for a
period beginning from the last entry in each book until the last day prescribed by
Section 203 within which the Commissioner is authorized to make an assessment.
[19]
The said books and records shall be subject to examination and inspection by
internal revenue officers: Provided, That for income tax purposes, such examination
and inspection shall be made only once in a taxable year, except in the following
cases:
(a) Fraud, irregularity or mistakes, as determined by the Commissioner; (b) The
taxpayer requests reinvestigation; (c). Verification of compliance with withholding
tax laws and regulations; (d) Verification of capital gains tax liabilities; and (e) In
the exercise of the Commissioner's power under Section 5(B) to obtain information
from other persons in which case, another or separate examination and inspection
may be made.
Examination and inspection of books of accounts and other accounting records shall
be done in the taxpayer's office or place of business or in the office of the Bureau of
Internal Revenue.
All corporations, partnerships or persons that retire from business shall, within ten
(10) days from the date of retirement or within such period of time as may be
allowed by the Commissioner in special cases, submit their books of accounts,
including the subsidiary books and other accounting records to the Commissioner or
any of his deputies for examination, after which they shall be returned.
Corporations and partnerships contemplating dissolution must notify the
Commissioner and shall not be dissolved until cleared of any tax liability.
Any provision of existing general or special law to the contrary notwithstanding,the books of accounts and other pertinent records of tax-exempt organizations or
grantees of tax incentives shall be subject to examination by the Bureau of Internal
Revenue for purposes of ascertaining compliance with the conditions under which
they have been granted tax exemptions or tax incentives, and their tax liability, if
any.
[20]
Rollo, pp. 562-564.
[21]
Id. at 566-572.
[22]
Id. at 574-578.
[23]
Id. at 580-586.
SEC. 5 - Power of the Commissioner to Obtain Information, and to Summon,

Examine, and Take Testimony of Persons - In ascertaining the correctness of any
return, or in making a return when none has been made, or in determining the
liability of any person for any internal revenue tax, or in collecting any such liability,
or in evaluating tax compliance, the Commissioner is authorized:
[24]
(A) x x x x
(B) To obtain on a regular basis from any person other than the person whose
internal revenue tax liability is subject to audit or investigation, or from any office
or officer of the national and local governments, government agencies and
instrumentalities, including the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas and government- owned
or -controlled corporations, any information such as, but- not limited to, costs and
volume of production, receipts or sales and gross incomes of taxpayers, and the
names, addresses, and financial statements of corporations, mutual fund
companies, insurance companies, regional operating headquarters of multinational
companies, joint accounts, associations, joint ventures of consortia and registered
partnerships, and their members;
xxxx
SEC. 6. Power of the Commissioner to Make assessments and Prescribe
additional Requirements for Tax Administration and Enforcement. - (A) Examination
of Returns and Determination of Tax Due - After a return has been- filed as required
under the provisions of this Code, the Commissioner or his duly authorized
representative may authorize the examination of any taxpayer and the assessment
of the correct amount of tax: Provided, however; That failure to file a return shall
[25]
not prevent the Commissioner from authorizing the examination of any taxpayer.
Any return, statement of declaration filed in any office authorized to receive the
same shall not be withdrawn: Provided, That within three (3) years from the date of
such filing, the same may be modified, changed, or amended: Provided, further,
That no notice for audit or investigation of such return, statement or declaration
has in the meantime been actually served upon the taxpayer.
(B) Failure to Submit Required Returns, Statements, Reports and other
Documents. - When a report required by law as a basis for the assessment of any
national internal revenue tax shall not be forthcoming within the time fixed by laws
or rules and regulations or when there is reason to believe that any such report is
false, incomplete or erroneous, the Commissioner shall assess the proper tax on the
best evidence obtainable.
In case a person fails to file a required return or other document at the time
prescribed by law, or willfully or otherwise files a false or fraudulent return or other
document, the Commissioner shall make or amend the return from his own
knowledge and from such .information as he can obtain through testimony or
otherwise, which shall be prima facie correct and sufficient for all legal purposes.
(C) Authority to Conduct Inventory-taking, surveillance and to Prescribe
Presumptive Gross Sales and Receipts. - The Commissioner may, at any time during
the taxable year, order inventory-taking of goods of any taxpayer as a basis for
determining his internal revenue tax liabilities, or may place the business
operations of any person, natural or juridical, under observation or surveillance if
there is reason to believe that such person is not declaring his correct income, sales
or receipts for internal revenue tax purposes.
The findings may be used as the basis for assessing the taxes for the other months
or quarters of the same or different taxable years and such assessment shall be
deemed prima facie correct.
When it is found that a person has failed to issue receipts and invoices in violation
of the requirements of Sections 113 and 237 of this Code, or when there is reason
to believe that the books of accounts or other records do not correctly reflect the
declarations made or to be made in a return required to be filed under the
provisions of this Code, the Commissioner, after taking into account the sales,
receipts, income or other taxable base of other persons engaged in similar
businesses under similar situations or circumstances or after considering other
relevant information may prescribe a minimum amount of such gross receipts, sales
and taxable base, and such amount so prescribed shall be prima facie correct for
purposes of determining the internal revenue tax liabilities of such person.
(D) Authority to Terminate Taxable Period. - When it shall come to the knowledge
of the Commissioner that a taxpayer is retiring from business subject to tax, or is
intending to leave the Philippines or to remove his property therefrom or to hide or
conceal his property, or is performing any act tending to obstruct the proceedings
for the collection of the tax for the past or current quarter or year or to render the
same totally or partly ineffective unless such proceedings are begun immediately,
the Commissioner shall declare the tax period of such taxpayer terminated at any
time and shall send the taxpayer a notice of such decision, together with a request
for the immediate payment of the tax for the period so declared terminated and the
tax for the preceding year or quarter, or such portion thereof as may be unpaid,
and said taxes shall be due and payable immediately and shall be subject to all the
penalties hereafter prescribed, unless paid within the time fixed in the demand
made by the Commissioner.
(E) Authority of the Commissioner to Prescribe Real Property Values - The
Commissioner is hereby authorized to divide the Philippines into different zones or
areas and shall, upon consultation with competent appraisers both from the private
and public sectors, determine the fair market value of real properties located in
each zone or area.
For purposes of computing any internal revenue tax, the value of the property shall
be, whichever is the higher of:
(1) the fair market value as determined by the Commissioner, or
(2) the fair market value as shown in the schedule of values of the Provincial and
City Assessors.
(F) Authority of the Commissioner to inquire into Bank Deposit Accounts. Notwithstanding any contrary provision of Republic Act No. 1405 and other general
or special laws, the Commissioner is hereby authorized to inquire into the bank
deposits of:
(1) a decedent to. determine- his gross estate; and (2) any taxpayer who has filed
an application for compromise of his tax liability under Sec. 204 (A) (2) of this Code
by reason of financial incapacity to pay his tax liability.
In case a taxpayer files an application to compromise the payment of his tax
liabilities on his claim that his financial position demonstrates a clear inability to pay
the tax assessed, his application shall not be considered unless and until he waives
in writing his privilege under Republic Act No. 1405 or under other general or
special laws, and such waiver shall constitute the authority of the Commissioner to
inquire into the bank deposits of the taxpayer.

(G) Authority to Accredit and Register Tax Agents - The Commissioner shall
accredit and register, based on their professional competence, integrity and moral
fitness, individuals and general professional partnerships and their representatives
who prepare and file tax returns, statements, reports, protests, and other papers
with or who appear before, the Bureau for taxpayers.
Within one hundred twenty (120) days from January 1, 1998, the Commissioner
shall create national and regional accreditation boards, the members of which shall
serve for three (3) years, and shall designate from among the senior officials of the
Bureau, one (1) chairman and two (2) members for each board, subject to such
rules and regulations as the Secretary of Finance shall promulgate upon the
recommendation of the Commissioner.
Individuals and. general professional partnerships and their representatives who are
denied accreditation by the Commissioner and/or the national and regional
accreditation boards may appeal such denial to the Secretary of Finance, who shall
rule on the appeal within sixty (60) days from receipt of such appeal.
Failure of the Secretary of Finance to rule on the Appeal within the prescribed
period shall be deemed as approval of the application for accreditation of the
appellant.
(H) Authority of the Commissioner to Prescribe Additional Procedural or
Documentary Requirements - The Commissioner may prescribe the manner of
compliance with any documentary or procedural requirement in connection with the
submission or preparation of financial statements accompanying the tax returns.
[26]
Rollo, pp. 587-611.
[27]
Id. at 489-495.
[28]
Id. at 496-514.
[29]
Id. at 516-531.
[30]
Id. at 612.
[31]
Id. at 781.
[32]
Id. at 20; pp. 625-628; 785-789.
[33]
Id. at 443-488.
[34]
Id. at 475-478.
[35]
Id. at 461-462.
[36]
Id. at 462-474.
[37]
Id. at 782-784.
[38]
Id. at 793.
[39]
Id. at 792.
[40]
Id. at 92-100.
[41]
Id. at 27-29.
[42]
Id. at 34-46.
[43]
Id. at 48-50.
[44]
Id. at 50-52.
[45]
Id. at 47-48.
[46]
100 Phil. 327(1956).
[47]
100 Phil. 872(1957).
[48]
Rollo, p. 1238.
[49]
Id. at 1296-1298.
[50]
Id. at 1298.
[51]
Id. at 1298-1310.
[52]
Id. at 1313-1317.
Entitled "An Act Expanding the Jurisdiction of the Court Of Tax Appeals (CTA),
Elevating its Rank to the Level of a Collegiate Court with Special Jurisdiction and
Enlarging its Membership, Amending for the Purpose Certain Sections Or Republic
[53]
Act No. 1125, As Amended, Otherwise Known as The-Law Creating the Court of Tax
Appeals, and for Other Purposes."
[54]
Collector of Internal Revenue v. Avelino, supra note 46, at 335-336.
[55]
100 Phil. 822(1957).
[56]
Id. at 828.
[57]
Id. at 829.
[58]
Id.
[59]
Rollo, p. 98.
SECTION 3. Due Process Requirement in the Issuance of a Deficiency Tax

Assessment.
3.1 Mode of procedures in the issuance of a deficiency tax assessment:
[60]
3.1.1 Notice for informal conference. The Revenue Officer who audited the
taxpayer's records shall, among others, state in his report whether or not the
taxpayer agrees with his findings that the taxpayer is liable for deficiency tax or
taxes. If the taxpayer is not amenable, based on the said Officer's submitted report
of investigation, the taxpayer shall be informed, in writing, by the Revenue District
Office or by the Special Investigation Division, as the case may be (in the case
Revenue Regional Offices) or by the Chief of Division concerned (in the case of the
BIR National Office) of the discrepancy or discrepancies in the taxpayer's payment
of his internal revenue taxes, for the purpose of "Informal Conference," in order to
afford the taxpayer with an opportunity to present his side of the case. If the
taxpayer fails to respond within fifteen (15) days from date of receipt of the notice
for informal conference, he shall be considered in default, in which case, the
Revenue District Officer or the Chief of the Special Investigation Division of the
Revenue Regional Office, or the Chief of Division in the National Office, as the case
may be, shall endorse the case with the least possible delay to the Assessment
Division of the Revenue Regional Office or to the Commissioner or his duly
authorized representative, as the case may be, for appropriate review and issuance
of a deficiency tax assessment, if warranted.
xxxx
While R.R. No. 12-99 was recently amended by R.R. No. 18-2013 on November
28, 2013, the same should not be deemed to have retroacted effect and cure the
otherwise fatal defect committed by the CIR. R.R. No. 18-2013 is bereft of any
[61]
indication that the revenue regulation shall operate retroactively

Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Metro Superama, Inc. 652 Phil. 172, 186
(2010).
[62]
Section 203. Period of Limitation Upon Assessment and Collection. - Except as

provided in Section 222, internal revenue taxes shall be assessed within three (3)
years after the last day prescribed by law for the filing of the return, and no
proceeding in court without assessment for the collection of such taxes shall be
begun after the expiration of such period: Provided, That in a case where a return is
filed beyond the period prescribed by law, the three (3)-year period shall be
counted from the day the return was filed. For purposes of this Section, a return
filed before the last day prescribed by law for the filing thereof shall be considered
as filed on such last day.
[63]
[64]
Transglobe International, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 631 Phil. 727, 739 (1999).
[65]
The pertinent portion of RMO No. 27-10 reads:
II. Policies and Procedures

The following policies and guidelines shall be observed in the development ' and
investigation of RATE cases, in addition to those set forth in the relevant revenue
issuances:
A. x x x x
B. Issuance of Letters of Authority in RATE cases. 1. In all RATE cases, a preliminary investigation must first be conducted to
establish prima facie evidence of fraud or tax evasion. Such investigation
shall include the verification and determination of the schemes employed and
the extent of fraud perpetrated by the subject taxpayer;
2. In the event that, following the conduct of the required preliminary
investigation, the NID / SIDs should determine that there is prima
facie evidence of tax fraud, it shall submit the case, together with a
memorandum justifying the issuance of a Letter of Authority (LA) to the
Deputy Commissioner- Legal and Inspection Group (DC1R-LIG), through the
Assistant Commissioner (Enforcement Service) / the concerned Regional
Director, for evaluation;
The DCIR-LIG shall then evaluate the request, and determine whether the
same shall be recommended for approval by the Commissioner of Internal

Revenue. If the DCIR-LIG finds a request meritorious, the docket of the case,
together with the memorandum-request bearing the concurrence of the
DCIR-LIG, shall be forwarded to the Commissioner, for final review and
approval.
3. The DCIR-LIG shall likewise conduct the appropriate verification with the
Letter of Authority Monitoring System (LAMS), to ascertain whether a LA for
a taxpayer for a particular taxable year has already been issued to the
concerned taxpayer.
In the event that, following such verification, it is ascertained that no LA has
been previously issued against the concerned taxpayer, a printout of the
LAMS search results must be included in the docket of the case, to support
the issuance of the requested LA.
4. If, however, it is disclosed that an LA was previously issued for the concerned
taxpayer, and that the corresponding investigation has already been
commenced or concluded, the DCIR-LIG shall include in the request for
issuance of an LA a recommendation and justification for the re-assignment
to, or re opening of the investigation by, the N1D/S1D concerned. The
Commissioner shall then decide whether the investigation shall be continued
by the present investigating office, or if the investigation shall be re assigned
to/re-opened by. the NID/SID concerned.
5. In the event that the Commissioner should rule in favor of the re-assignment
to/re-opening of the tax investigation by the NID/SID, the DCIR-LIG shall
inform the RDO/LT District Office or Division concerned, thru the Regional
Director/Assistant Commissioner - LTS, of the decision of the Commissioner,
and require the transmittal of the docket of the case to the NID/SID, as well
as the cancellation of the existing LA.
6. x x x x
7. The issuance of LAs shall cover only the taxable year(s) for which prima
facie evidence of tax fraud, or of violations of the Tax Code, was established
through the appropriate preliminary investigation, unless the investigation of
prior or subsequent years is necessary in order to:
o
Determine or trace continuing transactions entered into in the covered

year and concluded thereafter, or those transactions concluded in the
covered year that were commenced in prior years; or
Establish that the same scheme was utilized for prior or subsequent
years.
[66]
Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Reyes, 516 Phil. 176, 186 (2006).
[67]
Collector of Internal Revenue v. Benipayo, 114 Phil. 135, 138 (1962).
[68]
Section 207. Summary Remedies. -
(A) Distraint of Personal Property. - Upon the failure of the person owing any
delinquent tax or delinquent revenue to pay the same at the time required, the
Commissioner or his duly authorized representative, if the amount involved is in
excess of One million pesos (P1,000,000), or the Revenue District Officer, if the
amount involved is One million pesos (P1,000,000) or less, shall seize and distraint
any goods, chattels or effects, and the personal property, including stocks and other
securities, debts, credits, bank accounts, and interests in and rights to personal
property of such persons ;in sufficient quantity to satisfy the tax, or charge,
together with any increment thereto incident to delinquency, and the expenses of
the distraint and the cost of the subsequent sale.
A report on the distraint shall, within ten (10) days from receipt of the warrant, be
submitted by the distraining officer to the Revenue District Officer, and to the
Revenue Regional Director: Provided, That the Commissioner or his duly authorized
representative shall, subject to rules and regulations promulgated by the Secretary
of Finance, upon recommendation of the Commissioner, have the power to lift such
order of distraint: Provided, further, That a consolidated report by the Revenue
Regional Director may be required by the Commissioner as often as necessary.
(B) Levy on Real Property. - After the expiration of the time required to pay the
delinquent tax or delinquent revenue as prescribed in this Section, real property
may be levied upon, before simultaneously or after the distraint of personal
property belonging to the delinquent. To this end, any internal revenue officer
designated by the Commissioner or his duly authorized representative shall prepare
a duly authenticated certificate showing the name of the taxpayer and the amounts
of the tax and penalty due-from him. Said certificate shall operate with the force of
a legal execution throughout the Philippines.
Levy shall be affected by writing upon said certificate a description of the property
upon which levy is made. At the same time, written notice of the levy shall be
mailed to or served upon the Register of Deeds for the province or city where the
property is located and upon the delinquent taxpayer, or if he be absent from the
Philippines, to his agent or the manager of the business in respect to which the
liability arose, or if there be none, to the occupant of the property in question.
In case the warrant of levy on real property is not issued before or simultaneously
with the warrant of distraint on personal property, and the personal property of the
taxpayer is not sufficient to satisfy his tax delinquency, the Commissioner or his
duly authorized representative shall, within thirty (30) days after execution of the
distraint, proceed with the levy on the taxpayer's real property.
Within ten (10) days after receipt of the warrant, a report on any levy shall be
submitted by the levying officer to the Commissioner or his duly authorized
representative: Provided, however, That a consolidated report by the Revenue
Regional Director may be required by the Commissioner as often as necessary:
Provided, further, That the Commissioner or his duly authorized representative,
subject to rules and regulations promulgated by the Secretary of Finance, upon
recommendation of the Commissioner, shall have the authority to lift warrants of
levy issued in accordance with the provisions hereof:
Section 208. Procedure for Distraint and Garnishment. - The officer serving the
warrant of distraint shall make or cause to be made an account of the goods,
chattels, effects or other personal property distrained, a copy of which, signed by
himself, shall be left either with the owner or person from whose possession such
goods, chattels, or effects or other personal property were taken, or at .the
dwelling or place of business of such person and with someone of suitable age and
discretion, to which list shall be added a statement of the sum demanded and note
of the time and place of sale.
[69]
Stocks and other securities shall be distrained by serving a copy of the warrant of
distraint upon the taxpayer and upon the president, manager, treasurer or other
responsible officer of the corporation, company or association, which issued the said
stocks or securities.
Debts and credits shall be distrained by leaving with the person owing the debts or
having in his possession or under his control such credits, or with his agent, a copy
of the warrant of distraint. The warrant of distraint shall be sufficient authority to
the person owning the debts or having in his possession or under his control any
credits belonging to the taxpayer to pay to the Commissioner the amount of such
debts or credits.
Bank accounts shall be garnished by serving a wan-ant of garnishment upon the
taxpayer and upon the president, manager, treasurer or other responsible officer of
the bank. Upon receipt of the warrant of garnishment, the bank shall turn over to
the Commissioner so much of the bank accounts as may be sufficient to satisfy the
claim of the Government.
Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Metro Superama, Inc., 352 Phil. 172, 187188(2010).
[70]

G.R.
No.
210308
ASIAN INTERNATIONAL MANPOWER SERVICES, INC., PETITIONER, VS. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT,
RESPONDENT.
April 06, 2016
THIRD DIVISION
[ G.R. No. 210308, April 06, 2016 ]
ASIAN INTERNATIONAL MANPOWER SERVICES, INC.,
PETITIONER, VS. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND
EMPLOYMENT, RESPONDENT.
DECISION
REYES, J.:
This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari[1] assailing the Decision[2] dated July 9,
2013 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 123565, which sustained the
Order dated April 12, 2011 and Resolution dated December 22, 2011 of the
Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) in OS-POEA-0142-1013-2008.
The Facts
Rule II, Part VI of the 2002 Philippine Overseas Employment Agency (POEA) Rules
and Regulations Governing the Recruitment and Employment of Land-based

Overseas Workers (2002 POEA Rules) authorizes the filing of a complaint by the
POEA upon its own initiative[3] against a recruitment agency suspected of violations
of its Rules on the recruitment and placement of overseas workers. In particular,
Section 2(e) of Rule I, Part VI thereof provides:
SECTION 2. Grounds for imposition of administrative sanctions:
xxxx
e. Engaging in act/s of misrepresentation in connection with recruitment and
placement of workers, such as furnishing or publishing any false notice, information
or document in relation to recruitment or employment;
xxxx
On November 8, 2006, the Anti-Illegal Recruitment Branch of the POEA, pursuant to
Surveillance Order No. 033, Series of 2006, conducted a surveillance of Asian
International Manpower Services, Inc. (AIMS) with office address at 1653 Taft
Avenue corner Pedro Gil Street, Malate, Manila to determine whether it was
operating as a recruitment agency despite the cancellation of its license on August
28, 2006.[4] The operatives reported that their surveillance did not reveal the
information needed, so another surveillance was recommended. [5]
On February 20, 2007, another surveillance was conducted on the premises of
AIMS' office pursuant to Surveillance Order No. Oil. This time the POEA operatives
observed that there were people standing outside its main entrance, and there were
announcements of job vacancies posted on the main glass door of the office.
[6]
Posing as applicants, the POEA operatives, Atty. Romelson E. Abbang and
Edilberto V. Alogoc, inquired as to the requirements for the position of executive
staff, and a lady clerk of AIMS handed them a flyer.[7] Through the flyer, they
learned that AIMS was hiring hotel workers for deployment to Macau and grape
pickers for California.[8] They also saw applicants inside the office waiting to be
attended to. The POEA operatives later confirmed through the POEA Verification
System that AIMS had regained its license and good standing on December 6,
2006, but that it had no existing approved job orders yet at that time. [9]
On March 26, 2007, the POEA issued a Show Cause Order directing AIMS and its
covering surety, Country Bankers Insurance Corporation, to submit their answer or
explanation to the Surveillance Report dated November 8, 2006 of the POEA
operatives.[10] However, no copy of the Surveillance Report dated February 21, 2007
was attached.[11]
In compliance thereto, Danilo P. Pelagio, AIMS President, wrote to the POEA on April
3, 2007 maintaining that AIMS was not liable for any recruitment
misrepresentation. Invoking the Surveillance Report dated November 8, 2006, he

cited the POEA operatives' own admission that when they first came posing as
applicants, the AIMS staff advised them that it had no job vacancies for waiters and
that its license had been cancelled. He also called POEA's attention to the notice
issued to AIMS, which was received on November 27, 2006, that the cancellation of
its license had been set aside on December 6, 2006; and that the POEA
Adjudication Office even circulated an advise to all its operating units of the
restoration of AIMS' license.[12]
During the hearing on May 9, 2007, AIMS representative, Rommel Lugatiman
(Lugatiman), appeared, and averring that it had already filed its answer, he then
moved for the resolution of the complaint.[13]
In the Order dated June 30, 2008, then POEA Administrator Rosalinda Baldoz ruled
that on the basis of the Surveillance Report dated February 21, 2007 of the POEA
operatives, AIMS was liable for misrepresentation under Section 2(e), Rule I, Part
VI of the 2002 POEA Rules, since the POEA records showed that AIMS had no job
orders to hire hotel workers for Macau, nor grape pickers for California, as its flyer
allegedly advertised. The fallo of the order reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, we find and so hold [AIMS] liable for violation
of Section 2(e), Rule I, Part VI of the [2002 POEA Rules] and is hereby imposed
with (sic) the penalty of suspension of its license for four (4) months or, in lieu
thereof, fine amounting to PHP40,000.00.
SO ORDERED.[14]
AIMS filed a motion for reconsideration before the DOLE. It alleged that its right to
due process was violated because the POEA did not furnish it with a copy of the
Surveillance Report dated February 21, 2007, which was the basis of the POEA
Administrator's factual findings.[15]
In an Order dated April 12, 2011, the DOLE affirmed the order of the POEA,
asserting that due process was observed. It cited AIMS's letter-answer to POEA's
Show Cause Order dated April 3, 2007 denying POEA's charge of misrepresentation.
It likewise cited the hearing held on May 9, 2007 wherein AIMS's representative,
Lugatiman, after manifesting that it had filed its answer, merely moved that the
case be deemed submitted for resolution instead of availing of the hearing to rebut
the allegations of misrepresentation against it. [16]
AIMS moved for reconsideration from the DOLE ruling, which the DOLE denied on
December 22, 2011.[17]
On January 3, 2012, AIMS filed a petition for certiorari in the CA, docketed as CAG.R. SP No. 123565, upon the following grounds:
THE [DOLE] GRAVELY ABUSED ITS DISCRETION TANTAMOUNT TO LACK OR EXCESS

OF JURISDICTION WHEN IT DID NOT HEED THE PLEA OF [AIMS] FOR COMPLIANCE
WITH THE DUE PROCESS OF LAW, AT LEAST REMANDING THE CASE TO THE POEA
TO ENABLE [AIMS] TO ANSWER SQUARELY THE [SURVEILLANCE REPORT DATED
FEBRUARY 21, 2007] AND ALL OTHER EVIDENCE ALONG WITH IT.
THE [DOLE] GRAVELY ABUSED ITS DISCRETION TANTAMOUNT TO LACK OR EXCESS
OF JURISDICTION WHEN IT AFFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE POEA IN RULING THAT
[AIMS] IS GUILTY OF THE OFFENSE CHARGED DESPITE THE LACK OF
SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE FINDINGS.[18]
In its Decision[19] dated July 9, 2013, the CA dismissed AIMS's charge of denial of
due process for failure of POEA to furnish it with a copy of the Surveillance Report
dated February 21, 2007. It held that AIMS' misrepresentation with regard to the
recruitment of workers for non-existent overseas jobs was supported by substantial
evidence.
In the case at bench, AIMS['s] failure to receive a copy of Surveillance Report dated
21 February 2007 does not amount to denial of due process. True, in the Show
Cause Order, only the Surveillance Report dated 8 November 2006 and the Affidavit
of the operatives who conducted the surveillance were attached to the same.
Hence, when AIMS filed a Letter in reply to the Show Cause Order, it answered only
the contents of Surveillance Report dated 8 November 2006. However, it is
undisputed that on 9 May 2007, POEA scheduled a preliminary hearing where
Lugatiman, AIMS representative, appeared.Lugatiman was obviously informed of
the charges against AIMS. Instead of rebutting the allegations of the operatives in
the two (2) Surveillance Reports, Lugatiman failed to clarify the issues or the
charges and merely manifested that AIMS already filed an answer and thus moved
for the resolution of the Complaint against it. Clearly, AIMS was given the
opportunity to be heard and to present its side but failed to make use of the same.
Thus, AIMS cannot feign denial of due process.
Further, the charge of misrepresentation against AIMS is supported by substantial
evidence. It is well settled that in administrative proceedings as in the case before
the POEA, only substantial evidence is needed or such relevant evidence as a
reasonable mind may accept as adequate to support a conclusion.
Section 2(e) of Rule I, Part VI of the 2002 POEA Rules reads:
"SECTION 2. Grounds for imposition of administrative sanctions:
xxxx
6. Engaging in act/s of misrepresentation in connection with recruitment and
placement of workers, such as furnishing or publishing any false notice, information
or document in relation to recruitment or employment;
x x x x"
In this case, AIMS committed misrepresentation in connection with recruitment and
placement of workers when it offered various job openings in Macau as hotel
workers and for U.S.A. as grape pickers although it knew that it had no existing
approved job orders. AIMS misrepresented to its applicants that it had the valid
authority and capacity to deploy workers to the said places in violation of the 2002
POEA Rules.[20] (Citations omitted and underlining ours)
In this petition, AIMS insists that its right to due process was violated because it
was never furnished with a copy of the POEA Surveillance Report dated February
21, 2007, upon which both the POEA and DOLE anchored their factual finding that it
misrepresented to job applicants that it had existing job orders.
Ruling of the Court
The petition is granted.
"[T]he essence of due process is simply an opportunity to be heard or, as applied to
administrative proceedings, an opportunity to explain one's side or an opportunity
to seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of. In the application of
the principle of due process, what is sought to be safeguarded is not lack of
previous notice but the denial of the opportunity to be heard." [21]
"Due process is satisfied when a person is notified of the charge against him and
given an opportunity to explain or defend himself."[22] "The observance of fairness in
the conduct of an investigation is at the very heart of procedural due process." [23] As
long as he is given the opportunity to defend his interests in due course, he is not
denied due process.[24] In administrative proceedings, the filing of charges and
giving reasonable opportunity to the person charged to answer the accusations
against him constitute the minimum requirements of due process. [25]
According to the CA, AIMS was "obviously informed of the charges" against it
during the May 9, 2007 preliminary hearing at the POEA, where its representative
Lugatiman appeared. But instead of rebutting the allegations of the POEA
operatives in their Surveillance Reports, Lugatiman "failed to clarify the issues or
the charges and merely manifested that AIMS already filed an answer and thus
moved for the resolution of the Complaint against it." Thus, the CA concluded that
AIMS was given opportunity to be heard and to present its side but it failed to make
use of the said opportunity.[26]
The Court does not agree. In concluding that, through Lugatiman, AIMS was
"obviously informed of the charges" during the preliminary hearing, the CA
overlooked the crucial fact that, as the POEA itself admitted, it did not furnish AIMS
with a copy of its Surveillance Report dated February 21, 2007, which contains the
factual allegations of misrepresentation supposedly committed by AIMS. It is
incomprehensible why the POEA would neglect to furnish AIMS with a copy of the
said report, since other than the fact that AIMS was represented at the hearing on
May 9, 2007, there is no showing that Lugatiman was apprised of the contents
thereof. In fact, as AIMS now claims, the alleged recruitment flyer distributed to its
applicants was not even presented.
Since AIMS was provided with only the Surveillance Report dated November 8,
2006, it could only have been expected to respond to the charge contained in the
Show Cause Order. Thus, in its answer, it needed only to point to the POEA
operatives' own admission in their Surveillance Report dated November 8, 2006
that when they came posing as job applicants, the staff of AIMS advised them that
it had no job vacancies for waiters and that its license had been cancelled. As POEA
now also admits, AIMS's license to recruit was restored on December 6, 2006.
The CA faulted AIMS for failing to avail itself of the opportunity to rebut the
allegations of the POEA operatives in the two Surveillance Reports, as well as "to
clarify the issues or the charges," during the May 9, 2007 preliminary hearing.
[27]
Considering that AIMS was not furnished with the Surveillance Report dated
February 21, 2007, it cannot be expected to second-guess what charges and issues
it needed to clarify or rebut in order to clear itself. Needless to say, its right to due
process consisting of being informed of the charges against it has been grossly
violated.
Moreover, AIMS also points out that the flyer advertising the jobs in Macau and
California was never presented or made part of the record, and neither was the
AIMS lady clerk who allegedly distributed the same even identified, as AIMS
demanded. Besides, granting that AIMS did advertise with flyers for hotel workers
or grape pickers, for which it allegedly had no existing approved job orders, it is
provided in Sections 1 and 2 of Rule VII (Advertisement for Overseas Jobs), Part II
of the 2002 POEA Rules[28] that the said activity is permitted for manpower pooling
purposes, without need of prior approval from the POEA, upon the following
conditions: (1) it is done by a licensed agency; (2) the advertisement indicates in
bold letters that it is for manpower pooling only; (3) no fees are collected from the
applicants; and (4) the name, address and POEA license number of the agency,
name and worksite of the prospective registered/accredited principal and the skill
categories and qualification standards are indicated.
It is true that in administrative proceedings, as in the case below, only substantial
evidence is needed, or such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind may accept as
adequate to support a conclusion.[29] Unfortunately, there is no evidence against
AIMS to speak of, much less substantial evidence. Clearly, AlMS's right to be
informed of the charges against it, and its right to be held liable only upon
substantial evidence, have both been gravely violated.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is GRANTED. Accordingly, the
Decision dated July 9, 2013 and Resolution dated December 6, 2013 of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 123565, are REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
SO ORDERED.
May 25, 2016

NOTICE OF JUDGMENT
Sirs / Mesdames:
Very truly yours,

[1]
Rollo, pp. 15-35.
Penned by Associate Justice Florito S. Macalino, with Associate Justices

Sesinando E. Villon and Pedro B. Corales concurring; id. at 37-44.
[2]
Section 1 of Rule II, Part VI of the 2002 POEA Rules provides that "the
Administration, on its own initiative, may conduct proceedings based on reports of
violation POEA Rules and Regulations and other issuances on overseas employment
subject to preliminary evaluation."
[3]
[4]
Rollo, p. 38.
[5]
Id.
[6]
Id.
[7]
Id. at 19, 38.
[8]
Id. at 21.
[9]
Id. at 20-21.
[10]
Id. at 39.
[11]
Id. at 19.
[12]
Id. at 39.
[13]
Id.
[14]
Id. at 39-40.
[15]
Id. at 40.
[16]
Id.
[17]
Id.
[18]
Id. at 41.
[19]
Id. at 37-44.
[20]
Id. at 42-43.
[21]
Gannapao v. Civil Service Commission, et al., 665 Phil. 60, 70 (2011).
[22]
F/O Ledesma v. CA, 565 Phil. 731, 740 (2007).
Vivo v. Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation (PAGCOR), G.R. No.

187854, November 12, 2013, 709 SCRA 276, 281.
[23]
Gannapao v. Civil Service Commission, et al., supra note

21; see also Cojuanqco, Jr. v. Atty. Palma, 501 Phil. 1, 8 (2005).
[24]
[25]
Rivas v. Sison, 498 Phil. 148, 154 (2005).
[26]
Rollo, p. 43.
[27]
Id.
Section 1. Advertisement for Actual Job Vacancies. Licensed agencies may

advertise for actual job vacancies without prior approval from the Administration if
covered by manpower requests of registered/accredited foreign principals and
projects. The advertisements shall indicate the following information:
a. Name, address and POEA license number of the agency;
[28]
b. Work site of prospective principal/project;

c. Skill categories and qualification standards; and
d. Number of available positions.
Section 2. Advertisement for Manpower Pooling. Licensed agencies may advertise
for manpower pooling without prior approval from the Administration subject to the
following conditions:
a. The advertisement should indicate in bold letters that it is for manpower pooling
only and that no fees will be collected from the applicants; and
b. The advertisement indicates the name, address and POEA license number of the
agency, name and worksite of the prospective registered/accredited principal and
the skill categories and qualification standards.
[29]
Office of the Ombudsman v. Beltran, 606 Phil. 573, 590 (2009).

G.R.
PEOPLE
OF
No.
THE
April 06, 2016
PHILIPPINES,
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
206766
VS.
EDUARDO
YEPES,
ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
THIRD DIVISION
[ G.R. No. 206766, April 06, 2016 ]
EDUARDO YEPES, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
DECISION
PEREZ, J.:
Before us for review is the Decision[1] of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CEB CR HC
No. 01007 dated 21 September 2012, which dismissed the appeal of accusedappellant Eduardo Yepes and affirmed with modification the Judgment [2] of the
Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 28 of Catbalogan City in Criminal Case Nos.
6125-6126 finding accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of
Section 5, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165 or the Comprehensive
Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
Accused-appellant was charged with violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. No.
9165, to wit:
That on or about the 29th day of July 2004, at about 6:20 o'clock in the evening,
more or less, at vicinity of Purok 6, Barangay Guindapunan, Municipality of
Catbalogan, Province of Samar, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with deliberate intent to gain and
without being authorized by law, did, then and there, wilfully, unlawfully and
feloniously sell and hand over One (1) Heat sealed transparent plastic bag
containing white crystalline substance called methylamphetaminc Hydrocholoride
locally known as "shabu", a dangerous drug, having the following marking and net
weight, to wit: "A-1-("JFI-1")-0.03 gram", as per Chemistry Report No. D-2762004, to PO1 Ervin A. Ario who acted as poseur-buyer in a "buy-bust" operation
conducted by the Samar Provincial Police Office (PPO) of Catbalogan, Samar, as
evidenced by the Two (2) pieces of One Hundred Pesos Bills (P100.00) marked
money with Serial Numbers RN535127 and QJ837907, respectively.[3]
At his arraignment, accused-appellant, pleaded not guilty. Trial ensued.
The prosecution presented as witnesses Police Officer 2 Ervin Anno (PO2 Ario),
Police Senior Inspector Benjamin Aguirre Cruto (P/S Insp. Cruto) PO2 Roy Lapura
(PO2 Lapura), Senior Police Officer 4 Romy dela Cruz (SPO4 dela Cruz), PO3 Nelson
Lapeciros (PO3 Lapeciros) and PO3 Jay Ilagan (PO3 Ilagan).
PO2 Ario testified that on 29 July 2004, at around 6:20 in the evening, he was
with PO2 Lapura and PO2 Arthur Perdiso (PO2 Perdiso) at Purok
6, BarangayGuindapunan, Catbalogan City to conduct a buy-bust operation on a
person yet to be identified and accompanied by their police asset. The operation
had been authorized by Police Inspector Carlos G. Vencio in the afternoon of the
same day. The police asset whose name PO2 Ario failed to remember on the
witness stand, arrived in a motorcycle with accused-appellant as passenger. PO2
Ario, as poseur buyer, then asked accused-appellant if he had some stuff and the
latter nodded. PO2 Ario gave him two (2) One Hundred Peso (P100.00) bills in
exchange for a small sachet of what PO2 Ario believed to be shabu based on its
appearance. PO2 Ario removed his cap to signal the consummation of the
operation to his companions who had been hiding behind a concrete wall about 5-6
meters away. When his companions arrived and arrested accused-appellant, PO2
Ario headed for the police station to report the outcome of the operation. Thereat,
he surrendered the plastic sachet to PO3 Ilagan.[4]
PO2 Lapura confirmed that they had not been informed about the identity of the
suspect before the buy-bust operation and that the police asset was to identify him
for them. During the buy-bust operation, PO2 Lapura together with PO2 Perdiso and
SPO4 dela Cruz been stationed more or less ten (10) meters from the location of
the alleged buy-bust operation. PO2 Lapura saw accused-appellant and PO2 Ario
hand one another something and when the latter executed the pre-arranged signal,
PO2 Lapura and PO2 Perdiso approached them. PO2 Lapura informed the accusedappellant of his constitutional rights and conducted a body search on the latter
which yielded two (2) small plastic sachets and two (2) pieces of One Hundred Peso
(P100.00) bills. PO2 Lapura subsequently handed the sachets to SPO4 dela Cruz
who had remained at their original location and the bills to PO3 Ilagan at the police
station. On cross-examination, PO2 Lapura stated that from his vantage point, he
could not see the plastic sachet but merely saw accused-appellant hand PO2 Ario
something. He also stated that he cannot ascertain whether it was shabu due to the
distance.[5]
SPO4 dela Cruz narrated that he had been waiting at the barangay hall when the
buy-bust team together with accused-appellant passed by en route to the police
station. PO2 Ario handed him three (3) sachets. SPO4 dela Cruz proceeded to
examine the contents of one of the sachets. His conclusion that the same
was shabu is embodied in a Certification of Drug Field Test dated 29 July 2004. [6]
PO3 Ilagan, as evidence custodian, testified that three (3) sachets of shabu had
been surrendered to him at the police station by officers PO2 Ario and Lapura. He
marked the evidence as "JFI" and submitted them to the Philippine Drug
Enforcement Agency (PDEA) for examination.[7]
PO3 Lapeciros stated that he had photocopied five (5) pieces of One Hundred Peso
(P100.00) bills and had them subscribed by the Office of the Clerk of Court for use
in buy-bust operations.[8]
P/S Insp. Cruto testified that he had conducted a physical examination of the
substance alleged to be shabu.[9] His positive findings are encapsulated in
Chemistry Report No. D-276-2004.[10]
Accused-appellant testified on his behalf and vehemently denied the indictment. He
narrated that on the date of the alleged buy-bust operation, he had just come from
the public cemetery and was walking to the town proper when a person named
Lagrimas, known to be a police asset, came around driving a motorcycle. Lagrimas
requested accused-appellant to ride with him in his motorcycle and he acceded.
Near the grandstand in Barangay Guindapunan, Lagrimas parked the motorcycle
with several police officers, more than ten (10) of them, within distance. The police
officers approached them and handcuffed accused-appellant. Lagrimas pulled
out shabufrom his shirt, gave it to one of the police officers who attempted to put it
inside accused-appellant's pocket which the latter was able to resist. The police
officers brought accused-appellant to the police station and there was shown the
sachet of shabu but he denied any charges. The police officers told him "here, so
that you can go free, because according to you, you have not committed any crime,
here is Two Hundred (P200.00) Pesos marked money, go to Guinsorongan, buy this
'shabu', to whoever you will give the money, that is the one we will apprehend."
When accused-appellant refused the request, he was placed inside the detention
cell.[11]
On 19 December 2008, the RTC rendered judgment finding accused-appellant guilty
of illegal sale of a dangerous drug. The dispositive portion of the RTC Decision
reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, this Court hereby sentences the
accused EDUARDO YEPES Y CINCO, beyond reasonable doubt for Violation of
Section 5 of R.A. No. 9165 and, thus, punishes him to suffer a penalty of life
imprisonment to death and to pay a fine of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos
(P500,000.00). But however, acquits the accused of illegal possession of shabu
under Section 11 of R.A. No. 9165.
Mr. Victor Templonuevo, OIC, Provincial Warden, is hereby directed to deliver the
living body of accused Yepes to Abuyog Penal Colony immediately upon receipt of
this judgment, unless otherwise, detained for some other causes. With cost de
oficio.[12]
Accused-appellant moved for a reconsideration and re-opening of the case,
tendering a joint affidavit executed by four (4) affiants stating that no buy-bust
operation took place on 29 July 2004, and that about the time of the alleged
operation, accused-appellant was working at another place and that, the latter is of
good moral character and enjoys good standing in their community.[13] This the RTC
denied.[14]
Accused-appellant filed a Notice of Appeal on 18 February 2009. [15] On 21
September 2012, the Court of Appeals rendered the assailed judgment affirming
with modification the trial court's decision. The Court of Appeals found accusedappellant guilty of the crime charged, or violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A.
9165.
Accused-appellant appealed his conviction before this Court. In a
Resolution[16] dated 08 July 2013, accused-appellant and the Office of the Solicitor
General (OSG) were asked to file their respective supplemental briefs if they so
desired. Both parties manifested that they will no longer file supplemental briefs as
their arguments in their respective briefs are already sufficient. [17]
Accused-appellant asserts that the shabu was planted by the police officers and that
there was no sufficient proof that the prosecution witnesses had indeed seen him
sell shabu. In addition, the police officers failed to observe the proper procedure in
the handling, custody and disposition of the seized drug.
The Court finds merit in the appeal.
The RTC anchored accused-appellant's conviction fundamentally on the testimonial
evidence of the prosecution. The RTC brushed aside accused-appellant's defense of
denial ruling that his evidence failed to overturn the presumption of regularity in
the performance of official duties on the part of the police officers. Similarly, the
Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the RTC, also lending greater credence
to the testimonial evidence of the prosecution. According to the Court of Appeals,
said evidence was found to have sufficiently established the elements of the crime
charged, as well as the fact of preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of
the drug specimens seized. The appellate court also upheld the presumption of
regularity in favor of the police officers.
The Court reviewed the records of the instant case and saw a different story. The
police officers had indeed committed serious lapses in procedure in the conduct of
the buy-bust operation on 29 July 2004. The Court also finds that the evidence for
the prosecution falls short of the exacting degree of proof beyond reasonable doubt
required under our criminal laws.
Generally, the trial court's findings of fact, especially when affirmed by the Court of
Appeals, are entitled to great weight and will not be disturbed on appeal. This rule,
however, admits of exceptions and does not apply where facts of weight and
substance with direct and material bearing on the final outcome of the case have
been overlooked, misapprehended or misapplied as in the case at bar.[18]

To secure a conviction for illegal sale of shabu, the following elements must be
present: (a) the identities of the buyer and the seller, the object of the sale and the
consideration; and (b) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment for the thing.
It is material to establish that the transaction or sale actually took place, and to
bring to the court the corpus delicti as evidence.[19] Proof beyond, reasonable doubt
in criminal prosecutions for the sale of illegal drugs demands that unwavering
exactitude be observed in establishing the corpus delicti, the body of crime whose
core is the confiscated illicit drug.[20]
The reason for this the Court elucidated in People v. Tan,[21] to wit:
[B]y the very nature of anti-narcotics operations, the need for entrapment
procedures, the use of shady characters as informants, the ease with which sticks
of marijuana or grams of heron can be planted in pockets or hands of unsuspecting
provincial hicks, and the secrecy that inevitably shrouds all drug deals, the
possibility of abuse is great. Thus, the courts have been exhorted to be extra
vigilant in trying drug cases lest an innocent person is made lo suffer the unusually
severe penalties for drug offenses. Needless to state, the lower court should have
exercised the utmost diligence and prudence in deliberating upon accusedappellants guilt. It should have given more serious consideration to
the pros and cons of the evidence offered by both the defense and the State and
many loose ends should have been settled by the trial court in determining the
merits of the present case.
The Court carefully examined the pieces of evidence on record, read the
testimonies of the witnesses for the prosecution and the defense, and noted the
following material points:
1. Only the police asset/informant and PO2 Ario had personal knowledge of the
buy-bust operation, if at all one was clone. Interestingly, the prosecution
never presented the police asset. Neither had any statement been taken from
him which was material considering that he was the lone source of
information regarding accused-appellant's supposed illegal activities. It is
noteworthy that the identity of the accused-appellant had not been known to
any of the participants of the buy-bust team and that he could only be
identified through the police asset. It is also remarkable that PO2 Ario could
not remember the police asset's name on the witness stand. No surveillance
was conducted to identify the alleged drug-pusher who would be the subject
of the entrapment. There was even no evidence regarding the dependability
or reliability of the police asset.
2. PO2 Ario testified that immediately after his companions apprehended
accused-appellant, he went back to the police station to report the incident
and hand overone (1) plastic sachet to PO3 Ilagan. His actuations were not
according to procedure. PO2 Ario left the scene shortly. There was no
mention that he marked the sachet, nor that he took photographs and made
an inventory of the same. PO2 Ario stated that he had the sachet marked
but could not recall its marking. Most importantly, PO2 Ario stated that he
surrendered only one (1) sachet and that he surrendered the same to PO3
Ilagan.
3. PO2 Lapura was positioned with SPO4 dela Cruz and PO2 Perdiso some ten
(10) meters away from the location of the buy-bust operation. He admitted
that he merely observed the gestures of the PO2 Ario and accused-appellant
and that he could not ascertain from his vantage point whether the plastic
sachet indeed contained shabu. PO2 Lapura also testified that his body
search on accused-appellant yielded two (2) small plastic sachets and two
(2) pieces of One Hundred Peso (P100.00) bills. PO2 Lapura handed
the sachets to SPO4 dela Cruz who had remained at their original post and
the bills to PO3 Ilagan at the police station.
4. SPO4 dela Cruz did not witness the buy-bust operation as he had waited at
the barangay hall. There, PO2 Ario allegedly handed him three (3)
sachets. He opened one (1) sachet, tasted it and concluded that the
same and the other two (2) sachets all contained shabu.
5. PO3 Ilagan testified that, as evidence custodian, three (3)
sachets of shabu had been surrendered to him at the police station
by officers PO2 Ario and Lapura. He marked the evidence as "JFI" and
submitted them to PDEA for examination. There was no mention whether the
marking had been made in the presence of accused-appellant.
6. PO3 Lapeciros and P/S Insp. Cruto only performed limited tasks and had no
personal knowledge of the buy-bust operation.
Evidently, there are material inconsistencies between and among the testimonies of
the police officers raising doubts whether an entrapment operation had indeed been
made; and serious questions regarding the integrity of the corpus delicti if truly
there had been a buy-bust operation. Considering that the police asset was not
presented, the evidence against accused-appellant consists solely of PO2 Ario's
declaration that there was a buy-bust operation conducted on a drug-pusher who
turned out to be accused-appellant. It is PO2 Ario's positive declaration versus
accused-appellant's denial. While law enforcers enjoy the presumption of regularity
in the performance of duties, this presumption cannot prevail over the
constitutional right of the accused to be presumed innocent and it cannot, by itself
constitute proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. [22] And although the defense of
denial may be weak, courts should not at once look at them with disfavor as there
are situations where an accused may really have no other defenses which, if
established to be truth, may tilt the scales of justice in his favor, especially when
the prosecution evidence itself is weak.[23]
Even assuming that an entrapment operation in truth had been made, the
presumption that police officers enjoy is also overcome by evidence of their
procedural lapses in the handling of the seized drug. In illegal drugs cases, the
identity and integrity of the drugs seized must be established with the same
unwavering exactitude as that required to arrive at a finding of guilt. [24]
The procedure set forth in Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 is intended precisely to
ensure the identity and integrity of dangerous drugs seized. This provision requires
that upon seizure of illegal drug items, the apprehending team having initial
custody of the drugs shall (a) conduct a physical inventory of the drugs and (b)
take photographs thereof (c) in the presence of the person from whom these items
were seized or confiscated and (d) a representative from the media and the
Department of Justice and any elected public official (e) who shall all be required to
sign the inventory and be given copies thereof.
Section 21 was laid down by Congress as a safety precaution against potential
abuses by law enforcement agents who might fail to appreciate the gravity of the
penalties faced by those suspected to be involved in the sale, use or possession of
illegal drugs. Under the principle that penal laws are strictly construed against the
government, stringent compliance therewith is fully justified. [25]
In the present case, the procedure was not observed at all. Such noncompliance
raises questions whether the illegal drug items were the same ones allegedly seized
from accused-appellant.
Although justifiable grounds may excuse noncompliance with the' requirements of
Section 21 as long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are
properly preserved, the police officers in the present case presented no justifiable
reason for the non-observance of the procedure. Lamentably, both RTC and the
Court of Appeals failed to even note at all that there were deficiencies in the
handling of the seized evidence much less inquire into the reasons for the nonobservance of procedure.
Most important, the Court finds as established fact that the integrity and
evidentiary value of the illegal drugs seized were not shown to have been
preserved. Contrarily, the records of the case bear out the glaring fact that the
chain of custody of the seized illegal drugs was broken even at the very first link
thereof.
To recall, the testimonial evidence of the prosecution could not even be sure about
the number of sachets seized from accused-appellant and to whom it was first
handed to by PO2 Ario. PO2 Ario testified that he handed it to PO3 Ilagan at the
police station who in turn testified that he received three (3) sachets
from both PO2 Ario and PO2 Lapura. PO2 Lapura said that he gave two (2)
sachets to SPO4 dela Cruz who had been remained at his original post. SPO4 dela
Cruz however stated that at the barangay hall where he had been staying the
whole time, PO2 Ario handed him three (3) sachets. These are confusing
testimonies of witnesses who are themselves confused.
Corpus delicti is the "actual commission by someone of the particular crime
charged."[26] In illegal drug cases, it refers to the illegal drug item itself.[27] When
there are reservations about the identity of the illegal drug item allegedly seized
from the accused, the actual commission of the crime charged is put into serious
question and courts have no alternative but to acquit on the ground of reasonable
doubt.
Even if accused-appellant failed to present evidence with respect to his defense of
denial or the ill motive that impelled the police officers to falsely impute upon him
the crime charged, the same is of no moment. The evidence for the prosecution
must stand or fall on its own weight and cannot be allowed to draw strength from
the weakness of the defense.[28] If the prosecution cannot establish the guilt of
accused-appellant beyond reasonable doubt, the defense is not even required to
adduce evidence. The presumption of innocence on the part of accused-appellant in
this case thus must be upheld.
WHEREFORE, we REVERSE and SET ASIDE the Decision dated 21 September
2012 of the Court of Appeals in C.A.-G.R. CEB CR HC No. 01007. Accused-appellant
Eduardo Yepes is hereby ACQUITTED for failure of the prosecution to prove his
guilt beyond reasonable doubt. He is ordered immediately RELEASED from
detention unless he is confined for another lawful cause.
Let a copy of the decision be furnished the Director of the Bureau of Corrections,
Muntinlupa City, for immediate implementation. The Director of the Bureau of
Corrections is directed to report to this Court the action taken thereon within five
(5) days from receipt of this Decision.
SO ORDERED.
Velasco, Jr., (Chairperson), Peralta, Del Castillo,* and Reyes, JJ., concur.
May 26, 2016

NOTICE OF JUDGMENT
Sirs / Mesdames:
was received by this Office on May 26, 2016 at 3:00 p.m.
Very truly yours,

ORDER OF RELEASE
TO: The Director
Bureau of Corrections
1770 Muntinlupa City
GREETINGS:
WHEREAS, the Supreme Court on April 6, 2016 promulgated a Decision in the
above-entitled case, the dispositive portion of which reads:
"WHEREFORE, we REVERSE and SET ASIDE the Decision dated 21 September
2012 of the Court of Appeals in C.A.-G.R. CEB CR HC No. 01007. Accused-appellant
Eduardo Yepes is hereby ACQUITTED for failure of the prosecution to prove his
guilt beyond reasonable doubt. He is ordered immediatelyRELEASED from
detention unless he is confined for another lawful cause.
Let a copy of the decision be furnished the Director of the Bureau of Corrections,
Muntinlupa City, for immediate implementation. The Director of the Bureau of
Corrections is directed to report to this Court the action taken thereon within five
(5) days from receipt of this Decision.
SO ORDERED."
NOW, THEREFORE, You are hereby ordered to immediately release EDUARDO
YEPES unless there are other causes for which he should be further detained, and
to return this Order with the certificate of your proceedings within five (5) days
from notice hereof.
GIVEN by the Honorable PRESBITERO VELASCO, JR., Chairperson of the Third
Division of the Supreme Court of the Philippines, this 6th day of April 2016.
Very truly yours,

Rollo, pp. 3-12; Penned by Associate Justice Ramon Paul L. Hernando with
Associate Justices Carmelita Salandanan-Manahan and Zenaida T. GalapateLaguilles concurring.
[1]
[2]
Records, pp. 175-190; Penned by Judge Sibanah E. Usman.
[3]
Id. at 1-2.
[4]
TSN, 26 July 2006, pp. 4-11.
[5]
TSN,7 March 2007, pp. 8-18.
[6]
TSN, 24 May 2007, pp. 4-7.
[7]
TSN, 20 June 2007, pp. 12-21.
[8]
Id. at 4-8.
[9]
TSN, 7 February 2007, pp. 5-7.
[10]
Exhibit Folder, p. 10.
[11]
TSN, 27 February 2008, 4-18.
[12]
Records, p. 190.
[13]
Id. at 205-207.
[14]
Id. at 214; Order dalcd 9 February 2009.
[15]
Id. at 215.
[16]
Rollo, p. 16.
[17]
Id. at 25.
[18]
See People v. Kamad, 624 Phil. 289, 299-300 (2010).
[19]
People v. Secreto, G.R. No. 198115, 27 February 2013, 692 SCRA 298, 306-307.
People v. Beran, G.R. No. 203028, 15 January 2014, 715 SCRA 165, 186
citing People v. Pagaduan, 641 Phil. 432 (2010).
[20]
[21]
401 Phil. 259, 273 (2000).
[22]
People v. Caete, 433 Phil. 781, 794 (2002).
[23]
People v. Ladrillo, 377 Phil. 904, 917 (1999).
[24]
Mallillin v. People, 576 Phil. 576, 586-587 (2008).
[25]
Rontos v. People, G.R. No. 188024, 5 June 2013, 697 SCRA 372, 379-380.
[26]
People v. Roble, 663 Phil. 147, 157 (2011).
[27]
People v. Alejandro, 671 Phil. 33, 44 (2011).
[28]
People v. De Guzman, 630 Phil. 637, 655 (2010).

G.R.
No.
203949
SPOUSES GEORGE A. GALLENT, SR. AND MERCEDES M. GALLENT, PETITIONERS, VS. JUAN G. VELASQUEZ,
RESPONDENT. [G.R. No. 205071] JUAN G. VELASQUEZ, PETITIONER, VS. SPOUSES GEORGE A. GALLENT, SR. AND
MERCEDES
M.
GALLENT,
RESPONDENTS.
April 06, 2016
THIRD DIVISION
[ G.R. No. 203949, April 06, 2016 ]
SPOUSES GEORGE A. GALLENT, SR. AND MERCEDES M.
GALLENT, PETITIONERS, VS. JUAN G. VELASQUEZ,
RESPONDENT.
[G.R. No. 205071]
JUAN G. VELASQUEZ, PETITIONER, VS. SPOUSES GEORGE A.
GALLENT, SR. AND MERCEDES M. GALLENT, RESPONDENTS.
DECISION
REYES, J.:
Before this Court are two conflicting decisions rendered by two different divisions of
the Court of Appeals (CA) on the same question of whether the Regional Trial Court
(RTC) may validly issue an ex parte writ of possession to the transferee of the
winning bidder at the extrajudicial foreclosure sale of mortgaged real property.
Antecedent Facts
George A. Gallent, Sr. (George) was the registered owner of a 761-square-meter
residential property covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. S-99286,
[1]
located at No. 3, Angeles Street, Alabang Hills Village, Muntinlupa City, with
improvements thereon consisting of a two-storey house and a swimming pool. On
December 20, 1996, the Spouses George and Mercedes Gallent (Spouses Gallent)
mortgaged the said property to Allied Banking Corporation (Allied Bank) as security
for a loan of P1.5 Million. The Spouses Gallent failed to pay their loan, which had
ballooned to P4,631,974.66; thus, Allied Bank extrajudicially foreclosed the
mortgaged property. At the public auction, Allied Bank emerged as the highest
bidder and was issued a corresponding certificate of sale [2] dated September 25,
2000. Since the Spouses Gallent failed to redeem the subject property after one
year, Allied Bank consolidated its ownership over the subject property. Accordingly,
TCT No. S-99286 was cancelled and replaced with TCT No. 8460 [3] in the name of
Allied Bank.[4]
On June 11, 2003, Allied Bank agreed to sell back the foreclosed property to the
Spouses Gallent for P4 Million, as evidenced by an Agreement to Sell, [5] wherein the
Spouses Gallent paid a down payment of P3.5 Million, evidenced by an Official
Receipt (O.R.) No. 0990687-A[6] dated March 12, 2003, and the balance thereof was
payable in 12 monthly amortizations. It was also stipulated that the Spouses
Gallent would be allowed to keep the possession of the subject property as tenants
or lessees of Allied Bank.[7]
Due to financial difficulties, sometime in October 2003, the Spouses Gallent sought
the help of their close family friend, Juan Velasquez (Velasquez), to help them
settle their remaining monthly amortizations. As an inducement, they agreed that
Velasquez would have the subject property registered under his name until they
have repaid him.[8]
On October 24, 2003, the Spouses Gallent executed a Deed of Assignment of
Rights[9] whereby they assigned to Velasquez all their rights, interests, and
obligations under their Agreement to Sell with Allied Bank. Velasquez paid Allied
Bank the remaining balance amounting to P216,635.97, evidenced by O.R. No.
0006352.[10]
On November 5, 2003, Allied Bank and Velasquez executed a Deed of Absolute
Sale[11] over the subject property for the price of P4 Million, wherein George himself
signed as an instrumental witness.[12] However, the said instrument was not
registered. Subsequently, Velasquez caused another Deed of Sale [13] dated
November 19, 2003, over the subject property which showed a lower selling price
of P1.2 Million to be registered, purportedly for tax purposes.
On November 28, 2003, TCT No. 11814[14] was issued under the name of Velasquez
to replace TCT No. 8460.
After more than four years, or on June 27, 2008, Velasquez sent a demand
letter[15] to the Spouses Gallent to vacate the subject property, but the latter
refused to do so. On July 6, 2009, Velasquez filed an ex parte petition for issuance
of a writ of possession, docketed as LRC Case No. 09-055, in the RTC of Muntinlupa
City.[16] The Spouses Gallent sought to dismiss the petition by filing Consolidated
Motions for Leave to Intervene and to Dismiss Petition [17] on January 14, 2010.
On February 12, 2010, the RTC of Muntinlupa City, Branch 256, issued an
Order[18] denying the Spouses Gallent's consolidated motions, viz:
The issuance of the writ of possession is a ministerial duty of the court
upon filing of the proper application and proof of title and by its nature
does not require notice upon persons interested in the subject
properties. By virtue of the sale of the properties involved, [Velasquez] became
the new owner of the lots entitled to all rights and interests its predecessor [Allied
Bank] had therein, including the right to file an application for writ of possession.
The court therefore finds the petition to be sufficient in form and substance.
As to the motion for leave to intervene filed by [Spouses Gallent], the same will be
treated by this court as their opposition to the petition and they will be considered
an oppositor.
Wherefore premises considered, the motions are hereby denied for lack of merit.
xxxx
SO ORDERED.[19] (Emphasis ours)
The Spouses Gallent filed a motion for reconsideration but it was denied by the RTC
in an Order[20] dated April 13, 2010, reasoning as follows:
The instant motion deserves a scant consideration considering that the issues and
arguments raised by the oppositors are mere rehashed which were already passed
upon by this court in the order sought to be reconsidered. To reiterate, it is a
ministerial duty on the part of this court to act on cases of this nature, particularly
if the twelve-month period for redemption had already lapsed. Should the
oppositors intend to recover title over the subject property, the same should be
ventilated in a separate proceeding and proceed independently of this petition.
Wherefore premises considered, the motion for reconsideration is hereby denied for
lack of merit. Accordingly, the reception of ex parte evidence is hereby assigned to
the Branch Clerk of Court to act as Commissioner and to make a report to this
Court ten (10) days upon completion thereof.
xxxx
SO ORDERED.[21]
On July 2, 2010, the Spouses Gallent filed a petition for certiorari[22] before the CA,
docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 114527, raffled to the Special 4th Division, seeking to
annul the RTC Orders dated February 12, 2010 and April 13, 2010.
Invoking Mendoza v. Salinas,[23] the Spouses Gallent argued that: (1) the RTC has
no jurisdiction to issue an ex parte writ of possession to Velasquez since he did not
acquire the property at a foreclosure sale, but purchased the same from the
mortgagee, winning bidder and purchaser, Allied Bank, and only after it had
consolidated its title thereto;[24] (2) in their Agreement to Sell, Allied Bank and the
Spouses Gallent entered into new contractual relations as vendees-lessees and
vendor-lessor, and ceased to be mortgagors and mortgagee; [25] (3) Velasquez
should have filed an action for ejectment or for recovery of ownership or
possession, not an ex parte petition for writ of possession;[26] and (4) the RTC's
duty to issue the writ has ceased to be ministerial in view of the Spouses Gallent's
adverse claim upon the property based on their substantial payment of its purchase
price, in addition to the fact that Velasquez and Allied Bank executed a forged deed
of sale.[27]
Meanwhile, on July 7, 2010, the RTC rendered its Decision [28] in LRC Case No. 09055, the dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing and considering that it is a ministerial duty of
the court to issue writ of possession, the redemption period having been expired
without the subject property being redeemed by the mortgagors, the petition is
hereby granted. Accordingly, let a writ of possession be issued in favor of
[Velasquez] and against the oppositors and all persons claiming rights under them,
to place [Velasquez] in possession of the subject property and for the oppositors
and all persons claiming rights under them to vacate the land covered by TCT No.
11814 of the Register of Deeds of Muntinlupa City.
SO ORDERED.[29]
On September 24, 2010, the Spouses Gallent filed another petition
for certiorari[30] before the CA, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 116097 and raffled to
the 10thDivision, arguing that the deed of sale between Velasquez and Allied Bank
was a forgery. In their certification of non-forum shopping, [31] they mentioned the
pendency of CA-G.R. SP No. 114527 in the CA. Surprisingly, neither of the parties
nor the CA 10th Division moved for the consolidation of CA-G.R. SP No. 116097 with
CA-G.R. SP No. 114527.
Meanwhile, on October 21, 2010, the Spouses Gallent also filed before the RTC of
Muntinlupa City a complaint for "Reformation of Instruments, Consignation,
Annulment of TCT No. 11814 of the Registry of Deeds for the City of Muntinlupa and
Damages With Application for Immediate Issuance of Temporary Restraining Order
and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction," docketed as Civil Case No. 10-102. In this
action, the Spouses Gallent sought to annul the deed of assignment they executed
in favor of Velasquez allegedly because their true intent was an equitable mortgage.
They thus prayed to declare void the sale between Velasquez and Allied Bank on
account of forgery, to order the judicial consignment of the amount of P216,635.97
to settle their "loan" from Velasquez, and to enjoin him from taking possession of
the property.[32]
Rulings of the CA
CA-G.R. SP No. 116097
The CA 10th Division rendered its Decision[33] on May 23, 2012 finding that since
Allied Bank, the mortgagee-purchaser at the extrajudicial foreclosure sale, is
entitled to an ex parte writ of possession after the title to the mortgaged property
had been consolidated in its name, Velasquez, as the bank's transferee of the said
property may also petition the court for an ex parte writ of possession since he
merely stepped into the shoes of Allied Bank. The 10th Division also ruled that the
Spouses Gallent can no longer be considered to hold an interest in the property
adverse to Allied Bank or Velasquez after they assigned their entire interest therein
to Velasquez. Having no more claims on the title of either Allied Bank or Velasquez,
an ex parte writ of possession may issue against them.
On October 12, 2012, the CA 10th Division denied the Spouses Gallent's motion for
reconsideration.[34] On December 6, 2012, they filed a Petition for Review
onCertiorari[35] before this Court docketed as G.R. No. 203949.
CA-G.R. SP No. 114527
The CA Special 4th Division issued its Decision[36] dated August 28, 2012, finding
that an ex parte writ of possession cannot issue against the Spouses Gallent since
they are adverse claimants of the property who are in actual possession. The CA
relied on Mendoza,[37] where the Court ruled that an ex parte writ of possession may
be issued as a ministerial duty of the court only in three instances: (a) in a land
registration case, as provided under Section 17 of Act No. 496; (b) in a judicial
foreclosure of real estate mortgage; or (c) in an extrajudicial foreclosure of real
estate mortgage under Section 7 of Act No. 3135, [38] as amended.[39] According to
the CA, since Velasquez did not acquire his title to the property in a foreclosure
sale, but bought the same directly from Allied Bank after title had been
consolidated in the said bank, he must first bring an ejectment suit or an accion
reivindictoria against the Spouses Gallent in order for him to obtain possession
thereof.[40]
According to Mendoza, an ex parte writ of possession ceases to issue as a
ministerial duty of the court when sought against a party who has remained in the
property upon an adverse claim of ownership, viz:
Based on these tenets, the issuance of a writ of possession, therefore, is clearly a
ministerial duty of the land registration court. Such ministerial duty, however,
ceases to be so with particular regard to petitioners who are actual
possessors of the property under a claim of ownership. Actual possession
under claim of ownership raises a disputable presumption of ownership. This

conclusion is supported by Article 433 of the Civil Code, which provides:
Actual possession under claim of ownership raises a disputable presumption of
ownership. The true owner must resort to judicial process for the recovery of the
property.
Under said provision, one who claims to be the owner of a property possessed by
another must bring the appropriate judicial action for its physical recovery. The
term "judicial process" could mean no less than an ejectment suit or reinvindicatory
action, in which the ownership claims of the contending parties may be properly
heard and adjudicated.[41] (Citation omitted and emphasis ours)
Velasquez filed a motion for reconsideration, but it was denied; [42] hence, he filed a
Petition for Review on Certiorari[43] before this Court docketed as G.R. No. 205071.
Ruling of the Court
The Court grants the petition of the Spouses Gallent, but denies the petition of
Velasquez.
The general rule in extrajudicial foreclosure of mortgage is that after the
consolidation of the title over the foreclosed property in the buyer, it is the
ministerial duty of the court to issue a writ of possession upon an ex
parte petition[44] by the new owner as a matter of right.
It is well-settled that the purchaser in an extrajudicial foreclosure of real property
becomes the absolute owner of the property if no redemption is made within one
year from the registration of the certificate of sale by those entitled to redeem.
[45]
As absolute owner, he is entitled to all the rights of ownership over a property
recognized in Article 428 of the New Civil Code, not least of which is possession,
or jus possidendi:[46]
A torrens title recognizes the owner whose name appears in the certificate as
entitled to all the rights of ownership under the civil law. The Civil Code of the
Philippines defines ownership in Articles 427, 428 and 429. This concept is based on
Roman Law which the Spaniards introduced to the Philippines through the Civil
Code of 1889. Ownership, under Roman Law, may be exercised over things or
rights. It primarily includes the right of the owner to enjoy and dispose of the thing
owned. And the right to enjoy and dispose of the thing includes the right to receive
from the thing what it produces, [jus utendi; jus fruendi] the right to consume the
thing by its use, [jus abutendi] the right to alienate, encumber, transform or even
destroy the thing owned, [jus disponendi] and the right to exclude from the
possession of the thing owned by any other person to whom the owner has not
transmitted such thing [jus vindicandi].[47]
Possession being an essential right of the owner with which he is able to exercise
the other attendant rights of ownership,[48] after consolidation of title the purchaser
in a foreclosure sale may demand possession as a matter of right. [49] This is why
Section 7 of Act No. 3135, as amended by Act No. 4118, imposes upon the RTC a
ministerial duty to issue a writ of possession to the new owner upon a mere ex
parte motion.[50] Section 7 reads:
Sec. 7. In any sale made under the provisions of this Act, the purchaser may
petition the Court of First Instance of the province or place where the property or
any part thereof is situated, to give him possession thereof during the redemption
period, furnishing bond in an amount equivalent to the use of the property for a
period of twelve months, to indemnify the debtor in case it be shown that the sale
was made without violating the mortgage or without complying with the
requirements of this Act. Such petition shall be made under oath and filed in form
of an ex parte motion in the registration or cadastral proceedings if the property is
registered, or in special proceedings in the case of property registered under the
Mortgage Law or under Section 194 of the Administrative Code, or of any other real
property encumbered with a mortgage duly registered in the office of any register
of deeds in accordance with any existing law, and in each case the clerk of court
shall, upon the filing of such petition, collect the fees specified in paragraph 11 of
Section 114 of Act No. 496, as amended by Act No. 2866, and the court shall, upon
approval of the bond, order that a writ of possession issue, addressed to the sheriff
of the province in which the property is situated, who shall execute said order
immediately.
In Spouses Arquiza v. CA,[51] it is reiterated that simply on the basis of the
purchaser's ownership of the foreclosed property there is no need for an ordinary
action to gain possession thereof:
Indeed, it is well-settled that an ordinary action to acquire possession in favor of
the purchaser at an extrajudicial foreclosure of real property is not necessary. There
is no law in this jurisdiction whereby the purchaser at a sheriff's sale of real
property is obliged to bring a separate and independent suit for possession after the
one-year period for redemption has expired and after he has obtained the sheriff's
final certificate of sale. The basis of this right to possession is the purchaser's
ownership of the property. The mere filing of an ex parte motion for the issuance of
the writ of possession would suffice, and no bond is required. [52] (Citations omitted)
As also explained in Asia United Bank v. Goodland Company, Inc.,[53] the ex
parte application for writ of possession is a non-litigious summary proceeding
without need to post a bond, except when possession is being sought even during
the redemption period:
It is a time-honored legal precept that after the consolidation of titles in the buyer's
name, for failure of the mortgagor to redeem, entitlement to a writ of possession
becomes a matter of right. As the confirmed owner, the purchaser's right to
possession becomes absolute. There is even no need for him to post a bond, and it
is the ministerial duty of the courts to issue the same upon proper application and
proof of title. To accentuate the writ's ministerial character, the Court has
consistently disallowed injunction to prohibit its issuance despite a pending action
for annulment of mortgage or the foreclosure itself.

The nature of an ex parte petition for issuance of the possessory writ under Act No.
3135 has been described as a non-litigious proceeding and summary in nature. As
an ex parte proceeding, it is brought for the benefit of one party only, and without
notice to or consent by any person adversely interested. [54](Citations omitted)
Moreover, not even a pending action to annul the mortgage or the foreclosure sale
will by itself stay the issuance of the writ of possession, as held in BPI Family
Savings Bank, Inc. v. Golden Power Diesel Sales Center, Inc., et al.:[55]
Furthermore, it is settled that a pending action for annulment of mortgage or
foreclosure sale does not stay the issuance of the writ of possession. The trial court,
where the application for a writ of possession is filed, does not need to look into the
validity of the mortgage or the manner of its foreclosure. The purchaser is entitled
to a writ of possession without prejudice to the outcome of the pending annulment
case.[56] (Citations omitted)
When the thing purchased at a foreclosure sale is in turn sold or
transferred, the right to the possession thereof, along with all other rights
of ownership, follows the thing sold to its new owner.
In Laureano v. Bormaheco,[57] the mortgagee-purchaser, Philippine National
Cooperative Bank (PNCB), sold the foreclosed lots located in Bel-Air, Makati City to
Bormaheco, Inc. without first seeking its possession. The latter filed an ex
parte petition for a writ of possession, but the RTC of Makati City ordered the
service of a copy of the petition upon the former owners, the Spouses Laureano,
who as in the case before the Court, opposed the ex parte petition and moved to
dismiss the same on the ground of the RTC's lack of jurisdiction. The RTC denied
the said motion, which was upheld by the CA in a certiorari action. When the case
reached the Court, it was held that, by the nature of an ex parte petition for writ of
possession, no notice is needed to be served upon the Spouses Laureano, the
mortgagors-debtors of PNCB, since they already lost all their interests in the
properties when they failed to redeem them. By virtue of the sale, Bormaheco, Inc.
became the new owner of the lots, entitled to all rights and interests that its
predecessor PNCB acquired, including the right to a writ of possession.
As an exception, the ministerial duty of the court to issue an ex parte writ
of possession ceases once it appears that a third party, not the debtormortgagor, is in possession of the property under a claim of title adverse
to that of the applicant.
Section 33 of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court provides that in an execution sale, the
possession of the property shall be given to the purchaser or last
redemptioner,unless a third party is actually holding the property adversely
to the judgment obligor.
Sec. 33. Deed and possession to be given at expiration of redemption period; by

whom executed or given. If no redemption be made within one (1) year from the
date of the registration of the certificate of sale, the purchaser is entitled to a
conveyance and possession of the property; or, if so redeemed whenever sixty (60)
days have elapsed and no other redemption has been made, and notice thereof
given, and the time for redemption has expired, the last redemptioner is entitled to
the conveyance and possession; but in all cases the judgment obligor shall have the
entire period of one (1) year from the date of the registration of the sale to redeem
the property. The deed shall be executed by the officer making the sale or by his
successor in office, and in the latter case shall have the same validity as though the
officer making the sale had continued in office and executed it.
Upon the expiration of the right of redemption, the purchaser or redemptioner shall
be substituted to and acquire all the rights, title, interest and claim of the judgment
obligor to the property as of the time of the levy. The possession of the property
shall be given to the purchaser or last redemptioner by the same officer unless a
third party is actually holding the property adversely to the judgment
obligor. (Emphasis ours)
Pursuant to Section 6 of Act No. 3135, the application of Section 33, Rule 39 of the
Rules of Court has been extended to extrajudicial foreclosure sales, thus:
Sec. 6. In all cases in which an extrajudicial sale is made under the special power
hereinbefore referred to, the debtor, his successors in interest or any judicial
creditor or judgment creditor of said debtor, or any person having a lien on the
property subsequent to the mortgage or deed of trust under which the property is
sold, may redeem the same at any time within the term of one year from and after
the date of the sale; and such redemption shall be governed by the provisions of
Sections 464 to 466, inclusive, of the Code of Civil Procedure, in so far as these are
not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act.
In China Banking Corporation v. Spouses Lozada,[58] it was held that for the court's
ministerial duty to issue a writ of possession to cease, it is not enough that the
property be held by a third party, but rather the said possessor must have a claim
thereto adverse to the debtor/mortgagor:
Where a parcel levied upon on execution is occupied by a party other than a
judgment debtor, the procedure is for the court to order a hearing to determine the
nature of said adverse possession. Similarly, in an extrajudicial foreclosure of real
property, when the foreclosed property is in the possession of a third party holding
the same adversely to the defaulting debtor/mortgagor, the issuance by the RTC of
a writ of possession in favor of the purchaser of the said real property ceases to be
ministerial and may no longer be done ex parte. For the exception to apply,
however, the property need not only be possessed by a third party, but also held by
the third party adversely to the debtor/mortgagor.[59] (Citation omitted)
Specifically, the Court held that to be considered in adverse possession, the third
party possessor must have done so in his own right and not merely as a successor
or transferee of the debtor or mortgagor:
The exception provided under Section 33 of Rule 39 of the Revised Rules of Court
contemplates a situation in which a third party holds the property by adverse title
or right, such as that of a co-owner, tenant or usufructuary. The co-owner,
agricultural tenant, and usufructuary possess the property in their own right, and
they are not merely the successor or transferee of the right of possession of
another co-owner or the owner of the property. x x x.[60](Citations omitted)
Thus, in BPI Family,[61] the Court held that it was an error to issue an ex parte writ
of possession to the purchaser in an extrajudicial foreclosure, or to refuse to abate
one already granted, where a third party has raised in an opposition to the writ or
in a motion to quash the same, his actual possession thereof upon a claim of
ownership or a right adverse to that of the debtor or mortgagor. The procedure,
according to Unchuan v. CA,[62] is for the trial court to order a hearing to determine
the nature of the adverse possession, conformably with the time-honored principle
of due process.[63]
In Okabe v. Saturnino,[64] the Court made a definite ruling on the matter, to wit:
The remedy of a writ of possession, a remedy that is available to the mortgageepurchaser to acquire possession of the foreclosed property from the mortgagor, is
made available to a subsequent purchaser, but only after hearing and after
determining that the subject property is still in the possession of the
mortgagor. Unlike if the purchaser is the mortgagee or a third party during the
redemption period, a writ of possession may issue ex parte or without hearing. In
other words, if the purchaser is a third party who acquired the property after the
redemption period, a hearing must be conducted to determine whether possession
over the subject property is still with the mortgagor or is already in the possession
of a third party holding the same adversely to the defaulting debtor or mortgagor. If
the property is in the possession of the mortgagor, a writ of possession could thus
be issued. Otherwise, the remedy of a writ of possession is no longer available to
such purchaser, but he can wrest possession over the property through an ordinary
action of ejectment.[65]
In regard to their deed of assignment in favor of Velasquez, the Spouses
Gallent may be considered as adverse possessors in their own right, the
said agreement being in essence an equitable mortgage.
It is the Spouses Gallent's contention that the Deed of Assignment of Rights which
they executed in favor of Velasquez was in reality an equitable mortgage under
Article 1602 of the New Civil Code. The Spouses Gallent maintained that their true
agreement with Velasquez was an equitable mortgage and not an assignment of
their interest in the subject property.[66] Having substantially paid the repurchase
price of their property, that is, P3,790,500.00 out of the price of P4 Million, they
insisted that they had virtually recovered full ownership of the house when they
entered into an equitable mortgage with Velasquez. To prove their allegation, they
filed an action, Civil Case No. 10-102, to reform the said deed into a mortgage. In
addition, they are seeking to declare void the transfer of the title to Velasquez.
An equitable mortgage[67] has been defined as one which although lacking in some
formality, or form or words, or other requisites demanded by a statute,
nevertheless reveals the intention of the parties to charge real property as security
for a debt, there being no impossibility nor anything contrary to law in this intent.
[68]
A contract where the vendor/mortgagor remains in physical possession as lessee
or otherwise has been held to be an equitable mortgage. [69] In determining the
nature of a contract, the Court is not bound by the title or name given to it by the
parties, but by their intention, as shown not necessarily by the terminology used in
the contract but by their conduct, words, actions and deeds prior to,
during and immediately after executing the agreement.[70]
Without in any way pre-empting the trial court's factual determination in Civil Case
No. 10-102, particularly as regards what the Spouses Gallent may have additionally
received from Velasquez by way of favor or consideration for the house, if any, the
Court will rule on the matter, but only in order to resolve the question of whether
the Spouses Gallent may be considered as adverse claimant-occupants against
whom an ex parte writ of possession will not issue. The substantial payment for the
repurchase from Allied Bank of the subject property, P3,790,500.00 out of the price
of P4 Million, as against Velasquez's assumption of the remaining balance of
P216,635.97, entitles the Spouses Gallent to the legal presumption that their
assignment to Velasquez of all their interest under their Contract to Sell with Allied
Bank was an equitable mortgage. In a contract of mortgage, the mortgagor retains
possession of the property given as security for the payment of the sum borrowed
from the mortgagee.[71] By the clear dictate of equity, and as held in Rockville Excel
International Exim Corporation v. Spouses Culla and Miranda,[72] when the vendor
remains in possession of the property sold as lessee or otherwise, or the price of
the sale is unusually inadequate, as in this case, the law deems the contract as an
equitable mortgage.[73]
It is evident that on account of the Spouses Gallent's substantial down payment
under their contract to sell, Allied Bank allowed them to remain in the property,
albeit as "lessees". The Spouses Gallent eventually paid a total of P3,790,500.00,
all within five months. After the additional payment by Velasquez of P216,635.97,
the next logical step would have been for Allied Bank to execute the sale in favor of
the Spouses Gallent, by virtue of their Contract to Sell, but the Spouses Gallent had
assured Velasquez that he could keep the title to the property until they have
repaid him. To achieve this, they executed a deed of assignment to enable Allied
Bank to transfer the title directly to Velasquez, since a transfer, first to the Spouses
Gallent, and then a sale or assignment to Velasquez, would have entailed paying
capital gains and documentary stamp taxes twice, along with the transfer fees. It
was also apparently agreed with Velasquez that the Spouses Gallent could remain in
the property, but it seems that they could do so not just as lessees but as ownersmortgagors.
If there was a forgery in the sale to Velasquez by Allied Bank, it was obviously a
mere ploy to reduce the taxes and fees due on the said transaction, and not the
cause of the transfer of the title of Allied Bank to Velasquez. The consent of the
Spouses Gallent to the said transfer, for the probable reasons already expounded, is
clear from the fact that George himself signed in the first deed of sale to Velasquez
as an instrumental witness. But even if it is eventually shown that there was in fact
forgery for the purpose of committing fraud against the Spouses Gallent, as held
in Capital Credit Dimension, Inc. v. Chua,[74] they, as third party occupants, should
not be adversely affected by the ex parte writ of possession sought by Velasquez,
for not being parties to the forgery. Thus, they cannot be summarily ejected
without due process.
To recapitulate, it is important to note that this controversy can no longer be
considered as an offshoot of the extrajudicial foreclosure proceedings involving
Allied Bank, but rather is the result of a subsequent personal transaction between
the Spouses Gallent and Velasquez, which they called an assignment; but which the
law otherwise recognizes as an equitable mortgage. In the face then of the ex
parte motion of Velasquez for a writ of possession, it must be kept in mind that,
under the facts laid down, the contending parties are now Velasquez and the
Spouses Gallent. The Spouses Gallent's defense of equitable mortgage is upheld in
law and, they have a superior right to retain the possession of the subject property
in their own right.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition in G.R. No.
203949 is GRANTED. The Decision dated May 23, 2012 of the Court of Appeals in
C A-G.R. SP No. 116097 is SET ASIDE.
The petition in G.R. No. 205071 is DENIED. The Decision dated August 28, 2012
of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 114527 is AFFIRMED.
No costs.
SO ORDERED.
May 25, 2016

NOTICE OF JUDGMENT
Sirs / Mesdames:
rendered by the Supreme Court in the abovcentitled cases, the original of which
Very truly yours,

[1]
Rollo (G.R. No. 203949), pp. 79-83.
[2]
Id. at 85-86.
[3]
Id. at 88-90.
[4]
Id. at 158-159.
[5]
Id. at 92-96.
[6]
Id. at 98
[7]
Id. at 159.
[8]
Id. at 19.
[9]
Id. at 100-101.
[10]
Id. at 103.
[11]
Id. at 105-107.
[12]
Id. at 106.
[13]
Id. at 147-149.
[14]
Id. at 113-115.
[15]
Id. at 117.
[16]
Id. at 120-125.
[17]
Rollo (G.R. No. 205071), pp. 159-170.
[18]
Rollo (G.R. No. 203949), p. 153.
[19]
Id.
[20]
Id. at 155.
[21]
Id.
[22]
Rollo (G.R. No. 205071), pp. 82-124.
[23]
543 Phil. 380 (2007).
[24]
Rollo, (G.R. No. 205071), pp. 97-101.
[25]
Id. at 101-103.
[26]
Id. at 103-107.
[27]
Id. at 107-110.
[28]
Rollo (G.R. No. 203949), pp. 72-73.
[29]
Id. at 73.
[30]
Id. at 303-360.
[31]
Id. at 358-359.
[32]
Id. at 23-24.
Penned by Associate Justice Jose C. Reyes, Jr., with Associate Justices Priscilla J.
Baltazar-Padilla and Agnes Reyes-Carpio concurring; id. at 58-68.
[33]
[34]
Id. at 70.
[35]
Id. at 12-55.
Penned by Associate Justice Amelita G. Tolentino, with Associate Justices Ramon

R. Garcia and Socorro B. Inting concurring; rollo (G.R. No. 205071), pp. 66-79.
[36]
[37]
Supra note 23.
AN ACT TO REGULATE THE SALE OF PROPERTY UNDER SPECIAL POWERS

INSERTED IN OR ANNEXED TO REAL-ESTATE MORTGAGES. Approved on March 6,
1924.
[38]
[39]
[40]
Rollo (G.R. No. 205071), pp. 75-77.
[41]
Mendoza v. Salinas, supra note 23, at 387.
[42]
Rollo (G.R. No. 205071), pp. 80-81.
[43]
Id. at 26-65.
An ex parte petition is taken or granted at the instance and for the benefit of
only one party, without notice to, or contestation by any person adversely
interested. [BLACK'S Law DICTIONARY, 5th Edition (1979), p. 517.]
[44]
[45]
ACT No. 3135, Section 6.
[46]
Laureano v. Bormaheco, Inc., 404 Phil. 80, 86 (2001).
Separate Opinion of Associate Justice Reynato S. Puno in Cruz v. Secretary of

Environment and Natural Resources, 400 Phil. 904, 994-995 (2000).
[47]
[48]
See NEW CIVIL CODE, Book II, Title II, Articles 428-430.
[49]
Samson v. Rivera, G.R. No. 154355, May 20, 2004, 428 SCRA 759, 768-769.
Metropolitan Bank & Trust Company v. Hon. Judge AbadSantos, et al., 623 Phil.
134, 146 (2009).
[50]
[51]
498 Phil. 793 (2005).
[52]
Id. at 804.
[53]
650 Phil. 174 (2010).
[54]
Id. at 185-186.
[55]
654 Phil. 382 (2011).
[56]
Id. at 394.
[57]
404 Phil. 80 (2001).
[58]
579 Phil. 454 (2008).
[59]
Id. at 474-475.
[60]
Id. at 478-480.
[61]
Supra note 55.
[62]
244 Phil. 733 (1988).
[63]
Id. at 738.
[64]
G.R. No. 196040, August 26, 2014, 733 SCRA 652.
[65]
Id. at 666.
[66]
Rollo (G.R. No. 203949), p. 24.
[67]
Art. 1602 of the New Civil Code provides:
Art. 1602. The contract shall be presumed to be an equitable mortgage, in any of

the following cases:
(1) When the price of a sale with right to repurchase is unusually inadequate;
(2) When the vendor remains in possession as lessee or otherwise;
(3) When upon or after the expiration of the right to repurchase another instrument extending
the period of redemption or granting a new period is executed;
(4) When the purchaser retains for himself a part of the purchase price;
(5) When the vendor binds himself to pay the taxes on the thing sold; and
(6) In any other case where it may be fairly inferred that the real intention of the parties is
that the transaction shall secure the payment of a debt or the performance of any other
obligation.
In any of the foregoing cases, any money, fruits, or other benefit to be received by
the vendee as rent or otherwise shall be considered as interest which shall be
subject to the usury laws. (Emphasis ours)
[68]
Go v. Bacaron, 509 Phil. 323, 331 (2005).
[69]
Legaspi v. Spouses Ong, 498 Phil. 167, 186 (2005).
[70]
Zamora v. CA, 328 Phil. 1106, 1115 (1996).
[71]
See Casio and De Rama v. Palileo, 121 Phil. 959 (1965).
[72]
617 Phil. 328 (2009).
[73]
Id. at 338.
[74]
G.R. No. 157213, April 28, 2004, 428 SCRA 259.

G.R.
No.
212382
SCANMAR MARITIME SERVICES, INCORPORATED, CROWN SHIPMANAGEMENT INC., LOUIS DREYFUS ARMATEURS AND
M/T ILE DE BREHAT AND/OR MR. EDGARDO CANOZA, PETITIONERS, VS. EMILIO CONAG, RESPONDENT.
April 06, 2016
THIRD DIVISION
[ G.R. No. 212382, April 06, 2016 ]
SCANMAR MARITIME SERVICES, INCORPORATED, CROWN

SHIPMANAGEMENT INC., LOUIS DREYFUS ARMATEURS AND
M/T ILE DE BREHAT AND/OR MR. EDGARDO CANOZA,
PETITIONERS, VS. EMILIO CONAG, RESPONDENT.
DECISION
REYES, J.:
This is a Petition for Review on [1] from the Decision[2] dated January 27, 2014 of the
Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 119282, which reversed the
Decision[3]dated November 30, 2010 of the National Labor Relations Commission
(NLRC) in NLRC LAC No. OFW(M) 09-000666-10 and ordered the reinstatement of
the Decision[4]of the Labor Arbiter (LA) dated July 8, 2010 in NLRC RAB NCR Case
No. (M) 02-02666-10.
Since 2002, respondent Emilio A. Conag (Conag) had been deployed annually by
petitioner Scanmar Maritime Services, Inc. (Scanmar) as a bosun's mate aboard
foreign vessels owned or operated by its principal, Crown Ship Management,
Inc./Louis Dreyfus Armateurs SAS (Crown Ship). On March 27, 2009, he was again
deployed as a bosun's mate aboard the vessel M/T Ile de Brehat. According to him,
his job entailed lifting heavy loads and occasionally, he would skid and fall while at
work on deck. On June 19, 2009, as he was going about his deck duties, he felt
numbness in his hip and back. He was given pain relievers but the relief was
temporary. Two months later, the pain recurred with more intensity, and on August
18, 2009 he was brought to a hospital in Tunisia.[5]
On August 25, 2009, Conag was medically repatriated. Upon arrival in Manila on
August 27, 2009, he was referred to the company-designated physicians at the
Metropolitan Medical Center (MMC), Marine Medical Services, where he was
examined and subjected to laboratory examinations.[6]
The laboratory tests showed that Conag had "Mild Lumbar Levoconvex Scoliosis and
Spondylosis; Right S1 Nerve Root Compression," with an incidental finding of "Gall
Bladder Polyposis v. Cholesterolosis"[7] For over a period of 95 days, he was treated
by the company-designated physicians, Drs. Robert Lim (Dr. Lim) and Esther G. Go
(Dr. Go), and in their final medical report[8] dated December 1, 2009, they declared
Conag fit to resume sea duties. Later that, day, Conag signed a Certificate of
Fitness for Work,[9] written in English and Filipino. Conag claimed that he was
required to sign the certificate as a condition sine qua non for the release of his
accumulated sick pay.[10] According to him, however, his condition deteriorated while
he was undergoing treatment. On February 18, 2010, he filed a complaint against
Scanmar, Crown Ship and Edgardo Canoza (collectively, petitioners) seeking full and
permanent disability benefits, among others. He also consulted another doctor, Dr.
Manuel C. Jacinto, Jr. (Dr. Jacinto), at Sta. Teresita General Hospital in Quezon City,
who on March 20, 2010 issued a certificate stating that his "condition did not
improve despite medicine and that his symptoms aggravated due to his work which
entails carrying of heavy loads."[11] Dr. Jacinto then assessed Conag as unfit to go
back to work as a seafarer.[12]
Ruling of the LA
In its Decision[13] dated July 8, 2010, the LA held that the disability assessment of
Dr. Jacinto was reflective of Conag's actual medical and physical condition.
[14]
Citing Maunlad Transport Inc., and/or Nippon Merchant Marine Company, Ltd.,
Inc. v. Manigo, Jr.,[15] the LA ruled that the medical reports presented by the parties
are not binding upon the arbitration tribunal, but must be evaluated on their
inherent merit, and that the declaration of fitness by the company-designated
physicians may be overcome by superior evidence.[16] In particular, the LA noted
that during the arbitration proceedings, Conag appeared to be clearly physically
unfit to resume sea duties on account of his spinal injuries. [17] As for the certificate
of fitness to work Conag signed, the LA ruled it out for being an invalid waiver.
[18]
The fallo of the LA decision reads:
[Scanmar] and/or [Crown Ship] to pay [Conag] the Philippine peso equivalent at
the time of actual payment of ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEEN THOUSAND EIGHT
HUNDRED US DOLLARS (US$118,800), representing permanent disability
benefits in accordance with the Collective Bargaining Agreement, plus ten [percent]
(10%) thereof as and for attorney's fees.
All other claims are hereby ordered dismissed for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.[19]
Ruling of the NLRC
On appeal by the petitioners, the NLRC in its Decision[20] dated November 30, 2010,
dismissed Conag's complaint for lack of merit. It took note that Conag failed to
comply with the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration - Standard
Employment Contract (POEA-SEC) requirement on the appointment of a neutral
physician in case of disagreement as to his disability assessment.[21] The NLRC
nevertheless ruled that even without the opinion of a third doctor jointly chosen by
the parties, any ruling will have to be based on the evidence on record, [22] pursuant
to Nisda v. Sea Serve Maritime Agency, et al.[23] It concluded that Conag's evidence
was inadequate to overcome the assessment of fitness by the company-designated
physicians. The NLRC pointed out that Conag was under the care of the company-
designated physicians from the time of his repatriation on August 27, 2009 until he
was declared fit to work on December 1, 2009. The company-designated physicians
were able to show the detailed procedures and laboratory tests done on Conag. On
the other hand, Dr. Jacinto's medical certificate did not specify the dates when he
saw and treated Conag, nor the diagnostic and laboratory tests he conducted and
the specific treatments and medications he administered, if any, in arriving at his
conclusion that the latter suffered from "Herniated Nucleus Pulposus, L5-S1, Right,"
and was now unfit to work.[24]
The petitioners' motion for reconsideration was denied by the NLRC in its
Resolution[25] dated February 28, 2011.
Ruling of the CA
In upholding the LA decision, the CA found "undisputed" evidence that Conag
suffered from spinal injuries which caused his total disability, discrediting as without
basis the NLRC's dismissal of Dr. Jacinto's assessment. That he was not rehired by
the petitioners is a telling proof, the CA said, of his unfitness for sea duties, after
having assessed him as fit to go back to work.[26]
On motion for reconsideration,[27] the petitioners tried to show, to no avail, that the
award of disability benefits to Conag is without basis because there is no proof that
his claimed spinal injury was work-related, since he could point to no incident on
board which could have caused it. They claimed that he was declared fit to work by
the company-designated physicians pursuant to the provisions of the POEA-SEC, to
which he was bound. They further averred that, granting he was permanently
disabled, as a bosun's mate, Conag was classified as "rating" only and not a junior
officer; and he is thus entitled only to $89,100.00 in disability benefits under the
Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA). They also claimed that the CA's reliance on
the 120-day rule in the treatment of seafarers is misplaced and attorney's fees
cannot be awarded because they are fully justified in denying disability benefits to
Conag.
Grounds
In this petition for review on certiorari, the petitioners basically reiterate the same
grounds they had raised before the CA, to wit:
1. Whether the [CA] committed serious, reversible error of law in disregarding
the medical findings of the company-designated physician[s] and awarding
full disability compensation under the CBA.
2. Whether the [CA] committed serious, reversible error of law in invoking the
120-day [rule]. The [CA's] reliance on the 120-day [rule] is misplaced. Mere
inability to work for more than 120 days does not of itself [entitle] [Conag] to
full disability compensation.
3. Whether the [CA] erred in awarding attorney's fees in favor of [Conag]
despite justified refusal to pay full and permanent benefits. [28]
Essentially, the petitioners seek to belie the conclusion of the CA that the NLRC's
determination of Conag's permanent total disability is not borne out by the
evidence. In effect, the Court was asked to make an inquiry into the contrary
factual findings of the NLRC and the LA, whose statutory function is to make factual
findings based on the evidence on record.[29] Crucial, then, to a ruling on the above
issue is whether the CA was justified in finding that, contrary to the NLRC's
conclusion, Conag suffered a work-related spinal injury which rendered him unfit to
return to work.
Ruling of the Court
The Court grants the petition.
In appeals by certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, the task of the Court is
generally to review only errors of law since it is not a trier of facts, a rule which
definitely applies to labor cases.[30] But while the NLRC and the LA are imbued with
expertise and authority to resolve factual issues, the Court has in exceptional cases
delved into them where there is insufficient evidence to support their findings, or
too much is deduced from the bare facts submitted by the parties, or the LA and
the NLRC came up with conflicting findings,[31] as the Court has found in this case.
Seafarer's right to disability benefits
The relevant legal provisions governing a seafarer's right to disability benefits, in
addition to the parties' contract and medical findings, [32] are Articles 191 to 193 of
the Labor Code and Section 2, Rule X of the Amended Rules on Employee
Compensation. The pertinent contracts are the POEA-SEC, the CBA, if any, and the
employment agreement between the seafarer and his employer.[33] To summarize
and harmonize the pertinent provisions on the establishment of a seafarer's claim
to disability benefits, the Court held in Vergara v. Hammonia Maritime Services,
Inc., et al.[34] that:
[T]he seafarer, upon sign-off from his vessel, must report to the companydesignated physician within three (3) days from arrival for diagnosis and treatment.
For the duration of the treatment but in no case to exceed 120 days, the seaman is
on temporary total disability as he is totally unable to work. He receives his basic
wage during this period until he is declared fit to work or his temporary disability is
acknowledged by the company to be permanent, either partially or totally, as his
condition is defined under the POEA [-SEC] and by applicable Philippine laws. If the
120 days initial period is exceeded and no such declaration is made because the
seafarer requires further medical attention, then the temporary total disability
period may be extended up to a maximum of 240 days, subject to the right of the
employer to declare within this period that a permanent partial or total disability
already exists. The seaman may of course also be declared fit to work at any time
such declaration is justified by his medical condition.[35] (Citations omitted and
italics in the original)
In C.F. Sharp Crew Management, Inc., et al. v. Taok,[36] the Court enumerated the
conditions which may be the basis for a seafarer's action for total and permanent
disability benefits, as follows:
(a) [T]he company-designated physician failed to issue a declaration as to his
fitness to engage in sea duty or disability even after the lapse of the 120-day period
and there is no indication that further medical treatment would address his
temporary total disability, hence, justify an extension of the period to 240 days; (b)
240 days had lapsed without any certification being issued by the companydesignated physician; (c) the company-designated physician declared that he is fit
for sea duty within the 120-day or 240-day period, as the case may be, but his
physician of choice and the doctor chosen under Section 20-B(3) of the POEA-SEC
are of a contrary opinion; (d) the company-designated physician acknowledged that
he is partially permanently disabled but other doctors who he consulted, on his own
and jointly with his employer, believed that his disability is not only permanent but
total as well; (e) the company-designated physician recognized that he is totally
and permanently disabled but there is a dispute on the disability grading; (i) the
company-designated physician determined that his medical condition is not
compensable or work-related under the POEA-SEC but his doctor-of-choice and the
third doctor selected under Section 20-B(3) of the POEA-SEC found otherwise and
declared him unfit to work; (g) the company-designated physician declared him
totally and permanently disabled but the employer refuses to pay him the
corresponding benefits; and (h) the company-designated physician declared him
partially and permanently disabled within the 120-day or 240-day period but he
remains incapacitated to perform his usual sea duties after the lapse of the said
periods.[37]
Incidentally, in the recent case of Magsaysay Maritime Corporation v. Simbajon,
[38]
the Court has mentioned that an amendment to Section 20-A(6) of the POEASEC, contained in POEA Memorandum Circular No. 10, series of 2010, [39] now
"finally clarifies" that "[f]or work-related illnesses acquired by seafarers from the
time the 2010 amendment to the POEA-SEC took effect, the declaration of disability
should no longer be based on the number of days the seafarer was treated or paid
his sickness allowance, but rather on the disability grading he received, whether
from the company-designated physician or from the third independent physician, if
the medical findings of the physician chosen by the seafarer conflicts with that of
the company-designated doctor."[40]
Conag failed to comply with Section 20-B(3) of the POEA-SEC
On December 1, 2009, after 95 days of therapy, Conag was pronounced by the
company-designated doctors as fit to work. Later that day, he executed a
certificate, in both English and Filipino, acknowledging that he was now fit to work.
On December 5, 2009, he left for his home province of Negros Oriental, as he told
his employers in his letter[41] dated February 9, 2010, wherein he expressed his
desire to be redeployed. He told them that during his vacation he was able to
engage in a lot of activities such as walking around his neighborhood four times a
week, swimming two times a week, weightlifting three times a week, driving his car
on Saturdays for one hour, riding his motorbike five times a week, playing
basketball every Sunday, and fishing and doing some house repairs when he had
the time.
Interestingly, however, on February 18, 2010,[42] a mere nine days after his letter,
Conag filed his complaint with the LA for disability benefits, presumably after he
was told that he would not be rehired, although the reasons for his rejection are
nowhere stated. It is not alleged that before he filed his complaint, he first sought
payment of total disability benefits from the petitioners. In fact, it was only on
March 20, 2010, three months after the petitioners declared him fit to work, that
Conag obtained an assessment of unfitness to work from a doctor of his choice, Dr.
Jacinto. Thus, when he filed his complaint for disability benefits, he clearly had as
yet no medical evidence whatsoever to support his claim of permanent and total
disability.
But even granting that his afterthought consultation with Dr. Jacinto could be given
due consideration, it has been held in Philippine Hammonia Ship Agency, Inc. v.
Dumadag,[43] and reiterated in Simbajon[44] that under Section 20-B(3) of the POEASEC, the duty to secure the opinion of a third doctor belongs to the
employee asking for disability benefits. Not only did Conag fail to seasonably
obtain an opinion from his own doctor before filing his complaint, thereby
permitting the petitioners no opportunity to evaluate his doctor's assessment, but
he also made it impossible for the parties to jointly seek the opinion of a third
doctor precisely because the petitioners had not known about Dr. Jacinto's opinion
in the first place. Indeed, three months passed before Conag sought to dispute the
company-designated physicians' assessment, and during this interval other things
could have happened to cause or aggravate his injury. In particular, the Court notes
that, after he collected his sick wage, Conag spent two months in his home
province and engaged in various physical activities.
Conag has no factual medical basis for his claim of permanent disability
benefits
According to the CA, there is no dispute that Conag suffered from spinal injuries
designated as "Mild Lumbar Levoconvex Scoliosis and Spondylosis; Right S1 Nerve
Root Compression," with an incidental finding of "Gall Bladder Polyposis v.
Cholesterolosis," on account of his job as a bosun's mate, which is "associated with
working with machinery, lifting heavy loads and cargo." The CA also found that he
sustained his injuries during his employment with the petitioners. [45]
The Court disagrees.
A review of the petitioners' evidence reveals that both the CA and the LA glossed
over vital facts which would have upheld the fitness to work assessment issued by
the company-designated physicians. The petitioners cited a certification by the ship
master,[46] which Conag has not denied, that the ship's logbook carried no entry
whatsoever from March 28 to August 25, 2009 of any accident on board in which
Conag could have been involved. Instead, Conag's medical repatriation form shows
that he was sent home because of a "big pain on his left kidney, kidney
stones."[47] In their final report dated December 1, 2009,[48] Drs. Lim and Go of the
MMC certified that he was first "cleared urologic-wise" upon his repatriation. The
NLRC also noted that Conag mentioned no particular incident at work on deck which
could have caused his spinal pain.
To rule out any spinal injury, pertinent tests were nevertheless conducted, resulting
in a diagnosis of "Mild Lumbar Levoconvex Scoliosis and Spondylosis; Right S1
Nerve Root Compression," with an incidental finding of "Gall Bladder Polyposis v.
Cholesterolosis." Attached to the report of Drs. Lim and Go is a certificate, also
dated December 1, 2009, issued by Dr. William Chuasuan, Jr. (Dr. Chuasuan),
Orthopedic and Adult Joint Replacement Surgeon also at MMC, who attended to
Conag, that he had "Low Back Pain; Herniated Nucleus Pulposus, L5-S1,
Right."[49] In declaring Conag fit to return to work, Dr. Chuasuan noted that he was
now free from pain and he had regained full range of trunk movement. He noted
"Negative Straight Leg Raising Test. Full trunk range of motion, (-) pain. Fit to
return to work."[50]
Even considering the inherent merits of the medical certificate issued by Dr. Jacinto
on March 20, 2010, the NLRC did not hide its suspicion that his certification was not
the result of an honest, bona fide treatment of Conag, but rather one issued out of
a short one-time visit. It noted that Dr. Jacinto issued a pro-forma medical
certificate,[51] with the blanks filled in his own hand. Dr. Jacinto certified that
Conag's condition "did not improve despite medicine," yet nowhere did he specify
what medications, therapy or treatments he had prescribed in arriving at his unfit-
to-work assessment, nor when and how many times he had treated Conag, except
to say, vaguely, "from March 2010 to present," "present" being March 20, 2010, the
date of his certificate. No laboratory and diagnostic tests and procedures, if any,
were presented which could have enabled him to diagnose him as suffering from
lumbar hernia or "Herniated Nucleus Pulposus, L5-S1, Right" as the cause of his
permanent disability. There is no proof of hospital confinement, laboratory or
diagnostic results, treatments and medical prescriptions shown which could have
helped the company-designated physicians in re-evaluating their assessment of
Conag's fitness. When Dr. Jacinto said that "[Conag's] symptoms [were] aggravated
due to his work which entails carrying heavy loads," he obviously relied merely on
Conag's account about what allegedly happened to him aboard ship nine months
earlier. This Court is thus inclined to concur with the NLRC that on the basis solely
of Conag's story, Dr. Jacinto made his assessment that he was "physically unfit to
work as a seafarer."
In Coastal Safeway Marine Services, Inc. v. Esguerra,[52] this Court rejected the
medical certifications upon which the claimant-seaman anchored his claim for
disability benefits, for being unsupported by diagnostic tests and procedures which
would have effectively disputed the results of the medical examination in a foreign
clinic to which he was referred by his employer. In Magsaysay Maritime Corporation
and/or Dela Cruz, et al. v. Velasquez, et al.,[53] the Court brushed aside the
evidentiary value of a recommendation made by the doctor of the seafarer which
was "based on a single medical report which outlined the alleged findings and
medical history" of the claimant-seafarer.[54] In Montoya v. Transmed Manila
Corporation/Mr. Ellena, et al.,[55] the Court dismissed the doctor's plain statement of
the supposed work-relation/work-aggravation of a seafarer's ailment for being "not
supported by any reason or proof submitted together with the assessment or in the
course of the arbitration."[56]
In Dumadag,[57] where the seafarer's doctor examined him only once, and relied on
the same medical history, diagnoses and analyses produced by the companydesignated specialists, it was held that there is no reason for the Court to simply
say that the seafarer's doctor's findings are more reliable than the conclusions of
the company-designated physicians.
No showing that "Mild Lumbar Levoconvex Scoliosis and Spondylosis" is a
serious spinal injury that may result in permanent disability
The Court finds it significant that both the LA and the CA concluded, on the basis
alone of a diagnosis of "Mild Lumbar Levoconvex Scoliosis [left curvature of the
spinal column in the lower back, L1 to L5] and Spondylosis; Right S1 Nerve Root
Compression," that Conag suffered serious spinal injuries which caused his total
disability. Nowhere is the nature of this injury or condition described or explained,
or that it could have been the result of strain or an accident while Conag was
aboard ship, not to mention that it was only a "mild" case. Dr. Chuasuan noted in
his December 1, 2009 report that Conag was now free from pain and had regained
full range of trunk movement: "Negative Straight Leg Raising Test. Full trunk range
of motion, (-) pain. Fit to return to work." For 95 days, Conag underwent therapy
and medication, and Dr. Chuasuan's final Lasegue's sign test to see if his low back
pain had an underlying herniated disk (slipped disc) was negative.
Apparently, then, Conag's back pain had been duly addressed. He himself was able
to attest that back home from December 2009 to February 2010 he was able to
engage in various normal physical routines. Concerning the LA's observation of his
alleged deteriorated physical and medical condition, and therefore his unfitness to
return to work, let it suffice that the LA's own opinion as to the physical appearance
of Conag is of no relevance in this case, as it must be stated that he is not trained
or authorized to make a determination of unfitness to work from the mere
appearance of Conag at the arbitral proceedings.
WHEREFORE, the Court GRANTS the petition. The Decision dated January 27,
2014 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 119282 is REVERSED, and the
Decision dated November 30, 2010 of the National Labor Relations Commission in
NLRC LAC No. OFW(M) 09-000666-10 is hereby REINSTATED.
SO ORDERED.
Velasco, Jr., (Chairperson), Del Castillo,* Perez, and Jardeleza, JJ., concur.
May 25, 2016

NOTICE OF JUDGMENT
Sirs / Mesdames:
Very truly yours,

(SGD)WILFREBO V. LAPITAN
Designated Additional Member per Raffle dated January 21, 2015 vice Associate
Justice Diosdado M. Peralta.
*
[1]
Rollo, pp. 26-75.
Penned by Associate Justice Francisco P. Acosta, with Associate Justices Fernanda

Lampas Peralta and Myra V. Garcia-Fernandez concurring; id. at 77-86.
[2]
Rendered by Presiding Commissioner Gerardo C. Nograles, with Commissioners

Perlita B. Velasco and Romeo L. Go concurring; id. at 194-203.
[3]
[4]
Rendered by Labor Arbiter Fedriel S. Panganiban; id. at 183-192.
[5]
Id. at 78.
[6]
Id.
[7]
Id.
[8]
Id. at 147.
[9]
Id. at 149.
[10]
Id. at 163.
[11]
Id. at 185.
[12]
Id.
[13]
Id. at 183-192.
[14]
Id. at 188.
[15]
577 Phil. 319 (2008).
[16]
Rollo, pp. 188-189.
[17]
Id. at 188.
[18]
Id. at 190.
[19]
Id. at 191-192.
[20]
Id. at 194-203.
[21]
Id. at 198-199.
[22]
Id. at 199.
[23]
611 Phil. 291 (2009).
[24]
Rollo, pp. 199-202.
[25]
Id. at 205-206.
[26]
Id. at 85.
[27]
Id. at 87-124.
[28]
Id. at 32-33.
[29]
See CBL Transit, Inc. v. NLRC, 469 Phil. 363, 371 (2004).
Tagle v. Anglo-Eastern Crew Management, Phils., Inc., G.R. No. 209302, July 9,
2014, 729 SCRA 677, 687.
[30]
[31]
Nisda v. Sea Serve Maritime Agency, et al., supra note 23, at 311.
[32]
C.F. Sharp Crew Management, Inc., et al. v. Taok, 691 Phil. 521, 533 (2012).
Id.; Tagle v. Anglo-Eastern Crew Management, Phils., Inc., supra note 30, at
688.
[33]
[34]
588 Phil. 895 (2008).
[35]
Id. at 912.
[36]
691 Phil. 521 (2012).
[37]
Id. at 538-539.
[38]
G.R. No. 203472, July 9, 2014, 729 SCRA 631.
[39]
POEA Memorandum Circular No. 10, series of 2010, Amended Standard Terms
and Conditions Governing the Overseas Employment of Filipino Seafarers On-Board

Ocean-Going Ships, October 26, 2010.
Section 20-A(6) provides:
In case of permanent total or partial disability of the seafarer caused by either
injury or illness the seafarer shall be compensated in accordance with the schedule
of benefits enumerated in Section 32 of this Contract. Computation of his benefits
arising from an illness or disease shall be governed by the rates and the rules of
compensation applicable at the time the illness or disease was contracted.
The disability shall be based solely on the disability gradings provided under Section
32 of this Contract, and shall not be measured or determined by the number of
days a seafarer is under treatment or the number of days in which sickness
allowance is paid.
[40]
Magsaysay Maritime Corporation v. Simbajon, supra note 38, at 652-653.
[41]
Rollo, p. 150.
[42]
Id. at 30.
[43]
G.R. No. 194362, June 26, 2013, 700 SCRA 53.
[44]
Supra note 38.
[45]
Rollo, p. 84.
[46]
Id. at 151.
[47]
Id. at 29.
[48]
Id. at 147.
[49]
Id. at 148.
The straight-leg-raise test (or (Lasegue's sign) is the most sensitive test for
lumbar disk herniation, with a negative result strongly indicating against lumbar
disk herniation. <http://www.aafp.org/afp/2008/100l/p835.htm> viewed March 29,
2016; id.
[50]
[51]
Rollo, pp. 200-201.
[52]
671 Phil. 56 (2011).
[53]
591 Phil. 839 (2008).
[54]
Id. at 852.
[55]
613 Phil. 696 (2009).
[56]
Id. at 711.
[57]
Supra note 43.

G.R.
No.
206459
SPOUSES FLORANTE E. JONSAY AND LUZVIMINDA L. JONSAY AND MOMARCO IMPORT CO., INC., PETITIONERS, VS.
SOLIDBANK
CORPORATION
(NOW
METROPOLITAN
BANK
AND
TRUST
COMPANY),
RESPONDENT.
April 06, 2016
THIRD DIVISION
[ G.R. No. 206459, April 06, 2016 ]
SPOUSES FLORANTE E. JONSAY AND LUZVIMINDA L. JONSAY
AND MOMARCO IMPORT CO., INC., PETITIONERS, VS.
SOLIDBANK CORPORATION (NOW METROPOLITAN BANK
AND TRUST COMPANY), RESPONDENT.
DECISION
REYES, J.:
Before this Court is a Petition for Review[1] from the Amended Decision[2] dated
November 26, 2012 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 94012, which
reconsidered its earlier Decision[3] therein dated April 27, 2012, and granted in part
the appeal of herein respondent Solidbank Corporation (Solidbank) from the
Amended Decision[4] dated July 7, 2009 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
Calamba City, Branch 35, in Civil Case No. 2912-2000-C, which annulled the
extrajudicial foreclosure proceedings instituted by Solidbank against the Spouses
Florante E. Jonsay (Florante) and Luzviminda L. Jonsay (Luzviminda) (Spouses
Jonsay) and Momarco Import Co., Inc. (Momarco) (petitioners) over the mortgaged
properties.
Factual Antecedents
Momarco, controlled and owned by the Spouses Jonsay, is an importer,
manufacturer and distributor of animal health and feedmill products catering to
cattle, hog and poultry producers. On November 9, 1995, and again on April 28,
1997, Momarco obtained loans of P40,000,000.00 and f 20,000,000.00,
respectively, from Solidbank for which the Spouses Jonsay executed a blanket
mortgage over three parcels of land they owned in Calamba City, Laguna registered
in their names under Transfer Certificates of Title Nos. T-224751, T-210327 and T269668 containing a total of 23,733 square meters. [5] On November 3, 1997,[6] the
loans were consolidated under one promissory note [7] for the combined amount of
P60,000,000.00, signed by Florante as President of Momarco, with his wife
Luzviminda also signing as co-maker.[8]The stipulated rate of interest was
18.75% per annum, along with an escalation clause tied to increases in pertinent
Central Bank-declared interest rates, by which Solidbank was eventually able to
unilaterally increase the interest charges up to 30% per annum.[9]
Momarco religiously paid the monthly interests charged by Solidbank from
November 1995[10] until January 1998, when it paid P1,370,321.09. Claiming
business reverses brought on by the 1997 Asian financial crisis, Momarco tried
unsuccessfully to negotiate a moratorium or suspension in its interest payments.
Due to persistent demands by Solidbank, Momarco made its next, and its last,
monthly interest payment in April 1998 in the amount of P1,000,000.00. Solidbank
applied the said payment to Momarco's accrued interest for February 1998.
Momarco sought a loan from Landbank of the Philippines to pay off its aforesaid
debt but its application fell through. The anticipated expropriation by the
Department of Public Works and Highways of the mortgaged lots for the extension
of the South Luzon Expressway (SLEX) also did not materialize. [11]
Solidbank proceeded to extrajudicially foreclose on the mortgage, and at the
auction sale held on March 5, 1999, it submitted the winning bid of
P82,327,249.54,[12]representing Momarco's outstanding loans, interests and
penalties, plus attorney's fees of P3,600,000.00. But Momarco now claims that on
the date of the auction the fair market value of their mortgaged lots had increased
sevenfold to P441,750,000.00.[13] On March 22, 1999, Sheriff Adelio Perocho
(Sheriff Perocho) issued a certificate of sale to Solidbank, duly annotated on April
15, 1999 on the lots' titles.[14]
On March 9, 2000, a month before the expiration of the period to redeem the lots,
the petitioners filed a Complaint[15] against Solidbank, Sheriff Perocho and the
Register of Deeds of Calamba, Laguna, docketed as Civil Case No. 2912-2000-C,
for Annulment of the Extrajudicial Foreclosure of Mortgage, Injunction, Accounting
and Damages with Prayer for the Immediate Issuance of a Writ of Preliminary
Prohibitory Injunction. They averred that: (a) the amount claimed by Solidbank as
Momarco's total loan indebtedness is bloated; (b) Solidbank's interest charges are
illegal for exceeding the legal rate of 12% per annum; (c) the filing fee it charged
has no legal and factual basis; (d) the attorney's fees of P3,600,000.00 it billed the
petitioners is excessive and unconscionable; (e) their previous payments from 1995
to 1997 were not taken into account in computing their principal indebtedness; (f)
Sheriff Perocho's certificate of posting was invalid; and (g) the publication of the
notice of the auction sale was defective because the Morning Chronicle which
published the said notice was not a newspaper of general circulation in Calamba,
Laguna.[16]
After Solidbank filed its Answer with Counterclaim[17] on April 12, 2000, the RTC
heard and granted the petitioners' application for temporary restraining order on
April 13, 2000,[18] followed on May 2, 2000[19] by issuance of a writ of preliminary
prohibitory injunction, thus suspending the consolidation of Solidbank's titles to the
subject lots.
The petitioners' principal witness was Florante, whose testimony was summarized
by the RTC in its amended decision, as follows:
[Florante] signed the loan documents in blank and the signing took place at his
office in Quezon City; he asserted that they were able to pay more than TwentyFour Million Pesos but the same were not deducted by the bank to arrive at the
correct amount of indebtedness. He said that his accountant prepared statement of
payments showing the payments made to the bank. He further claimed that there
are still other payments, the receipts of which are being retrieved by his
accountant. He also asserted that the newspaper where the notice of foreclosure
sale was published is not a newspaper of general circulation.
The same cannot be found in a newspaper stand in the place where the mortgaged
properties are located; he further claimed that [he] suffered moral, emotional and
mental injury; he is a graduate of Doctor of Veterinary Medicine; a permanent
member of the Philippine Veterinary Medical Association; graduated and passed the
Board; he is the President of [Momarco] and the President of Momarco Resort; he
has been engaged in this line of business for 31 years now; his wife is a graduate of
Dental Medicine and partner of [Momarco]; he has four (4) children three of them
had already graduated and one still in college; x x x he is also claiming for
exemplary damages of Five Million Pesos to set an example for other banks like
Solidbank, to refrain from filing acts which are irregular and affect borrowers like
him, he claimed also for attorney[']s fees of Three Million Pesos. [20]
Solidbank's witnesses, Lela Quijano, head of its collection division, and Benjamin
Apan, its senior manager for retail operations, admitted that the monthly interests
it collected from 1995 to 1998 ranged from 18.75% to 30%, and that for 1998,
Momarco paid P2,370,321.09 in interest. [21]
Ruling of the RTC
On July 7, 2009, the RTC issued its Amended Decision, the fallo of which reads, as
follows:
Wherefore, premises considered, judgment is rendered in favor of the [petitioners]
and against the defendants] by:
1) Declaring the extra-judicial foreclosure proceedings NULL and VOID and without
any legal effect and the defendants are prohibited to consolidate the titles in the
name of [Solidbank] without prejudice to the filing of the action for collection or
recovery of the sum of money secured by the real estate mortgage in the proper
forum;
2) Ordering that the interest rates on the [petitioners'] indebtedness be reduced to
12% per annum;
3) Declaring that the attorney's fees and filing fee being collected by [Solidbank] to
be devoid of any legal basis;
4) Ordering [Solidbank] to pay the [petitioners] the following sums, to wit:
a) Php20,000,000.00 - moral damages;
b) Php2,500,000.00 - exemplary damages;
c) Php1,[500],000.00 - for attorney's fees.
5) Ordering the dismissal of the counterclaim for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.[22]
The RTC ruled that the mortgage contract and the promissory notes prepared by
Solidbank, which the Spouses Jonsay signed in blank, were contracts of adhesion;
that Solidbank failed to take into account Momarco's payments in the two years
preceding 1998 totaling P24,277,293.22 (this amount was not disputed by
Solidbank); that the interest rates, ranging from 19% to 30%, as well as the
penalties, charges and attorney's fees imposed by Solidbank, were excessive,
unconscionable and immoral, and that Solidbank has no carte blanche authority
under the Usury Law to unilaterally raise the interest rates to levels as to enslave
the borrower and hemorrhage its assets; that Solidbank's verification in its
application for foreclosure of mortgage was defective because it was signed not by
its President but only by a vice-president; that the Morning Chronicle, in which the
notice of auction was published, was not a newspaper of general circulation because
it had no bona fide list of paying subscribers; that Solidbank manipulated the
foreclosure sale through a defective publication of the notice of auction and by
submitting an unconscionably low bid of P82,327,000.00, whereas the value of the
lots had risen sevenfold since the rehabilitation of the SLEX.[23]
Ruling of the CA
On appeal to the CA, Solidbank interposed the following errors of the RTC, to wit:
THE [RTC] GRAVELY ERRED IN NULLIFYING THE FORECLOSURE PROCEEDINGS
CONDUCTED AGAINST [THE PETITIONERS'] PROPERTIES ON THE GROUND THAT
THE REAL ESTATE MORTGAGE EXECUTED BY THE PARTIES WAS A CONTRACT OF
ADHESION;
CONDUCTED AGAINST [THE PETITIONERS'] PROPERTIES ON THE GROUND THAT
THE NEWSPAPER WHERE THE NOTICE OF FORECLOSURE WAS PUBLISHED IS NOT
A NEWSPAPER OF GENERAL CIRCULATION;
CONDUCTED AGAINST [THE PETITIONERS'] PROPERTIES ON THE GROUNDS THAT
THE INTEREST RATES, PENALTIES, ATTORNEY'S FEES CHARGED ARE EXCESSIVE,
UNCONSCIONABLE AND IMMORAL AND THAT THE [SOLIDBANK] DID NOT TAKE
INTO ACCOUNT [THE PETITIONERS'] PREVIOUS PAYMENT[S] IN THE AMOUNT OF
P24,277,293.27;
THE [RTC] GRAVELY ERRED IN AWARDING MORAL DAMAGES, EXEMPLARY
DAMAGES AND ATTORNEY'S FEES IN FAVOR OF THE [PETITIONERS];
THE [RTC] GRAVE[LY] ERRED IN FAILING TO REGARD [THE PETITIONERS] [IN]
ESTOPPEL WHEN THE LATTER DID NOT IMPUGN THE VALIDITY OF THE LOAN AND
MORTGAGE DOCUMENTS WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME.[24]
On April 27, 2012, the CA rendered judgment affirming the RTC in toto. It agreed
that Solidbank did not comply with the publication requirements under Section 3,
Act No. 3135, which provides:
Sec. 3. Notice shall be given by posting notices of the sale for not less than twenty
days in at least three public places of the municipality or city where the property is
situated, and if such property is worth more than four hundred pesos, such notice
shall also be published once a week for at least three consecutive weeks in a
newspaper of general circulation in the municipality or city.[25] (Emphasis
ours)
According to the CA, the Morning Chronicle was not a newspaper of general
circulation, notwithstanding the affidavit of publication issued by its publisher,
Turing R. Crisostomo (Crisostomo), to that effect as well as the certification of the
Clerk of Court of RTC-Calamba City that it was duly accredited by the court since
May 28, 1997 to publish legal notices. The CA ruled that it was not enough for
Crisostomo to merely state in his affidavit that the Morning Chronicle was published
and edited in the province of Laguna and in San Pablo City without a showing that it
was published to disseminate local news and general information, that it had
a bona fide list of paying subscribers, that it was published at regular intervals, and
that it was in general circulation in Calamba City where the subject properties are
located.[26]
In Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company, Inc. v. Peafiel,[27] cited by the CA, the
Court explained that: (1) the object of a notice of sale is to achieve a reasonably
wide publicity of the auction by informing the public of the nature and condition of
the property to be auctioned, and of the time, place and terms of the sale, and
thereby secure bidders and prevent a sacrifice of the property; (2) a newspaper to
be considered one of general circulation need not have the largest circulation but
must be able to appeal to the public in general and thus ensure a wide readership,
and must not be devoted solely to entertainment or the interest of a particular
class, profession, trade, calling, race, or religious denomination; and (3) Section 3
of Act No. 3135, as amended by Act No. 4118, does not only require the newspaper
to be of general circulation but also that it is circulated in the municipality or city
where the property is located.[28]
The CA held that the accreditation of the Morning Chronicle by the Clerk of Court of
the RTC to publish legal notices is not determinative of whether it is a newspaper of
general circulation in Calamba City.[29]
Concerning the loans due from the petitioners, the CA noted that under the pro
forma promissory note which Solidbank prepared and which the Spouses Jonsay
signed in blank, Solidbank enjoyed unrestrained freedom to unilaterally increase the

interest rate in any month. The note gave it authority to increase or decrease the
interest rate from time to time, "without any advance notice" and "in the event the
Monetary Board of the Central Bank of the Philippines raises or lowers the interest
rates on loans." According to the CA, this provision violated the principle of
mutuality of contracts embodied in Article 1308[30] of the Civil Code.[31]
The CA also held that the herein petitioners were not in estoppel for failing to
seasonably question the validity of the mortgage loan since the prescriptive period
is reckoned from their notice of the statements of account issued by Solidbank
showing the unilateral increases in the interest, for only by then would their cause
of action have accrued. Since only three years had elapsed from the execution of
the mortgage contract to the filing of the complaint on March 15, 2000, the action
was brought within the 10-year prescriptive period.[32]
Solidbank moved for reconsideration[33] of the decision, which the CA granted in
part on November 26, 2012, via its Amended Decision, to wit:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Motion is GRANTED IN PART. Our Decision
promulgated on April 27, 2012 is hereby amended. Paragraphs 2 and 5 of the
dispositive portion of the July 7, 2009 Decision of the [RTC] of Calamba City, Branch
35 remain affirmed. Paragraphs 1, 3 and 4 thereof are hereby reversed and set
aside.
SO ORDERED.[34]
Thus, in a complete reversal of its decision, the CA now not only found the parties'
mortgage contract valid, but also declared that Solidbank's extrajudicial foreclosure
of the mortgage enjoyed the presumption of regularity. It took into account the (a)
Affidavit of Publication issued by Crisostomo that it duly published the notice of
auction sale on February 8, 15, and 22, 1999, (b) the Certification by the Clerk of
Court of the RTC-Calamba City that the Morning Chronicle was duly accredited by
the court to publish legal notices, and (c) the Raffle of Publication dated February 1,
1999 showing that the said newspaper participated in and won the raffle on
February 1, 1999 to publish the subject notice. The CA stressed that since the
selection of Morning Chronicle to publish the notice was through a court-supervised
raffle, Solidbank was fully justified in relying on the regularity of the publication of
its notice in the aforesaid newspaper, in the choice of which it had no hand
whatsoever.[35]
The CA further held that no malice can be imputed on Solidbank's refusal to accept
the petitioners' offer of dacion en pago, since it was duly authorized under the
parties' mortgage contract to extrajudicially foreclose on the mortgage in the event
that Momarco defaulted in its interest payments. Thus, when Solidbank opted to
foreclose on the mortgage, it was merely exercising its contractual right to protect
its interest, and Solidbank's supposed insensitivity or lack of sympathy toward
Momarco's financial plight is irrelevant and is not indemnifiable as bad faith. [36]
On the other hand, the CA pointed out that other than Florante's bare testimonial
allegations, the petitioners failed to adduce evidence to debunk Solidbank's
compliance with the publication of its auction notice. They were unable to show that
the Morning Chronicle was not a newspaper of general circulation in Calamba City,
that it was not published once a week, or that it could not be found in newsstands.
[37]
Thus, the CA in its amended decision: (a) upheld the validity of the extrajudicial
foreclosure proceedings, the consolidation of the titles of Solidbank in the
foreclosed properties, and the dismissal of Solidbank's counterclaim; (b) ordered
the reduction of the interest rates on the petitioners" indebtedness to the legal rate
of 12% per annum, thereby affirming that the unilateral increases in the monthly
interest rates, which averaged 2.19% per month or 26.25% per annum, "without
notice to the mortgagors," are void for being iniquitous, excessive and
unconscionable; and (c) upheld the collection by the Solidbank of attorney's fees
and filing fee. Nonetheless, the CA invalidated for lack of basis the award by the
RTC to the petitioners of P20,000,000.00 as moral damages, P2,500,000.00 as
exemplary damages, and P1,500,000.00 as attorney's fees. [38]
The petitioners moved for partial reconsideration[39] of the CA's Amended Decision
dated November 26, 2012, but the CA denied the same in its Resolution40 dated
March 19, 2013.
Petition for Review in the Supreme Court
In this petition for review, the petitioners interpose the following assignment of
errors, to wit:
1. WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, THE [CA] GRAVELY ERRED BY RENDERING TWO (2)
CONFLICTING DECISIONS ON THE SAME SET OF FACTS AND EVIDENCE. THE
AMENDED DECISION IS NOT IN ACCORD WITH LAW AND EXISTING
JURISPRUDENCE[; AND]
2. WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, THE [CA] GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT CORRECTLY
APPLYING THE LAW AND JURISPRUDENCE ON EXTRAJUDICIAL
FORECLOSURE OF REAL ESTATE MORTGAGE, DAMAGES AND CONTRACT OF
ADHESION IN THE AMENDED DECISION.[41]
The petitioners decry how, after first declaring that "[a]ll told, we find no reason to
disturb, much less reverse, the assailed decision of the RTC," the CA could now be
permitted to make a complete turn-around from its previous decision over the same
set of facts, and declare that the subject foreclosure is valid, order the consolidation
of Solidbank's titles, and delete the award of moral and exemplary damages,
attorney's fees and costs of suit.[42]
Ruling of the Court
There is merit in the petition.
There is no legal proscription against
an adjudicating court adopting on motion
for reconsideration by a party a position
that is completely contrary to one it had
previously taken in a case.
The petitioners' dismay over how the same division of the CA could make two
opposite and conflicting decisions over exactly the same facts is understandable.
Yet, what the CA simply did was to admit that it had committed an error of
judgment, one which it was nonetheless fully authorized to correct upon a timely
motion for reconsideration. Sections 1, 2 and 3 of Rule 37 of the Rules of Court are
pertinent:
Sec. 1. Grounds of and period for filing motion for new trial or reconsideration. x
x x.
Within the same period, the aggrieved party may move for reconsideration upon
the grounds that the damages awarded are excessive, that the evidence is
insufficient to justify the decision or final order, or that the decision or final order is
contrary to law.
Sec. 2. Contents of motion for new trial or reconsideration and notice thereof. x
x x.
xxxx
A motion for reconsideration shall point out specifically the findings or conclusions
of the judgment or final order which are not supported by the evidence or which are
contrary to law[,] making express reference to the testimonial or documentary
evidence or to the provisions of law alleged to be contrary to such findings or
conclusions.
xxxx
Sec. 3. Action upon motion for new trial or reconsideration. x x x If the court
finds that excessive damages have been awarded or that the judgment or final
order is contrary to the evidence or law, it may amend such judgment or final order
accordingly.
The rule is that while the decision of a court becomes final upon the lapse of the
period to appeal by any party,[43] but the filing of a motion for reconsideration or
new trial interrupts or suspends the running of the said period, and prevents the
finality of the decision or order from setting in.[44] A motion for reconsideration
allows a party to request the adjudicating court or quasi-judicial body to take a
second look at its earlier judgment and correct any errors it may have committed.
[45]
As explained in Salcedo II v. COMELEC,[46] a motion for reconsideration allows
the adjudicator or judge to take a second opportunity to review the case and to
grapple anew with theissues therein, and to decide again a question previously
raised, there being no legal proscription imposed against the deciding body
adopting thereby a new position contrary to one it had previously taken. [47]
Solidbank has sufficiently complied
with the requirement of publication
under Section 3 of Act No. 3135.
In Philippine Savings Bank v. Spouses Geronimo,[48] the Court stressed that the
right of a bank to extrajudicially foreclose on a real estate mortgage is wellrecognized, provided it faithfully complies with the statutory requirements of
foreclosure:
While the law recognizes the right of a bank to foreclose a mortgage upon the
mortgagor's failure to pay his obligation, it is imperative that such right be
exercised according to its clear mandate. Each and every requirement of the law
must be complied with, lest, the valid exercise of the right would end. It must be
remembered that the exercise of a right ends when the right disappears, and it
disappears when it is abused especially to the prejudice of others. [49]
In Cristobal v. CA,[50] the Court explicitly held that foreclosure proceedings enjoy
the presumption of regularity and the mortgagor who alleges the absence of a
requisite has the burden of proving such fact:
Further, as respondent bank asserts, a mortgagor who alleges absence of a
requisite has the burden of establishing that fact. Petitioners failed in this regard.
Foreclosure proceedings have in their favor the presumption of regularity and the
burden of evidence to rebut the same is on the petitioners, x x x. [51] (Citation

omitted)
The petitioners insist that the CA was correct when it first ruled in its Decision dated
April 27, 2012 that there was no valid publication of the notice of auction, since
the Morning Chronicle was not shown to be a newspaper of general circulation in
Calamba City. The CA disregarded the affidavit of publication executed by its
publisher to that effect, as well as the certification by the Clerk of Court of RTCCalamba City that the said paper was duly accredited by the court to publish legal
notices. It ruled that there was no showing by the Solidbank that the Morning
Chronicle was published to disseminate local news and general information, that it
had a bonafidelist of paying subscribers, that it was published at regular intervals,
and that it was in circulation in Calamba City where the subject properties are
located.
But in its Amended Decision on November 26, 2012, the CA now ruled that the
questioned foreclosure proceedings enjoy the presumption of regularity, and it is
the burden of the petitioners to overcome this presumption. The CA stated:
It is an elementary rule that the burden of proof is the duty of a party to present
evidence on the facts in issue necessary to establish his claim or defense as
required by law. The Court has likewise ruled in previous cases that foreclosure
proceedings enjoy the presumption of regularity and that the mortgagor who
alleges absence of a requisite has the burden of proving such fact. [52] (Citation
omitted)
In Fortune Motors (Phils.) Inc. v. Metropolitan Bank and Trust Co.,[53] it was
stressed that in order for publication to serve its intended purpose, the newspaper
should be in general circulation in the place where the foreclosed properties to be
auctioned are located.[54] But in Metropolitan Bank and Trust Co. v. Spouses
Miranda,[55]the Court also clarified that the matter of compliance with the notice and
publication requirements is a factual issue which need not be resolved by the high
court:
It has been our consistent ruling that the question of compliance or non-compliance
with notice and publication requirements of an extrajudicial foreclosure sale is a
factual issue, and the resolution thereof by the trial court is generally binding on
this Court. The matter of sufficiency of posting and publication of a notice of
foreclosure sale need not be resolved by this Court, especially when the findings of
the RTC were sustained by the CA. Well-established is the rule that factual findings
of the CA are conclusive on the parties and carry even more weight when the said
court affirms the factual findings of the trial court.[56](Citation omitted)
In Spouses Miranda, the Court ruled that the foreclosing bank could not invoke the
presumption of regularity of the publication of the notice of auction absent any
proof whatsoever of the fact of publication.[57] In the case at bar, there is no dispute
that there was publication of the auction notice, which the CA in its amended
decision now held to have sufficiently complied with the requirement of publication
under Section 3 of Act No. 3135. Unfortunately, against the fact of publication and
the presumption of regularity of the foreclosure proceedings, the petitioners' only
contrary evidence is Florante's testimonial assertion that the Morning Chronicle was
not a newspaper of general circulation in Calamba City and that it could not be
found in the local newsstands.
Admittedly, the records are sparse as to the details of the publication. In his
Affidavit of Publication, publisher Crisostomo stated concerning the circulation of his
paper, as follows:
I, [CRISOSTOMO], legal age, Filipino, resident of Brgy. III-D, San Pablo City with
postal address at San Pablo City, after having been duly sworn in accordance to law,
depose and say[:]
That I am the Publisher of The Morning Chronicle Weekly newspaper of Luzon
Province and Greater Manila Area, Cavite, [published and edited in the Province of
Laguna and San Pablo City.
xxxx[58]
In Spouses Geronimo,[59] it was held that the affidavit of publication executed by the
account executive of the newspaper is prima facie proof that the newspaper is
generally circulated in the place where the properties are located. [60] But in
substance, all that Crisostomo stated is that his newspaper was "published and
edited in the province of Laguna and San Pablo City." He did not particularly
mention, as the CA seemed to demand in its initial decision, that the Morning
Chronicle was published and circulated to disseminate local news and general
information in Calamba City where the, foreclosed properties are located.
Nonetheless, when the RTC accredited the Morning Chronicle to publish legal
notices in Calamba City, it can be presumed that the RTC had made a prior
determination that the said newspaper had met the requisites for valid publication
of legal notices in the said locality, guided by the understanding that for the
publication of legal notices in Calamba City to serve its intended purpose, it must
be in general circulation therein. This presumption lays the burden upon the
petitioners to show otherwise, contrary to the CA's first ruling.
It is true that the Court also held in Peafiel,[61] concerning the evidentiary weight
of the publisher's affidavit of publication, that the accreditation by the RTC
executive judge is not decisive on the issue of whether a newspaper is of general
circulation:
The accreditation of Maharlika Pilipinas by the Presiding Judge of the RTC is not
decisive of whether it is a newspaper of general circulation in Mandaluyong City.
This Court is not bound to adopt the Presiding Judge's determination, in connection
with the said accreditation, that Maharlika Pilipinas is a newspaper of general
circulation. The court before which a case is pending is bound to make a resolution
of the issues based on the evidence on record.[62]
But as the Court has seen, the petitioners failed to present proof to overcome the
presumption of regularity created by the publisher's affidavit of publication and the
accreditation of the Morning Chronicle by the RTC.[63] Significantly, in A.M. No. 01-107-SC,[64] the Court now requires all courts beginning in 2001 to accredit local
newspapers authorized to publish legal notices.[65]
The petitioners' mere proposal to
extinguish their loan obligations
by way of dacion en pago does not
novate the mortgage contract.
On the question of the petitioners' failed proposal to extinguish their loan
obligations by way of dacion en pago, no bad faith can be imputed to Solidbank for
refusing the offered settlement as to render itself liable for moral and exemplary
damages after opting to extrajudicially foreclose on the mortgage. [66] In Tecnogas
Philippines Manufacturing Corporation v. Philippine National Bank,[67] the Court held:
Dacion en pago is a special mode of payment whereby the debtor offers another
thing to the creditor who accepts it as equivalent of payment of an outstanding
obligation. The undertaking is really one of sale, that is, the creditor is really buying
the thing or property of the debtor, payment for which is to be charged against the
debtor's debt. As such, the essential elements of a contract of sale, namely,
consent, object certain, and cause or consideration must be present. It is only when
the thing offered as an equivalent is accepted by the creditor that novation takes
place, thereby, totally extinguishing the debt.
On the first issue, the Court of Appeals did not err in ruling that Tecnogas has no
clear legal right to an injunctive relief because its proposal to pay by way of dacion
en pago did not extinguish its obligation. Undeniably, Tecnogas' proposal to pay by
way of dacion en pago was not accepted by PNB. Thus, the unaccepted proposal
neither novates the parties' mortgage contract nor suspends its execution as there
was no meeting of the minds between the parties on whether the loan will be
extinguished by way of dacion en pago. Necessarily, upon Tecnogas' default in its
obligations, the foreclosure of the REM becomes a matter of right on the part of
PNB, for such is the purpose of requiring security for the loans. [68] (Citation omitted)
An escalation clause in a loan
agreement granting the lending
bank authority to unilaterally
increase the interest rate without
prior notice to and consent of the
borrower is void.
After annulling the foreclosure of mortgage, the RTC reduced the interest imposable
on the petitioners' loans to 12%, the legal interest allowed for a loan or forbearance
of credit, citing Medel v. CA.[69] In effect, the RTC voided not just the unilateral
increases in the monthly interest, but also the contracted interest of 18.75%. The
implication is to allow the petitioners to recover what they may have paid in excess
of what was validly due to Solidbank, if any.
In Floirendo, Jr. v. Metropolitan Bank and Trust Co.,[70] the promissory note
provided for interest at 15.446% per annum for the first 30 days, subject to
upward/downward adjustment every 30 days thereafter.[71] It was further provided
that:
The rate of interest and/or bank charges herein stipulated, during the term of this
Promissory Note, its extension, renewals or other modifications, may be increased,
decreased, or otherwise changed from time to time by the Bank without advance
notice to me/us in the event of changes in the interest rate prescribed by law or the
Monetary Board of the Central Bank of the Philippines, in the rediscount rate of
member banks with the Central Bank of the Philippines, in the interest rates on
savings and time deposits, in the interest rates on the bank's borrowings, in the
reserve requirements, or in the overall costs of funding or money[.][72] (Italics ours)
The Court ordered the "reformation" of the real estate mortgage contract and the
promissory note, in that any increases in the interest rate beyond 15.446% per
annum could not be collected by respondent bank since it was devoid of prior
consent of the petitioner, as well as ordered that the interest paid by the debtor in
excess of 15.446% be applied to the payment of the principal obligation. [73]
In Philippine National Bank v. CA,[74] the Court declared void the escalation clause in
a credit agreement whereby the "bank reserves the right to increase the interest
rate within the limits allowed by law at any time depending on whatever policy it
may adopt in the future x x x."[75] The Court said:
It is basic that there can be no contract in the true sense in the absence of the
element of agreement, or of mutual assent of the parties. If this assent is wanting
on the part of one who contracts, his act has no more efficacy than if it had been
done under duress or by a person of unsound mind.
Similarly, contract changes must be made with the consent of the contracting
parties. The minds of all the parties must meet as to the proposed modification,
especially when it affects an important aspect of the agreement. In the case of loan
contracts, it cannot be gainsaid that the rate of interest is always a vital
component, for it can make or break a capital venture. Thus, any change must
be mutually agreed upon, otherwise, it is bereft of any binding effect.
We cannot countenance petitioner bank's posturing that the escalation clause at
bench gives it unbridled right to unilaterally upwardly adjust the interest on private
respondents' loan. That would completely take away from private respondents the
right to assent to an important modification in their agreement, and would negate
the element of mutuality in contracts, x x x.[76] (Citation omitted and italics in the
original)
In New Sampaguita Builders Construction, Inc. (NSBCI) v. PNB, [77] the Court
condemned as the "zenith of farcicality" a mortgage contract whereby the parties
"specify and agree upon rates that could be subsequently upgraded at whim by only
one party to the agreement."[78] The Court declared as a contract of adhesion a pro
forma promissory note which creates a "take it or leave it" dilemma for borrower
and gives the mortgagee bank an unbridled right to adjust the interest
independently and upwardly, thereby completely taking away from the borrower the
"right to assent to an important modification in their agreement," thus negating the
element of mutuality in their contracts.[79] The Court quotes:
Increases in Interest Baseless
Promissory Notes. In each drawdown, the Promissory Notes specified the interest
rate to be charged: 19.5 percent in the first, and 21.5 percent in the second and
again in the third. However, a uniform clause therein permitted respondent to
increase the rate "within the limits allowed by law at any time depending on
whatever policy it may adopt in the future x x x," without even giving prior
notice to petitioners. The Court holds that petitioners' accessory duty to pay
interest did not give respondent unrestrained freedom to charge any rate other
than that which was agreed upon. No interest shall be due, unless expressly
stipulated in writing. It would be the zenith of farcicality to specify and agree upon
rates that could be subsequently upgraded at whim by only one party to the
agreement.
The "unilateral determination and imposition" of increased rates is "violative of the

principle of mutuality of contracts ordained in Article 1308 of the Civil Code." Onesided impositions do not have the force of law between the parties, because such
impositions are not based on the parties' essential equality.
Although escalation clauses are valid in maintaining fiscal stability and retaining the
value of money on long-term contracts, giving respondent an unbridled right to
adjust the interest independently and upwardly would completely take away from
petitioners the "right to assent to an important modification in their agreement" and
would also negate the element of mutuality in their contracts. The clause cited
earlier made the fulfillment of the contracts "dependent exclusively upon the
uncontrolled will" of respondent and was therefore void. Besides, the pro forma
promissory notes have the character of a contract d'adhesion, "where the parties do
not bargain on equal footing, the weaker party's [the debtor's] participation being
reduced to the alternative 'to take it or leave it.'"
"While the Usury Law ceiling on interest rates was lifted by [Central Bank] Circular
No. 905, nothing in the said Circular grants lenders carte blancheauthority to raise
interest rates to levels which will either enslave their borrowers or lead to a
hemorrhaging of their assets." In fact, we have declared nearly ten years ago that
neither this Circular nor PD 1684, which further amended the Usury Law,
"authorized either party to unilaterally raise the interest rate without the other's
consent."
Moreover, a similar case eight years ago pointed out to the same respondent (PNB)
that borrowing signified a capital transfusion from lending institutions to businesses
and industries and was done for the purpose of stimulating their growth; yet
respondent's continued "unilateral and lopsided policy" of increasing interest rates
"without the prior assent" of the borrower not only defeats this purpose, but also
deviates from this pronouncement. Although such increases are not usurious, since
the "Usury Law is now legally inexistent" the interest ranging from 26 percent to
35 percent in the statements of account "must be equitably reduced for being
iniquitous, unconscionable and exorbitant." Rates found to be iniquitous or
unconscionable are void, as if it there were no express contract thereon. Above all,
it is undoubtedly against public policy to charge excessively for the use of money.
[80]
(Citations omitted and emphasis ours)
In New Sampaguita, the Court invoked Article 1310[81] of the Civil Code which
grants courts authority to reduce or increase interest rates equitably. It eliminated
the escalated rates, insurance and penalties and imposed only the stipulated
interest rates of 19.5% and 21.5% on the notes, to be reduced to the legal rate of
12% upon their automatic conversion into medium-term loans after maturity:[82]
[T]o give full force to the Truth in Lending Act, only the interest rates of 19.5
percent and 21.5 percent stipulated in the Promissory Notes may be imposed by
respondent on the respective availments. After 730 days, the portions remaining
unpaid are automatically converted into medium-term loans at the legal rate of 12
percent. In all instances, the simple method of interest computation is followed, x x
x.[83]
Thus, all payments made by the petitioners were applied pro-rated to the notes,
and after eliminating the charges, penalties and insurance, the result of the
recomputation was an overcollection by the bank of P3,686,101.52, which the Court
ordered refunded to the petitioners with straight interest at 6% per annum from the
filing of the complaint until finality.[84]
In Equitable PCI Bank v. Ng Sheung Ngor,[85] the Court annulled the escalation
clause and imposed the original stipulated rate of interest on the loan,
until maturity, and thereafter, the legal interest of 12% per annum was imposed
on the outstanding loans. Thus, the Court ordered the borrower to pay Equitable
the stipulated interest rate of 12.66% per annum for the dollar denominated loans,
and the stipulated 20% per annum for the peso denominated loans, up to maturity,
and afterwards Equitable was to collect legal interest of 12% per annum on all loans
due.[86] Incidentally, under Monetary Board Circular No. 799, the rate of interest for
the loan or forbearance of money, in the absence of stipulation, shall now be 6%
per annum starting July 1, 2013.[87]
Thus, the Court disregarded the unilaterally escalated interest rates and imposed
the mutually stipulated rates, which it applied up to the maturity of the loans.
Thereafter, the Court imposed the legal rate of 12% per annum on the outstanding
loans, or 6% per annum legal rate on the excess of the borrower's payments.
Attorney's fees do not form an
integral part of the cost of
borrowing, but arise only when
collecting upon the notes or
loans becomes necessary. Courts
have the power to determine their
reasonableness based on quantum
meruit and to reduce the amount
thereof if excessive.
Concerning the P3,000,000.00 attorney's fees charged by Solidbank and added to
the amount of its auction bid, as part of the cost of collecting the loans by way of
extrajudicial foreclosure, the Court finds no factual basis to justify such an
excessive amount. The Court has not hesitated to delete or equitably reduce
attorney's fees which are baseless or excessive. In New Sampaguita, the Court
reduced from 10% to 1% the attorney's fees, holding that they are not an integral
part of the cost of borrowing but arise only on the basis of quantum meruit when
the lender collects upon the notes. [88]
Mortgagee institutions are reminded that extrajudicial foreclosure proceedings are
not adversarial suits filed before a court. It is not commenced by filing a complaint
but an ex-parte application for extrajudicial foreclosure of mortgage before the
executive judge, pursuant to Act No. 3135, as amended, and special administrative
orders issued by this Court, particularly Administrative Matter No. 99-10-05-0 (Re:
Procedure in Extra-Judicial Foreclosure of Mortgage). The executive judge receives
the application neither in a judicial capacity nor on behalf of the court; the conduct
of extrajudicial foreclosure proceedings is not governed by the rules on ordinary or
special civil actions. The executive judge performs therein an administrative
function to ensure that all requirements for the extrajudicial foreclosure of a
mortgage are satisfied before the clerk of court, as the ex-officio sheriff, goes
ahead with the public auction of the mortgaged property. Necessarily, the orders of
the executive judge in such proceedings, whether they be to allow or disallow the
extrajudicial foreclosure of the mortgage, are not issued in the exercise of a judicial
function but in the exercise of his administrative function to supervise the
ministerial duty of the Clerk of Court as Ex-Officio Sheriff in the conduct of an
extrajudicial foreclosure sale.[89]
The recomputation of the petitioners'
total loan indebtedness based on the
stipulated interest, and the exclusion
of the penalties and reduction of the
attorney's fees results in an excess of
the auction proceeds which must be paid
to the petitioners.
Coming now to the question of whether Solidbank must refund any excess interest
to the petitioners, the CA agreed with the RTC that the loans should earn only 12%
for Solidbank, which would result in a drastic reduction in the interest which the
petitioners would be obliged to pay to Solidbank. Notwithstanding what this Court
has said concerning the invalidity of the unilateral increases in the interest rates,
the ruling nonetheless violates the contractual agreement of the parties imposing
an interest of 18.75% per annum, besides the fact that an interest of 18.75% per
annum cannot per se be deemed as unconscionable back in 1995 or in 1997.
In the recent cases of Mallari v. Prudential Bank (now Bank of the Philippine
Islands)[90] and Spouses Villanueva v. The CA, et al.,[91] the Court did not consider
unconscionable the contractual interest rates of 23% or 24% per annum. In Mallari,
the Court upheld the loans obtained between 1984 and 1989 which bore interest
from 21% to 23% per year; in Spouses Villanueva, the loans secured in 1994
carried interest of 24% per year were upheld. In Advocates for Truth in Lending,
Inc. v. Bangko Sentral Monetary Board,[92] the Court noted that in the later 1990s,
the banks' prime lending rates which they charged to their best borrowers ranged
from 26% to 31%.[93]
To answer, then, the question of whether Solidbank must refund anything to the
petitioners, the contracted rate of 18.75%, not the legal rate of 12%, will be
applied to the petitioners' loans. Any excess either in the interest payments of the
petitioners or in the auction proceeds, over what is validly due to Solidbank on the
loans, will be refunded or paid to the petitioners. Thus:
(1) The first loan of P40,000.000.00 carried a stipulated interest of 18.75% per
annum, and from November 9, 1995 to March 5, 1999, which is the auction date
and the date the mortgage was terminated, a period of 3 years and 116 days, or
3.3178 years, and total interest earned by the bank thereon
is P24,883,500.00; the second loan, for P20,000,000.00, was also agreed to earn
18.75% per annum, and from April 28, 1997 to March 5, 1999, a period of 1 year
and 311 days, or 1.8520 years, it earned P6,945,000.00 in interest. In all,
Solidbank earned P31,828,500.00 in interest up to March 5, 1999 from both
loans.
(2) From November 9, 1995 to April 1998, the petitioners paid monthly interests
totaling P24,277,283.22. Deducting P24,277,283.22 from the sum of the total
loan principal of P60,000,000.00 and the total interest due of P31,828,500.00,
which is P91,828,500.00, leaves the amount of P67,551,216.78 in interest owed
by the petitioners as of March 5, 1999.
(3) As in New Sampaguita Builders, the Court shall exclude all the penalties or
surcharges charged by the bank, and shall allow the bank to recover only 1% as
attorney's fees, or P675,512.17, not the P3,600,000.00 awarded by the RTC.
Thus, all in all, the petitioners owed the bank P68,226,728.95 (P67,551,216.78
plus P675,512.17) as of March 5, 1999.
(4) Deducting P68,226,728.95 from Solidbank's winning bid of F82,327,000.00
leaves an excess of P14,100,271.05 in the proceeds of the auction over the
outstanding loan obligation of the petitioners. This amount must be paid by
Solidbank to the petitioners.
(5) Since the P14,100,271.05 is the excess in the auction proceeds, thus an
ordinary monetary obligation and not a loan or a forbearance of credit, it shall earn
simple interest at six percent (6%) per annum from judicial demand up to finality,
following Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. v. Court of Appeals;[94] thereafter, both the
said amount and the accumulated interest shall together earn six percent (6%) per
annum, pursuant to Monetary Board Circular No. 799, until full satisfaction.
Thus:
Particulars
Solidbank's Winning Bid
Less: Amount Due from Petitioners, as of March 5,1999
Loan No. 1 Principal
Loan No. 2 Principal
Total
Add: Interest Due
P24,883,500.00
Loan No. 1 - November 9, 1995
to March 5, 1999
Amount
P82,327,000.00
P40,000,000.00
20,000,000.00
60,000,000.00
(P40,000,000.00 x 18.75% p.a. x

3.3178)
6,945,000.00
Loan No. 2- April 28, 1997 to March 5,
1999 or
(P 20,000,000.00 x 18.75% p.a. x
1.8520)
Total
Less: Interest paid from November 1995 to April 1998
Net Amount Due from Petitioners
Add: Attorney's fees (1% of P67,551,216.78)
Balance Payable to Petitioners
31,828,500.00
91,828,500.00
24,277,283.22
67,551,216.78
675,512.17
68,226,728.95
P14,100,271.05
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Amended Decision dated November 26,

2012 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 94012 is AFFIRMED with
MODIFICATION in that the stipulated interest rate on the loan obligation of
18.75% shall be applied, resulting in P67,551,216.78 as the amount due from the
Spouses Florante E. Jonsay and Luzviminda L. Jonsay and Momarco Import Co., Inc.
to Solidbank Corporation (now Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company). In addition,
the Spouses Florante E. Jonsay and Luzviminda L. Jonsay and Momarco Import Co.,
Inc. are ORDERED to PAY attorney's fees in the amount of P675,512.17, which is
one percent (1%) of the loan obligation.

Thus, Solidbank Corporation (now Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company)
is ORDERED to PAY to the petitioners the amount of P14,100,271.05,
representing the excess of its auction bid over the total loan obligation due from the
petitioners, plus interest at six percent (6%) per annum computed from the date of
filing of the complaint or March 15, 2000 up to finality; and thereafter, both the
excess of the auction proceeds and the cumulative interest shall earn six percent
(6%) per annumuntil fully paid.
SO ORDERED.
Velasco, Jr., (Chairperson), Perez, Mendoza,* and Jardeleza, JJ., concur.
May 25, 2016
Sirs/Mesdames:
which was received by this Office on May 25, 2016 at 9:47 a.m.
Very truly yours,

(SGD)
WILFREDO V. LAPITAN
Additional Member per Raffle dated June 29, 2015 vice Associate Justice Diosdado
M. Peralta.
*
[1]
Rollo, pp. 9-27.
[2]
Penned by Associate Justice Socorro B. luting, with Associate Justices Jose C.
Reyes, Jr. and Mario V. Lopez concurring; CA rollo, pp. 254-272.

Penned by Associate Justice Socorro B. Inting, with Associate Justices Fernanda
Lampas Peralta and Mario V. Lopez concurring; id. at 194-210.
[3]
[4]
Rendered by Judge Romeo C. De Leon; records, Vol. 2. pp. 343-352.
[5]
Id. at 343.
[6]
Id. at 347.
[7]
Records, Vol. 1, p. 106.
[8]
Records, Vol. 2, p. 343.
[9]
Rollo, p. 48.
[10]
Total amount of P21,906,972.18 from November 1995 to December 1997.
[11]
Records, Vol. 2, pp. 343-344.
[12]
Records, Vol. l, p. 177.
[13]
Id. at 6.
[14]
Records, Vol. 2, pp. 344, 348.
[15]
[16]
Id. at 7.
[17]
Id. at 91-99.
[18]
Id. at 123-124.
[19]
Id. at 191-193.
[20]
[21]
Id. at 347-348; Records, Vol. 1, p. 179.
[22]
Id. at 351-352.
[23]
Id. at 348-350.
[24]
[25]
Id. at 202.
[26]
Id. at 202-204.
[27]
599 Phil. 511 (2009).
[28]
Id. at 519-520.
[29]
CA rollo, p. 205.
Art. 1308. The contract must bind both contracting parties; its validity or
compliance cannot be left to the will of one of them.
[30]
[31]
[32]
Id. at 208-209.
[33]
Id. at 219-245.
[34]
Id. at 271.
[35]
Id. at 262-263.
[36]
Id. at 264-266.
[37]
Id. at 262.
[38]
Id. at 271; 419-420.
[39]
Id. at 276-290.
[40]
Id. at 348-349.
[41]
Rollo, p. 13.
[42]
Id. at 18-19.
[43]
Teodoro v. CA, 328 Phil. 116, 122 (1996); RULES OF COURT, Rule 36, Section 2.
[44]
RULES OF COURT, Rule 40, Section 2 and Rule 41, Section 3.
[45]
Reyes v. Pearlbank Securities, Inc., 582 Phil. 505, 522 (2008).
[46]
371 Phil. 377(1999).
[47]
Id. at 392.
[48]
632 Phil. 378(2010).
[49]
Id. at 390, citing Metropolitan Bank v. Wong, 412 Phil. 207, 220 (2001).
[50]
384 Phil. 807(2000).
[51]
Id. at 815.
[52]
CA rollo, p. 305.
[53]
332 Phil. 844(1996).
[54]
Id. at 850.
[55]
655 Phil. 265(2011).
[56]
Id. at 272.
[57]
Id. at 273.
[58]
Records, Vol. I, p. 151.
[59]
Supra note 48.
[60]
Id. at 387, citing China Banking Corp. v. Sps. Martir, 615 Phil. 728, 739 (2009).
[61]
Supra note 27.
[62]
Id. at 516.
[63]
CA rollo, p. 262.
Re: Guidelines in the Accreditation of Newspapers and Periodicals and in the

Distribution of Legal Notices and Advertisements for Publication. October 16, 2001.
[64]
[65]
See Phil. Savings Bank v. Spouses Geronimo, supra note 48, at 386
[66]
CA rollo, p. 266.
[67]
574 Phil. 340 (2008).
[68]
Id. at 346.
[69]
359 Phil. 820(1998).
[70]
558 Phil. 654 (2007).
[71]
Id. at 657.
[72]
Id. at 658.
[73]
Id. at 665.
[74]
G.R. No. 107569, November 8, 1994, 238 SCRA20.
[75]
Id. at 24.
[76]
Id. at 25-26.
[77]
479 Phil. 483 (2004).
[78]
Id. at 497.
[79]
PNB v. CA, 328 Phil. 54, 62-63 (1996).
New Sampaguila Builders Construction, Inc. (NSBCI) v. PNB, supra note 77, at
496-499.
[80]
Art. 1310. The determination shall not be obligatory if it is evidently inequitable.

In such case, the courts shall decide what is equitable under the circumstances.
[81]
New Sampaguita Builders Construction, Inc. (NSDCI) v. PNB, supra note 77 at

529
[82]
[83]
Id.
[84]
Id. at 529-530.
[85]
565 Phil. 520 (2007).
[86]
Id. at 539.
The dispositive portion of the Court decision reads:

xxxx
2. ordering respondents Ng Sheung Ngor, doing business under the name and style
of "Ken Marketing," Ken Appliance Division, Inc. and Benjamin E. Go to pay
petitioner Equitable PCI Bank interest at:
a) 12.66% p.a. with respect to their dollar-denominated loans from January 10,
2001 to July 9,2001;
b) 20% p.a. with respect to their peso-denominated loans from January 10, 2001 to
July 9, 2001;
c) pursuant to our ruling in Eastern Shipping Lines v. Court of Appeals, the total
amount due on July 9, 2001 shall earn legal interest at 12% p.a. from the time
petitioner Equitable PCI Bank demanded payment, whether judicially or extrajudicially; and
d) after this Decision becomes final and executory, the applicable rate shall be 12%
p.a. until full satisfaction;
xxxx. Id. at 544-545.
Nacar v. Gallery Frames, G.R. No. 189871, August 13, 2013, 703 SCRA 439,
454-455; S.C. Megaworld Construction and Development Corporation v,
Parada, G.R. No. 183804, September 11 2013 705 SCRA 584, 610.
[87]
New Sampaguita Builders Construction, Inc. (NSBCl) v. PNB, supra note 77, at
509-510.
[88]
Ingles v. Estrada, G.R. No. 141809, April 8, 2013, 695 SCRA 285,313-314,
citing First Marbella Condominium Ass'n., Inc. v. Galmaylan, 579 Phil. 432, 438-439
(2008).
[89]
[90]
G.R. No. 197861, June 5, 2013, 697 SCRA 555.
[91]
671 Phil. 467 (2011).
[92]
G.R. No. 192986, January 15, 2013, 688 SCRA 530.
[93]
Id. at 538.
[94]
G.R. No. 97412, July 12, 1994, 234 SCRA 78.

G.R.
No.
RAPPLER,
INC.,
PETITIONER,
VS.
ANDRES
222702
D.
BAUTISTA,
RESPONDENT.
April 05, 2016
EN BANC
[ G.R. No. 222702, April 05, 2016 ]
RAPPLER, INC., PETITIONER, VS. ANDRES D. BAUTISTA,
RESPONDENT.
RESOLUTION
CARPIO, J.:
Petitioner Rappler, Inc. (petitioner) filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition
against Andres D. Bautista (respondent), in his capacity as Chairman of the
Commission on Elections (COMELEC). The petition seeks to nullify Part VI (C),
paragraph 19 and Part VI (D), paragraph 20 of the Memorandum of Agreement
(MOA) on the 2016 presidential and vice-presidential debates, for being executed
without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to
lack or excess of jurisdiction and for violating the fundamental rights of petitioner
protected under the Constitution. The MOA, signed on 13 January 2016, was
executed by the COMELEC through its Chairman, respondent Bautista, and
the Kapisanan ng mga Brodkaster ng Pilipinas (KBP), and the various media
networks, namely: ABS-CBN Corporation, GMA Network, Inc., Nine Media
Corporation, TV5 Network, Inc., Philstar Daily, Inc., Philippine Daily Inquirer, Inc.,
Manila Bulletin Publishing Corporation, Philippine Business Daily Mirror Publishing,
Inc., and petitioner. Under the MOA, the KBP was designated as Debate Coordinator
while ABS-CBN, GMA, Nine Media, and TV5, together with their respective print
media partners were designated as Lead Networks.
Petitioner alleged that on 21 September 2015, respondent called for a meeting with
various media outlets to discuss the "PiliPinas 2016 Debates," for presidential and
vice-presidential candidates, which the COMELEC was organizing. [1] Respondent
showed a presentation explaining the framework of the debates, in which there will
be three presidential debates and one vice presidential debate. Respondent
proposed that petitioner and Google, Inc. be in charge of online and social media
engagement. Respondent announced during the meeting that KBP will coordinate
with all media entities regarding the organization and conduct of the debates.
On 22 September 2015, petitioner sent a proposed draft for broadcast pool
guidelines to COMELEC and the KBP. A broadcast pool has a common audio and
video feed of the debates, and the cost will be apportioned among those needing
access to the same. KBP informed petitioner that the proposal will be discussed in
the next meeting.
On 19 October 2015, another meeting was held at the COMELEC office to discuss a
draft MOA on the debates. In the draft, petitioner and Google's participation were
dropped in favor of the online outlets owned by the Lead Networks. After the
meeting, the representatives of the Lead Networks drew lots to determine who will
host each leg of the debates. GMA and its partner Philippine Daily Inquirer
sponsored the first presidential debate in Mindanao on 21 February 2016; TV5,
Philippine Star, and Businessworld sponsored the second phase of presidential
debate in the Visayas on 20 March 2016; ABS-CBN and Manila Bulletin will sponsor
the presidential debate to be held in Luzon on 24 April 2016; and the lone vicepresidential debate will be sponsored by CNN, Business Mirror, and petitioner on 10
April 2016. Petitioner alleged that the draft MOA permitted online streaming,
provided proper attribution is given the Lead Network.
On 12 January 2016, petitioner was informed that the MOA signing was scheduled
the following day. Upon petitioner's request, the draft MOA was emailed to
petitioner on the evening of 12 January 2016. Petitioner communicated with
respondent its concerns regarding certain provisions of the MOA particularly
regarding online streaming and the imposition of a maximum limit of two minutes
of debate excerpts for news reporting. Respondent assured petitioner that its
concerns will be addressed afterwards, but it has to sign the MOA because time was
of the essence. On 13 January 2016, petitioner, along with other media networks
and entities, executed the MOA with the KBP and the COMELEC for the conduct of
the three presidential debates and one vice-presidential debate. Petitioner alleged
that it made several communications with respondent and the COMELEC
Commissioners regarding its concerns on some of the MOA provisions, but
petitioner received no response. Hence, this petition.
In this petition for certiorari and prohibition, petitioner prays for the Court to render
judgment:
a. Declaring null and void, for being unconstitutional, pertinent parts of the
Memorandum of Agreement that violate the rights of the Petitioner, specifically Part
VI (C), paragraph 19 and Part VI (D), paragraph 20 [of the MOA];
b. Prohibiting the Respondent from implementing specifically Part VI (C), paragraph
19 and Part VI (D), paragraph 20 of the MOA;
c. Pending resolution of this case, issuing a Preliminary Injunction enjoining the
Respondent from implementing Part VI (C), paragraph 19 and Part VI (D),
paragraph 20 of the MOA; and
d. Pending resolution of this case, issuing a Preliminary Mandatory Injunction
requiring the Respondent to ensure an unimpaired and equal access to all mass
media, online or traditional, to all the Debates.[2]
Part VI (C), paragraph 19 and Part VI (D), paragraph 20 of the MOA read:
VI
ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE LEAD NETWORKS
xxxx
<bC. ONLINE STREAMING
xxxx
19. Subject to copyright conditions or separate negotiations with the Lead
Networks, allow the debates they have produced to be shown or streamed on other
websites;
D. NEWS REPORTING AND FAIR USE
20. Allow a maximum of two minutes of excerpt from the debates they have
produced to be used for news reporting or fair use by other media or entities as
allowed by the copyright law: Provided, that the use of excerpts longer than two
minutes shall be subject to the consent of the Lead Network concerned; [3]</b
Respondent argues that the petition should be dismissed for its procedural defects.
In several cases, this Court has acted liberally and set aside procedural lapses in
cases involving transcendental issues of public interest, [4] especially when time
constraint is a factor to be considered, as in this case. As held in GMA Network, Inc.
v. Commission on Elections:[5]
Respondent claims that certiorari and prohibition are not the proper remedies that
petitioners have taken to question the assailed Resolution of the COMELEC.
Technically, respondent may have a point. However, considering the very important
and pivotal issues raised, and the limited time, such technicality should not deter
the Court from having to make the final and definitive pronouncement that
everyone else depends for enlightenment and guidance. "[T]his Court has in the
past seen fit to step in and resolve petitions despite their being the subject of an
improper remedy, in view of the public importance of the issues raised therein. [6]
The urgency to resolve this case is apparent considering that the televised debates
have already started and only two of the scheduled four national debates remain to
be staged.[7] And considering the importance of the debates in informing the
electorate of the positions of the presidential and vice-presidential candidates on
vital issues affecting the nation, this case falls under the exception laid down
in GMA Network, Inc. v. Commission on Elections.
Petitioner is a signatory to the MOA. In fact, the sole vice-presidential debate, to be
held in Manila on 10 April 2016, will be sponsored by CNN Philippines (owned and
operated by Nine Media Corporation) and its partners Business Mirror and
petitioner. Petitioner, however, is alleging that it is being discriminated particularly
as regards the MOA provisions on live audio broadcast via online streaming.
Petitioner argues that the MOA grants radio stations the right to simultaneously
broadcast live the audio of the debates, even if the radio stations are not obliged to
perform any obligation under the MOA. Yet, this right to broadcast by live streaming
online the audio of the debates is denied petitioner and other online media entities,
which also have the capacity to live stream the audio of the debates. Petitioner
insists that it signed the MOA believing in good faith the issues it has raised will be
resolved by the COMELEC.
The provisions on Live Broadcast and Online Streaming under the MOA read:
VI
ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE LEAD NETWORKS
xxxx
B1. LIVE BROADCAST
10. Broadcast the debates produced by the Lead Networks in their respective
television stations and other news media platforms;
11. Provide a live feed of the debate to other radio stations, other than those of the
Lead Network's, for simultaneous broadcast;
12. Provide a live feed of the debates produced by them to radio stations not
belonging to any of the Lead Networks for simultaneous broadcast;
xxxx
C. ONLINE STREAMING
17. Live broadcast the debates produced by the Lead Networks on their respective
web sites and social media sites for free viewing by the public;
18. Maintain a copy of the debate produced by the Lead Network on its on-line
site(s) for free viewing by the public during the period of elections or longer;
19. Subject to copyright conditions or separate negotiations with the Lead
Networks, allow the debates they have produced to be shown or streamed
on other websites;[8] (Boldfacing and underscoring supplied)
Petitioner's demand to exercise the right to live stream the debates is a contractual
right of petitioner under the MOA. Under Part VI (C), paragraph 19 of the MOA, the
Lead Networks are expressly mandated to "allow the debates they have
produced to be shown or streamed on other websites," but "subject to
copyright conditions or separate negotiations with the Lead Networks." The
use of the word "or" means that compliance with the "copyright conditions" is
sufficient for petitioner to exercise its right to live stream the debates in its website.
The "copyright conditions" refer to the limitations on copyright as provided under
Section 184.1(c) of the Intellectual Property Code (IPC), thus:
SEC. 184. Limitations on Copyright. - 184.1 Notwithstanding the provisions of
Chapter V, the following acts shall not constitute infringement of copyright:
xxxx
(c) The reproduction or communication to the public by mass media of
articles on current political, social, economic, scientific or religious topic,
lectures, addresses and other works of the same nature, which are
delivered in public if such use is for information purposes and has not been
expressly reserved; Provided, That the source is clearly indicated; (Sec. 11,
P.D. No. 49) (Boldfacing and underscoring supplied)
Under this provision, the debates fall under "addresses and other works of the
same nature." Thus, the copyright conditions for the debates are: (1) the
reproduction or communication to the public by mass media of the debates
is for information purposes; (2) the debates have not been expressly
reserved by the Lead Networks (copyright holders); and (3) the source is
clearly indicated.
Condition 1 is complied because the live streaming by petitioner is obviously for
information purposes. Condition 2 is also complied because Part VI (C), paragraph
19 of the MOA expressly "allow[s] the debates x x x to be shown or streamed
on other websites," including petitioner's website. This means that the
"reproduction or communication (of the debates) to the public by mass media x x x
has not been expressly reserved" or withheld. Condition 3 is complied by clearly
indicating and acknowledging that the source of the debates is one or more of the
Lead Networks.
Part VI (C), paragraph 19 of the MOA, which expressly allows the debates produced
by the Lead Networks to be shown or streamed on other websites, clearly means
that the Lead Networks have not "expressly reserved" or withheld the use
of the debate audio for online streaming. In short, the MOA expressly allows
the live streaming of the debates subject only to compliance with the "copyright
conditions." Once petitioner complies with the copyright conditions, petitioner can
exercise the right to live stream the audio of the debates as expressly allowed by
the MOA.
Under the MOA, the Lead Networks are mandated to promote the debates for
maximum audience.[9] The MOA recognizes the public function of the debates
and the need for the widest possible dissemination of the debates. The
MOA has not reserved or withheld the reproduction of the debates to the
public but has in fact expressly allowed the reproduction of the debates
"subject to copyright conditions." Thus, petitioner may live stream the debate
in its entirety by complying with the "copyright conditions," including the condition
that "the source is clearly indicated" and that there will be no alteration, which
means that the streaming will include the proprietary graphics used by the Lead
Networks. If petitioner opts for a clean feed without the proprietary graphics used
by the Lead Networks, in order for petitioner to layer its own proprietary graphics
and text on the same, then petitioner will have to negotiate separately with the
Lead Networks. Similarly, if petitioner wants to alter the debate audio by deleting
the advertisements, petitioner will also have to negotiate with the Lead Networks.
Once the conditions imposed under Section 184.1(c) of the IPC are complied with,
the information - in this case the live audio of the debates -now forms part of the
public domain. There is now freedom of the press to report or publicly disseminate
the live audio of the debates. In fact, the MOA recognizes the right of other mass
media entities, not parties to the MOA, to reproduce the debates subject only to the
same copyright conditions. The freedom of the press to report and disseminate the
live audio of the debates, subject to compliance with Section 184.1(c) of the IPC,
can no longer be infringed or subject to prior restraint. Such freedom of the press
to report and disseminate the live audio of the debates is now protected and
guaranteed under Section 4, Article III of the Constitution, which provides that
"[N]o law shall be passed abridging the freedom x x x of the press."
The presidential and vice-presidential debates are held primarily for the benefit of
the electorate to assist the electorate in making informed choices on election day.
Through the conduct of the national debates among presidential and vicepresidential candidates, the electorate will have the "opportunity to be informed of
the candidates' qualifications and track record, platforms and programs, and their
answers to significant issues of national concern."[10] The political nature of the
national debates and the public's interest in the wide availability of the information
for the voters' education certainly justify allowing the debates to be shown or
streamed in other websites for wider dissemination, in accordance with the MOA.
Therefore, the debates should be allowed to be live streamed on other websites,
including petitioner's, as expressly mandated in Part VI (C), paragraph 19 of the
MOA. The respondent, as representative of the COMELEC which provides over-all
supervision under the MOA, including the power to "resolve issues that may arise
among the parties involved in the organization of the debates," [11] should be
directed by this Court to implement Part VI (C), paragraph 19 of the MOA, which
allows the debates to be shown or live streamed unaltered on petitioner's and other
websites subject to the copyright condition that the source is clearly indicated.
WHEREFORE, we PARTIALLY GRANT the petition. Respondent Andres D.
Bautista, as Chairman of the COMELEC, is directed to implement Part VI (C),
paragraph 19 of the MOA, which allows the debates to be shown or live streamed
unaltered on petitioner's and other websites subject to the copyright condition that
the source is clearly indicated. Due to the time constraint, this Resolution is
immediately executory.
SO ORDERED.
Del Castillo, Perez, Mendoza, Reyes, Jardeleza, and Caguioa, JJ., concur.
Perlas-Bernabe, J., on official leave.
Leonen, J., I concur. see separate opinion.
NOTICE OF JUDGMENT
Sirs/Mesdames:
original of which was received by this Office on April 7, 2016 at 7:16 p.m.
Very truly yours,
(SGD)
Clerk of Court
Section 7.3 of Republic Act No. 9006 (Fair Election Act) provides:
7.3. The COMELEC may require national television and radio networks to sponsor at
least three (3) national debates among presidential candidates and at least one (1)
national debate among vice presidential candidates. The debates among
presidential candidates shall be scheduled on three (3) different calendar days: the
first debate shall be scheduled within the first and second week of the campaign
period; the second debate within the fifth and sixth week of the campaign period;
and the third debate shall be scheduled within the tenth and eleventh week of the
campaign period.
[1]
The sponsoring television or radio network may sell airtime for commercials and
advertisements to interested advertisers and sponsors. The COMELEC shall
promulgate rules and regulations for the holding of such debates.
[2]
Rollo, p. 28.
[3]
Id. at 40-41.
Kapisanan ng mga Kawcmi ng Energy Regulatory Board v. Commissioner Barin ,

553 Phil. 1 (2007); Rivera v. Hon. Espiritu, 425 Phil. 169 (2002).
[4]
G.R. Nos. 205357, 205374, 205592, 205852, and 206360, 2 September 2014,
734 SCRA 88,
[5]
[6]
Id. at 126.
The first presidential debate, sponsored by GMA and its print media partner,
Philippine Daily Inquirer, was held in Cagayan de Oro City on 21 February 2016. The
second presidential debate, sponsored by TV5 and its partners, Philippine Star and
BusinessWorld, was held in Cebu City on 20 March 2016. ABS-CBN and its print
media partner, Manila Bulletin, will sponsor the last presidential debate, which will
be held in Pangasinan on 24 April 2016. The sole vice-presidential debate will be
sponsored by CNN Philippines, in partnership with Business Mirror and petitioner
Rappler, in Manila on 10 April 2016; http://www.philstar.com/newsfeature/2016/02/24/1556331/infographic-presidential-debates-schedule;
http://cnnphilippines.com/news/2016/01/13/comelec-presidential-debates-cnnphilippines-gma-abs-cbn-tv5-philippine-star-rappler-business-mirror-manilabulletin.html
[7]
[8]
Rollo, p. 40.
Under Part VI (A) (7) of the MOA, the Lead Networks shall "[p]romote the
debates for maximum audience."
[9]
[10]
Stated on one of the WHEREAS clauses of the MOA.
[11]
The MOA enumerates the roles and responsibilities of the COMELEC:

IV
ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF COMELEC
The COMELEC shall:

1. Formulate the policies, rules, and guidelines to be followed in organizing and
conducting the debates pursuant to Section 7.3 of R.A. 9006;
2. Resolve issues that may arise among the parties involved in the organization of
the debates;
3. Arrange the participation of the candidates in the debates, including the
negotiations of the terms and conditions of participation. In this regard, a separate

memorandum of agreement shall be executed between COMELEC and the
participating candidates in order to specify the candidates' roles and the rules which
shall be binding upon them;
4. Approve the venue, format and mechanics for the debates;
5. Approve the debate moderators, panelists, and on-site live audiences for the
debates proposed by the Lead Networks;
6. Approve the topics of the debates, in consultation with the Lead Networks, to
ensure that they are in accordance with the objectives defined above and are
consistent with the relevant election laws;
7. Enlist the support of other agencies or organizations in the preparation and
conduct of the debates;
8. Provide guidelines for media coverage of the debates in accordance with election
laws and this Agreement;
9. Provide over-all supervision for the debates.
CONCURRING OPINION
LEONEN, J.:
I concur.
In addition, I disagree that petitioner availed itself of the wrong remedy in raising
before this Court a controversy involving the fundamental right to free speech.
I
Respondent argues that petitioner availed itself of the wrong remedy sinc e
certiorari cannot challenge "purely executive or administrative functions' of
agencies."[1]Moreover, prohibition cannot lie as respondent was not exercising any
ministerial function in entering into the Memorandum of Agreement on behalf of the
Commission on Elections.[2] Respondent submits that petitioner ultimately seeks the
reformation of a contract, and such cause of action should have been brought
before the trial courts.[3]
A petition for certiorari and prohibition lies when an officer gravely abuses his or her
discretion.
The Constitution provides for this Court's expanded power of judicial review "'to
determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to
lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the
Government."[4] This proviso was borne out of our country's experience under
Martial Law, to extend judicial review "to review political discretion that clearly
breaches fundamental values and principles congealed in provisions of the
Constitution."[5]Under the present Constitution, this Court has the power to resolve
controversies involving acts done by any government branch or instrumentality with
grave abuse of discretion.[6]
Procedurally, our Rules of Court provides for two (2) remedies in determining the
existence of any grave abuse of discretion pursuant to this Court's constitutional
mandate: that is, the special civil actions for certiorari and prohibition under Rule
65.[7]
A petition for certiorari may be filed "[w]hen any tribunal, board or
officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions has acted without or in excess
of its or his jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction[.]"[8] A petition for prohibition may be filed "[w]hen the
proceedings of any tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person, whether
exercising judicial, quasi-judicial or ministerial functions, are without or in excess of
its or his jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess
of jurisdiction[.]"[9]
Still, respondent's contention that he only exercised administrative functions [10] in
relation to the Memorandum of Agreement fails to convince. Jurisprudence holds
that the remedies of certiorari and prohibition have broader scope before this
Court:
With respect to the Court, however, the remedies of certiorari and prohibition are
necessarily broader in scope and reach, and the writ of certiorari or prohibition may
be issued to correct errors of jurisdiction committed not only by a tribunal,
corporation, board or officer exercising judicial, quasi-judicial or ministerial
functions but also to set right, undo and restrain any act of grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction by any branch or
instrumentality of the Government, even if the latter does not exercise judicial,
quasi-judicial or ministerial functions. This application is expressly authorized by the
text of the second paragraph of Section 1, supra.
Thus, petitions for certiorari and prohibition are appropriate remedies to raise
constitutional issues and to review and/or prohibit or nullify the acts of legislative
and executive officials.
Necessarily, in discharging its duty under Section 1, supra, to set right and undo
any act of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction by

any branch or instrumentality of the Government, the Court is not at all precluded
from making the inquiry provided the challenge was properly brought by interested
or affected parties. The Court has been thereby entrusted expressly or by
necessary implication with both the duty and the obligation of determining, in
appropriate cases, the validity of any assailed legislative or executive action. This
entrustment is consistent with the republican system of checks and balances.
[11]
We recognize the need for a studied balance between complying with our duty
under Article VIII, Section 1 of the Constitution and ensuring against acting as an
advisory organ. We maintain our policy of judicial deference, but always vigilant
against any grave abuse of discretion with its untold repercussions on fundamental
rights.
Procedural lapses pursuant to the Rules of Court[12] cannot limit this Court's
constitutional powers, including its duty to determine the existence of "grave abuse
of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction" by any governmental
branch or instrumentality.[13]
This constitutional mandate does not qualify the nature of the action by a
governmental branch or instrumentality; thus, limiting this to only judicial or quasijudicial actions will be constitutionally suspect. To be sure, Article VIII, Section 1
does not do away with the policy of judicial deference. It cannot be read as license
for active interference by this Court in the acts of other constitutional departments
and government organs[14] since judicial review requires the existence of a
justiciable case with a ripe and actual controversy.[15] Further, the existence of
"grave abuse of discretion" requires capriciousness, arbitrariness, and actions
without legal or constitutional basis.[16]
In my view, the Constitution itself has impliedly amended the Rules of Court, and it
is time to expressly articulate this amendment to remove any occasion for
misinterpretation.
It is our constitutional mandate to protect the People against government's
infringement of fundamental rights, including actions by the Commission on
Elections.[17]
II
The Memorandum of Agreement refers to Section 7.3 of Republic Act No. 9006,
otherwise known as the Fair Elections Act. This provision states that "[t]he
COMELEC [Commission on Elections] may require national television and radio
networks to sponsor at least three (3) national debates among presidential

candidates and at least one (1) national debate among vice presidential
candidates[.]"[18]
Section 7.3 clearly empowers the Commission on Elections acting as a
constitutional commissionand not the Commission on Elections Chair to require
networks to sponsor these debates. The alleged authority of the Chair was only "to
create the Technical Working Group for the conduct of the presidential debate in
connection with the May 9, 2016 election," The Commission on Elections Minute
Resolution No. 15.0560 reads:
15-0560 IN THE MATTER OF THE CREATION OF THE TE1CHNICAL1
[WORKING] GROUP FOR THE CONDUCT OF THE PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE
PURSUANT TO REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9006, IN CONNECTION WITH THE MAY 9,
2016 ELECTIONS
In view of Republic Act No. 9006, otherwise known as the "Fair Election Act", which
provides for the holding of free, orderly, honest, peaceful, and credible election
through fair election practices, and Section 7.3 thereof, which provides that the
Commission on Elections may require national television and radio networks to
sponsor at least three (3) national debates among presidential candidates and at
least one (1) among vice presidential candidates, the Commission RESOLVED, as
its hereby RESOLVES, to authorize Chairman J. Andres D. Bautista to create the
Technical Working Group for the conduct of the presidential debate in connection
with the May 9, 2016 Elections, with representatives from the Offices! of the
Members of the Commission en bane.
Let the Office of the Chairman implement this Resolution.
Authority to create a technical working group does not equate to authority to enter
into the assailed Memorandum of Agreement with the Lead Networks. Technical
working groups often involve bringing together a pool of experts and
representatives from the relevant interest groups to discuss ideas and proposals.
This falls under the preparatory phase, not the executory stage. Members of a
technical working group are not necessarily the same parties and signatories of any
contract, memorandum, rules, or issuance resulting from their consultative
meetings. By analogy, this Court can resolve to create a technical working group
composed of trial court judges, among others, to aid its Special Committee in
reviewing our Rules of Procedure, but it is still this Court, sitting En Bane, that will
resolve to approve any recommended proposal by the group.[20]
Even the Civil Code provides that "[i]f the agent contracts in the name of the
principal, exceeding the scope of his [or her] authority, and the principal does not
ratify the contract, it shall be void if the party with whom the agent contracted is
aware of the limits of the powers granted by the principal[.]"[21] There is no showing
that a Commission on Elections resolution explicitly authorizing respondent to enter
the Memorandum of Agreement was attached to the Agreement as to assure the
parties of respondent's authority to sign on behalf of the Commission on Elections.
There is also no showing that the Commission on Elections has resolved to approve
or ratify the Memorandum of Agreement respondent signed.
III
The requirement under Rule 65 that there be no other plain, speedy, and adequate
remedy in the ordinary course of law[22] also exists. The debates pursuant to the
Memorandum of Agreement have already been scheduled. Petitioner alleged that it
was already denied the right to cover the February 21, 2016 Presidential Debate by
GMA7, the first of the three (3) presidential debates to be organized in accordance
with the Memorandum of Agreement.[23]
While the Memorandum of Agreement includes an arbitration clause for dispute
resolution,[24] the judiciary has the solemn duty in the allocation of constitutional
boundaries and the resolution of conflicting claims on constitutional authority, thus:
In cases of conflict, the judicial department is the only constitutional organ which
can be called upon to determine the proper allocation of powers between the
several departments and among the integral or constituent units thereof.
. . . The Constitution sets forth in no uncertain language the restrictions and
limitations upon governmental powers and agencies. If these restrictions and
limitations are transcended it would be inconceivable if the Constitution had not
provided for a mechanism by which to direct the course of government along
constitutional channels, for then the distribution of powers would be mere verbiage,
the bill of rights mere expressions of sentiment, and the principles of good
government mere political apothegms. Certainly, the limitations and restrictions
embodied in our Constitution are real as they should be in any living constitution[.]
[25]
IV
The Petition raises very serious concerns about a fundamental constitutional right.
The Constitution mandates that "[n]o law shall be passed abridging the freedom of
speech, of expression, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to

assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances." [26] This
proscription applies not only to legislations but even to governmental acts. [27]
ABS-CBN v. Commission on Elections,[28] for example, involved respondent's
Resolution approving the issuance of a restraining order for the petitioner to stop
conducting exit surveys.[29] This Court nullified the assailed Commission on Elections
Resolution.[30] It held that "exit polls and the dissemination of their results through
mass media constitute an essential part of the freedoms of speech and of the
press."[31]
The evil sought to be prevented in the protection of free speech is especially grave
during elections. In Osmea v. Commission on Elections,[32] this Court mentioned
how "discussion of public issues and debate on the qualifications of candidates in an
election are essential to the proper functioning of the government established by
our Constitution."[33] Adiong v. Commission on Elections[34] has explained the
importance of protecting free speech that contributes to the web of information
ensuring the meaningful exercise of our right of suffrage:
We have adopted the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited,
robust, and wide open and that it may well include vehement, caustic and
sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials. Too many
restrictions will deny to people the robust, uninhibited, and wide open debate, the
generating of interest essential if our elections will truly be free, clean and honest.
We have also ruled that the preferred freedom of expression calls all the more for
the utmost respect when what may be curtailed is the dissemination of information
to make more meaningful the equally vital right of suffrage.[35] (Citations omitted)
Freedom of speech is affected when government grants benefits to some media
outlets, i.e. lead networks, while unreasonably denying the same privileges to the
others. This has the effect of stifling speech especially when the actions of a
government agency such as the Commission on Elections have the effect of
endowing a monopoly in the market of free speech. In Diocese of Bacolod v.
Commission on Elections,[36] we examined free speech in light of equality in
opportunity and deliberative democracy:
The scope of the guarantee of free expression takes into consideration the
constitutional respect for human potentiality and the effect of speech. It valorizes
the ability of human beings to express and their necessity to relate, On the other
hand, a complete guarantee must also take into consideration the effects it will
have in a deliberative democracy. Skewed distribution of resources as well as the
cultural hegemony of the majority may have the effect of drowning out the speech
and the messages of those in the minority. In a sense, social inequality does have
its effect on the exercise and effect of the guarantee of free speech, Those who
have more will have better access to media that reaches a wider audience than
those who have less. Those who espouse the more popular ideas will have better
reception that the subversive and the dissenters of society. To be really heard and
understood, the marginalized view normally undergoes its own degree of struggle.
[37]
Here, respondent contends that entering into the Memorandum of Agreement does
not trigger Article IX-C, Section 4 of the Constitution as this provision involves its
coercive power, while the Memorandum of Agreement was consensual. [38] Moreover,
the provision pertains to equal opportunity for candidates and not mass media
entities:
Section 4. The Commission may, during the election period, supervise or regulate
the enjoyment or utilization of all franchises or permits for the operation of
transportation and other public utilities, media of communication or information, all
grants, special privileges, or concessions granted by the Government or any
subdivision, agency, or instrumentality thereof, including any government-owned or
-controlled corporation or its subsidiary. Such supervision or regulation shall aim to
ensure equal opportunity, time, and space, and the right to reply, including
reasonable, equal rates therefor, for public information campaigns and forums
among candidates in connection with the objective of holding free, orderly, honest,
peaceful, and credible elections.[39]
Article II, Section 24 of the Constitution states that "[t]he State recognizes the vital
role of communication and information in nation building." Article III, Section 7
provides that "[t]he right of the people to information on matters of public concern
shall be recognized." These provisions create a constitutional framework of opening
all possible and available channels for expression to ensure that information on
public matters have the widest reach. In this age of information technology, media
has expanded from traditional print, radio, and television. Internet has sped data
gathering and multiplied the types of output produced. The evolution of multimedia
introduced packaging data into compact packets such as "infographics" and
"memes." Many from this generation no longer listen to the radio or watch
television, and instead are more used to live streaming videos online on their
cellular phones or laptops. Social media newsfeeds allow for real-time posting of
video excerpts or "screen caps," and engaging comments and reactions that
stimulate public discussions on important public matters such as elections. Article
IX-C, Section 4 on the Commission on Elections' power of supervision or regulation
of media, communication, or information during election period is situated within
this context. The Commission on Elections' power of supervision and regulation over
media during election period should not be exercised in a way that constricts
avenues for public discourse.
V
Freedom of expression is a fundamental and preferred right. [40] Any governmental
act in prior restraint of speechthat is, any "official governmental restrictions on
the press or other forms of expression in advance of actual publication or
dissemination"[41] carries a heavy burden of unconstitutionality.[42] Speech
restraint regulation may also be either content-based, "based on the subject matter
of the utterance or speech," or content-neutral, "merely concerned with the
incidents of the speech, or one that merely controls the time, place or manner, and
under well defined standards."[43]
The effect of government's mandate empowering lead networks from excluding
other media is a prior restraint, albeit indirectly. The evil of prior restraint is not
made less effective when a private corporation exercises it on behalf of
government.
In GMA Network, Inc. v. Commission on Elections, [44] this Court declared as
unconstitutional Section 9(a) of Resolution No. 9615, as amended, [45] that
interpreted the 120- and 180-minute airtime allocation for television and radio
advertisements under Section 6 of the Fair Elections Act as total aggregate per
candidate instead of per station as previously applied. A Concurring Opinion
discussed free speech scrutiny against any kind of prior restraint:
While the Commission on Elections does have the competence to interpret Section
6, it must do so without running afoul of the fundamental rights enshrined in our
Constitution, especially of the guarantee of freedom of expression and the right to
suffrage. Not only must the Commission on Elections have the competence,
it must also be cognizant of our doctrines in relation to any kind of prior
restraint.
....
What Resolution No. 9615 does not take into consideration is that television and
radio networks are not similarly situated. The industry structure consists of
network giants with tremendous bargaining powers that dwarf local
community networks. Thus, a candidate with only a total aggregate of 120/180
minutes of airtime allocation will choose a national network with greater audience
coverage to reach more members of the electorate. Consequently, the big networks
can dictate the price, which it can logically set at a higher price to translate to more
profits. This is true in any setting especially in industries with high barriers to entry
and where there are few participants with a high degree of market
dominance. Reducing the airtime simply results in a reduction of speech and

not a reduction of expenses.
Resolution No. 9615 may result in local community television and radio networks
not being chosen by candidates running for national offices. Hence, advertisement
by those running for national office will generally be tailored for the national
audience. This new aggregate time may, therefore, mean that local issues which
national candidates should also address may not be the subject of wide-ranging
discussions.
....
Election regulations are not always content neutrul regulations, and even
if they were, they do not necessarily carry a mantle of immunity from free
speech scrutiny. The question always is whether the regulations are
narrowly tailored so as to meet a significant governmental interest and so
that there is a lesser risk of excluding ideas for a public dialogue. The
scrutiny for regulations which restrict speech during elections should be
greater considering that these exercises substantiate the important right
to suffrage. Reducing airtime to extremely low levels reduce information to
slogans and sound bites which may impoverish public dialogue. We know that
lacking the enlightenment that comes with information and analysis makes the
electorate's role to exact accountability from elected public officers a sham[.]
[46]
Petitioner points out that "[rjespondent surrendered the [Commission on Elections']
bargaining position and rather than asking the Lead Netv/orks for concessions to
ensure broader participation of other media outlets, the [rjespondent granted them
exclusive rights which they would have enjoyed only if they produced their own
debates without [the Commission on Elections'] participation." [47]
Undoubtedly, respondent as Chair and without proper authorization from the
Commission on Elections En Bane facilitated and endorsed a contract that favored
lead networks at the expense of smaller internet-based media outlets like petitioner.
His doing so magnified the standpoints of those arbitrarily considered as lead and
weakened the expression of the point of view of others. Certainly, the laudable
effort to inform the public on substantial issues in the upcoming elections should
not be purchased at the cost of the fundamental freedoms of those with less
capital,
ACCORDINGLY, I vote to PARTIALLY GRANT the Petition. The respondent
Andres D. Bautista, as Chair of the Commission on Elections, is directed to
implement Part VI (C), paragraph 19 of the Memorandum of Agreement, which
allows the debates to be shown or live-streamed unaltered in petitioner's and other
websites subject to the copyright condition that the source is clearly indicated.
Rollo, p. 183, Comment, citing Spouses Dacudao v. Secretary Gomales, 701 Phil.
96, 108 (2013) [Per J. Bersamin, En Banc].
[1]
[2]
Id.
[3]
Id. at 183-184.
[4]
CONST., art. VIII, sec. 1.
See J. Leonen, Concurring Opinion, in Belgica v. Ochoa, G.R. Nos. 208566,

November 19, 2013, 710 SCRA 1, 290 [Per J. Perlas-Bernabe, En Banc].
[5]
[6]
Id.
Araullo v. Aquino III, G.R. Nos. 209287, July 1, 2014, 728 SCRA 1, 71 [Per J.
Bersamin, En Banc]. Chief Justice Sereno, Associate Justices Peralta, Villarama. Jr.,
Perez, Mendoza, and Reyes concurred. Senior Associate Justice Carpio wrote a
Separate Opinion. Associate Justice Velasco joined Associate Justice Del Castillo's
Separate Concurring and Dissenting Opinion. Associate Justice Brion wrote a
Separate Opinion. Associate Justices Perlas-Bernabe and Leonen wrote Separate
Concurring Opinions. Associate Justice Leonardo-De Castro took no part, In this
Court's February 3, 2015 Resolution
file=/jurisprudence/2015/february2015/209287.pdf 8 [Per J. Bersamin, En Banc],
the ponencia discussed; "The procedural challenges raised by the respondents,
being a mere rehash of their earlier arguments herein, are dismissed for being
already passed upon in the assailed decision." See also Diocese of Bacolod v.
Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 205728, January 21, 2015
file=/jurisprudence/2015/january2015/205728.pdf
11 [Per J. Leonen, En Banc].
[7]
[8]
RULES OF COURT, Rule 65, sec. 1. Emphasis supplied.
[9]
RULES OF COURT, Rule 65, sec. 2. Emphasis supplied.
[10]
Rollo, p. 183, Comment.
[11]
Araullo v. Aquino III, G.R. Nos. 209287, July 1, 2014, 728 SCRA 1, 74-75 [Per J.
Bersamin, En Banc].
Rollo, pp. 183-189, Comment. Respondent raises, among others, wrong remedy
and failure to implead indispensable parties.
[12]
[13]
See Angara v. Electoral Commission 63 Phil. 139, 157-159 (1936) [Per J. Laurel,
En Banc].
[14]
[15]
See J. Leonen, Concurring Opinion in Belgica v. Ochoa, G.R. Nos. 208566,

November 19, 2013, 710 SCRA 1,290 [Per J. Perlas-Bernabe, En Banc].
[16]
Diocese of Bacolod v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 205728, January 21,

2015 http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?
file=/jurisprudence/2015/january2015/205728.pdf 12 [Per J. Leonen, En Banc].
[17]
[18]
Rep. Act No. 9006 (2001), sec. 7.3.
Rollo, p. 200, Excerpt from the Minutes of the Regular En Bane Meeting of the
Commission on Elections Held on July 29, 2015.
[19]
See, for example, A.M. No. 08-8-7-SC (2016), The 2016 Revised Rules of
Procedure for Small Claims Cases.
[20]
[21]
[22]
Rules of Court, Rule 65, sees. 1 and 2.
Rollo, p. 12, Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition with Prayer for a Preliminary
Mandatory Injunction.
[23]
[24]
Id. at 43, Memorandum of Agreement, part XII. 2.
See Angara v. Electoral Commission, 63 Phil 139, 157 (1936) [Per J.

Laurel]. See also Araullo v. Aquino III, G.R. Nos. 209287, July 1, 2014, 728 SCRA
1, 70-71 [Per J. Bersamin, En Banc].
[25]
[26]
CONST., art. III, sec. 4.
[27]
See Diocese of Bacolod v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No, 205728, January

file=/jurisprudence/2015/january2015/205728.pdf 32 [Per J, Leonen, En Banc]
[28]
380 Phil 780 (2000) [Per J. Panganiban, En Banc].
Id. at 787. See also Diocese of Bacolod v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No.
205728, January 21, 2015 http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?
file=/jurisprudence/2015/january2015/205728.pdf
32 [Per J, Leonen, En Banc]
[29]
ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation v. Commission on Elections, 380 Phil 780,

800 (2000) [Per J. Panganiban, En Banc].
[30]
[31]
Id. at 787.
[32]
351 Phil 692 (1998) [Per J. Mendoza, En Bane],
[33]
Id, at 719.
[34]
G.R. No. 103956, March 31, 1992, 207 SCRA 712 [Perl Gutierrez, Jr., En Banc],
Adiong v. Commission on Elections, C.R. No. 1,03956, March 31, 1992, 207
SCRA 712, 716 [Per J. Gutierrez, Jr,, En Banc]. See also Mutuc v. Commission on
Elections, 146 Phil. 798, 805-806 (1970) [Per J. Fernando, En Banc].
[35]
G.R. No. 205728, January 21, 2015

file=/jurisprudence/2015/january2015/205728.pdf> [Per J, Leonen, En Banc].
[36]
[37]
Id. at 62
[38]
Rollo, p. 191, Comment,
[39]
CONST., art. IX-C, sec.4.
See Diocese of Bacolod v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 205728, January

file=/jurisprudence/2015/january2015/2O5728.pdf 41 [Per J, Leonen, En
Banc], citing Reyes v. Bagatsing, 210 Phil 457, 475 (1983) [Per C.J. Fernando, En
Banc];Adiong v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 103956, March 31, 1992, 207
SCRA 712, 715 and 717 [Per J. Gutierrez, Jr., En Banc]; Philippine Blooming Mills
Employees Organization v. Philippine Blooming Mills Co.. Inc. , 151-A Phil 656, 676
(1973) [Per J. Makasiar, En Banc].
[40]
[41]
Chavez v. Gonzalez, 569 Phil 155, 203 (2008) [Per C.J. Puno, En Banc].
See J. Leonen, Concurring Opinion in GMA Network, Inc. v. Commission an

Elections, G.R. Nos. 205357, September 2, 2014
file-/jurisprudence/2014/september2014/205357_leonen.pdf
2 [Per J. Peralta, En Banc], citing Iglesia ni Cristo v. Court of Appeals, 328 Phil 893,
928 (1996) [Per J. Puno, En Banc]; Social Weather Station v. Commission on
Elections, 409 Phil 571, 584-585 (2001) [Per J. Mendoza, En Banc].
[42]
[43]
Chavez v. Gonzalez, 569 Phil 155, 203 (2008) [Per C.J. Puno, En Banc].
GMA Network, Inc. v. Commission on Elections, G.R. Nos. 205357, September 2,

2014 http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?
file=/jurisprudence/2014/september2014/205357.pdf [Per J. Peralta, En Banc].
[44]
[43]
Id. at 45.
See J. Leonen, Concurring Opinion in GMA Network, Inc. v. Commission on

Elections, G.R. Nos. 205357, September 2, 2014 http://sc.judiciaiy.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?
file=/jurisprudence/2014/september2014/205357_leonen.pdf
8, 10-12 [Per J. Peralta, En Banc].
[46]
Rollo, p. 12, Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition with Prayer for a Preliminary
Mandatory Injunction.
[47]

G.R.
No.
201852
ROBERTO G. ROSALES, NICANOR M. BRIONES, PONCIANO D. PAYUYO, JOSE R. PING-AY, ISIDRO Q. LICO, AND JOSE
TAN RAMIREZ, IN THEIR CAPACITY AS MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF NATIONAL ALLIANCE FOR
CONSUMER EMPOWERMENT OF ELECTRIC COOPERATIVES AND ON BEHALF OF THE NINE MILLION (9,000,000)
MEMBER CONSUMERS OF NEA-ELECTRIC COOPERATIVES NATIONWIDE WHO HAVE CONTRIBUTED THE MEMBERS'
CONTRIBUTIONS FOR CAPITAL EXPENDITURES (MCC) OR REINVESTMENT FUND FOR SUSTAINABLE CAPITAL
EXPENDITURES (RFSC), PETITIONERS, VS. ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION (ERC), ASELCO, AKELCO, ALECO,
ANTECO, AURELCO, BATELEC I, BATELEC II, BENECO, BILECO, BOHECO I, BOHECO II, FIBECO, BUSECO, CAGELCO I,
CAGELCO II, CASURECO I, CASURECO II, CASURECO III, CASURECO IV, CAMELCO, CAPELCO, CEBECO I, CEBECO II,
CEBECO III, CENECO, CENPELCO, DORECO, DASURECO, ESAMELCO, FLECO, GUIMELCO, IFELCO, INEC, ISECO, ILECO
I, ILECO II, ILECO III, ISELCO I, KAELCO, LUELCO, SORECO I, LANECO, LEYECO I/DORELCO, LEYECO II, LEYECO III,
LEYECO IV, LEYECO V, PENELCO, MOELCO I, MOELCO II, MORESCO I, MORESCO II, MOPRECO, NORECO I,
NORSAMELCO, NEECO I, NEECO II - Area I, NEECO II - Area II, PELCO I, PELCO II, CANORECO, PRESCO, QUEZELCO I,
QUEZELCO II, SAMELCO I, SAMELCO II, SIARELCO, SOCOTECO I, SOCOTECO II, SOLECO, SUKELCO, SURNECO,
SURSECO I, SURSECO II, TARELCO I, TARELCO II, VRESCO, ZAMECO I, ZAMECO II, ZAMCELCO, ZANECO, ZAMSURECO
I, ZAMSURECO II, BATANELCO, LUBELCO, OMECO, ORMECO, MARELCO, TIELCO, ROMELCO, BISELCO, FICELCO,
MACELCO, TISELCO, BANELCO, PROSIELCO, CELCO, COTELCO, TAWELCO, SIASELCO, SULECO, BASELCO, CASELCO,
LASURECO,
MAGELCO,
DIELCO,
and
COTELCO-PALMA,
RESPONDENTS.
April 05, 2016
EN BANC
[ G.R. No. 201852, April 05, 2016 ]
ROBERTO G. ROSALES, NICANOR M. BRIONES, PONCIANO D.
PAYUYO, JOSE R. PING-AY, ISIDRO Q. LICO, AND JOSE TAN
RAMIREZ, IN THEIR CAPACITY AS MEMBERS OF THE BOARD
OF DIRECTORS OF NATIONAL ALLIANCE FOR CONSUMER
EMPOWERMENT OF ELECTRIC COOPERATIVES AND ON
BEHALF OF THE NINE MILLION (9,000,000) MEMBER
CONSUMERS OF NEA-ELECTRIC COOPERATIVES
NATIONWIDE WHO HAVE CONTRIBUTED THE MEMBERS'
CONTRIBUTIONS FOR CAPITAL EXPENDITURES (MCC) OR
REINVESTMENT FUND FOR SUSTAINABLE CAPITAL
EXPENDITURES (RFSC), PETITIONERS, VS. ENERGY
REGULATORY COMMISSION (ERC), ASELCO, AKELCO, ALECO,
ANTECO, AURELCO, BATELEC I, BATELEC II, BENECO,
BILECO, BOHECO I, BOHECO II, FIBECO, BUSECO, CAGELCO I,

CAGELCO II, CASURECO I, CASURECO II, CASURECO III,
CASURECO IV, CAMELCO, CAPELCO, CEBECO I, CEBECO II,
CEBECO III, CENECO, CENPELCO, DORECO, DASURECO,
ESAMELCO, FLECO, GUIMELCO, IFELCO, INEC, ISECO, ILECO
I, ILECO II, ILECO III, ISELCO I, KAELCO, LUELCO, SORECO
I, LANECO, LEYECO I/DORELCO, LEYECO II, LEYECO III,
LEYECO IV, LEYECO V, PENELCO, MOELCO I, MOELCO II,
MORESCO I, MORESCO II, MOPRECO, NORECO I,
NORSAMELCO, NEECO I, NEECO II - Area I, NEECO II - Area
II, PELCO I, PELCO II, CANORECO, PRESCO, QUEZELCO I,
QUEZELCO II, SAMELCO I, SAMELCO II, SIARELCO,
SOCOTECO I, SOCOTECO II, SOLECO, SUKELCO, SURNECO,
SURSECO I, SURSECO II, TARELCO I, TARELCO II, VRESCO,
ZAMECO I, ZAMECO II, ZAMCELCO, ZANECO, ZAMSURECO I,
ZAMSURECO II, BATANELCO, LUBELCO, OMECO, ORMECO,
MARELCO, TIELCO, ROMELCO, BISELCO, FICELCO, MACELCO,
TISELCO, BANELCO, PROSIELCO, CELCO, COTELCO,
TAWELCO, SIASELCO, SULECO, BASELCO, CASELCO,
LASURECO, MAGELCO, DIELCO, and COTELCO-PALMA,
RESPONDENTS.
DECISION
PERALTA, J.:
This petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court (Rules) seeks to
declare the illegality and unconstitutionality of the Members' Contribution for
Capital Expenditures (MCC), later renamed as Reinvestment Fund for Sustainable
Capital Expenditures (RFSC), which is being imposed by on-grid Electric
Cooperatives (ECs), pursuant to the following Rules and Resolution of the Energy
Regulatory Commission (ERC):
1. Rules for Setting the Electric Cooperatives' Wheeling Rates (RSEC-WR), which
was adopted in Resolution No. 20, Series of 2009, issued on September 23, 2009;
[1]
and
2. Resolution No. 14, Series of 2011, issued on July 6, 2011. [2]
In particular, Article 5 of RSEC-WR states:
ARTICLE 5
MEMBERS' CONTRIBUTION FOR CAPITAL EXPENDITURES
5.1 Function of Members' Contribution for Capital Expenditures
The Members' Contribution for Capital Expenditures is envisioned to fund the
amortization or debt service of its indebtedness associated with the expansion,
rehabilitation or upgrading of the existing electric power system of the ECs in
accordance with their ERC-approved Capital Expenditure Plan.
5.2 Utilization of Members' Contribution for Capital Expenditures
The utilization of the Member's Contribution fund shall be subject to the following
conditions:
a. It shall be used solely for capital expenditure or any other projects approved by
the Commission and not for any other purpose, even on a temporary basis;
b. The amounts collected for Members' Contribution fund shall be recognized as
contribution from member- consumers;
c. The amounts collected for Members' Contribution, including interest income, shall
be placed in a separate account; and
d. If the member-consumer terminates its contract with the EC, the said
contribution shall not be withdrawn, instead the same shall be treated as
Contribution in Aid of Construction (CIAC).
In the case of ECs registered under the CDA, the said member-contribution shall be
converted into member's share capital.
5.3 Members' Contribution for Capital Expenditure Rate Cap Per Group
The EC's current tariff includes a reinvestment fund provision calculated at five
percent (5%) of its unbundled retail rate (inclusive of generation, transmission, and
distribution charges) as part of its Rate
Unbundling Decision. This translates to an average of 22% of the 98 ECs'
distribution charges (inclusive of distribution, supply and metering charges). The
Members' Contribution for Capital Expenditure Rate Cap was determined by
applying the 22% to the respective group's 2008 median operating costs per kWh
which was the basis for the ECs' operating revenue requirements.
The result of the afore-mentioned calculation is presented in Table 7 hereunder:
TABLE 7. Members' Contribution for Capital Expenditure Rate Cap per Group
GROUP[3]
2008 level (median)
Members' contribution for

CAPEX @ 22%
2.420000
0.5324
1.820000
0.4004
1.680000
0.3696
1.140000
0.2508
1.320000
0.2904
0.990000
0.2178
0.690000
0.1518
5.4 Additional Members' Contribution for Capital Expenditure

The actual capital expenditure may vary among ECs. In the event that the
members' contribution for capital expenditures rate caps herein authorized are
insufficient for its purpose, the EC may collect such additional Members'
Contribution for Capital Expenditures by securing the consent of its memberconsumers for such collection through existing legal procedures, provided the
expenditure was approved by the Commission as part of such EC's Capital
Expenditure Plan. Provided further that the additional member contribution is
obtained prior to the incurrence of the indebtedness^] provided finally that the
collection of said additional contribution shall be subject to the principles of fairness
and equity, in accordance with the objective of the EPIRA for the elimination of
cross-subsidy.
Collections made pursuant to this (sic) provisions may be subject to the audit of the
Commission at its discretion.[4]
On the other hand, Resolution No. 14 provides:
NOW, THEREFORE, be it RESOLVED, as the ERC
hereby RESOLVES to AMEND the nomenclature of "Members' Contribution for
Capital Expenditures (MCC)" and the "MCC-Real Property Tax (RPT)" to
"Reinvestment Fund for Sustainable Capital Expenditures (RFSC)" and "Provision for
RPT", respectively, but the nature and purpose of the same remain, to wit:
The MCC is envisioned to fund the amortization or debt service of the ECs'
indebtedness associated with the expansion, rehabilitation or upgrading of their

existing electric power system in accordance with their ERC-approved CAPEX Plan.
The utilization of the MCC fund shall be subject to the following conditions:
1. It shall be used solely for CAPEX or any other projects approved by the ERC and
not for any other purpose, even on a temporary basis;
2. The amounts collected for MCC fund shall be recognized as contribution from
member-consumers;
3. The amounts collected for MCC, including interest income, shall be put in a
separate account; and
4. If the member-consumer terminates his contract with the EC, the said
contribution shall not be withdrawn instead the same shall be treated as CIAC.
In the case of ECs registered under the CDA, the said member-contribution shall be
converted into member's share capital.
In the event that the MCC rate caps are insufficient for its purpose, the EC may
collect such additional MCC by securing the consent of its member-consumers for
such collection through existing legal procedures; Provided that, the expenditure
was approved by the ERC as part of the EC's CAPEX Plan; Provided further that, the
additional MCC is obtained prior to the incurrence of the indebtedness; Provided
finally that, the collection of said additional MCC shall be subject to the principles of
fairness and equity in accordance with the objective of the EPIRA for the elimination
of cross-subsidy.[5]
The alleged grounds for the petition are as follows:
(A)
THE IMPOSITION OF MCC OR RFSC BY THE ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION AS
A FORM OF INVESTMENT SOLICITATION TO FUND THE EXPANSION AND OTHER
CAPITAL [EXPENDITURES] OF ELECTRIC COOPERATIVES IS HIGHLY IRREGULAR[J
OPPRESSIVE[,] AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL AS IT DIRECTLY VIOLATES THE DUE
PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSES ON PROPERTY UNDER SECTION 1
ARTICLE III OF THE 1987 CONSTITUTION.
(B)
THE MANDATORY COLLECTION OF THE MCC OR RFSC BY THE ELECTRIC
COOPERATIVES FROM ITS MEMBER-CONSUMERS WITHOUT THE PROPER EXPLICIT
ACCOUNTING ENTRIES AND ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF BEING A PATRONAGE CAPITAL

AND WITHOUT THE BENEFIT OF A FAIR RETURN OF THEIR INVESTMENTS OR
PATRONAGE CAPITAL INPUT OR CONTRIBUTIONS IS TANTAMOUNT TO TAKING A
PROPERTY WITHOUT JUST COMPENSATION AND IS VIOLATIVE OF THE PROVISION
OF SECTION 9, ARTICLE III OF THE 1987 CONSTITUTION.
(C)
THE RULING OF ERG ALLOWING THE MANDATORY COLLECTION OF MCC OR RFSC
BY THE ELECTRIC [COOPERATIVES] [ECs] IS UNDOUBTEDLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL
AS IT DIRECTLY VIOLATES SECTION 10, ARTICLE II AND SECTION 1 & 15, ARTICLE
XII OF THE 1987 CONSTITUTION.
(D)
THE UNJUST COLLECTION OF. THE MCC OR RFSC BY THE ELECTRIC COOPERATIVES
AS AUTHORIZED AND RULED BY ERC IS CONTRARY TO LAW AS NOWHERE IN THE
PROVISIONS OF P.D. 269 DOES IT SAY THAT MEMBERS ON A VOLUNTARY AND
COOPERATIVE MANNER WILL PROVIDE CAPITAL TO FUND THE CAPITAL
EXPENDITURES BY THE COOPERATIVES. IT LIKEWISE VIOLATES SECTION 37 OF
P.D. 269.[6]
In a nutshell, the issue for petitioners is not about the nomenclature of MCC/RFSC
or how such funds are utilized but in the ERC's treatment of MCC/RFSC as a
subsidy/funds for capital expenditures (CAPEX) or contribution in aid of construction
(CIAC) instead of patronage capital, which is an equity or investment that must be
accounted for and could be withdrawn by the member-consumers upon termination
of their contract with respondent ECs.[7]
The petition is dismissed.
Legal standing of petitioners
Petitioners claim that as Board members/officers of the National Alliance for
Consumer Empowerment of Electric Cooperatives (NACEELCO) they have the
required legal standing to assail the validity of MCC/RFSC imposed by the ECs
under the RSEC-WR and Resolution No. 14 issued by the ERC. They also stand to be
benefited or injured by the judgment in this suit because they are memberconsumers of the ECs who were required to and did pay the MCC/RFSC, as shown
by the electric bills appended to the petition. Further, over and above their personal
capacity as member-consumers, petitioners, like party-list representatives Briones
of AGAP, Payuyo of APEC, and Ping-ay of NATCO, represent their constituents who
are paying EC member-consumers in good standing.
Even assuming that no direct injury is or will continue to be suffered, petitioners

contend that the liberal policy consistently adopted by the Court on locus
standi must apply. They view that the issues raised in this petition are of paramount
public importance as it does not merely involve the constitutionality of MCC/RFSC
but also the plight of the member-consumers of ECs nationwide. For them, the
transcendental importance of this case cannot simply be ignored as it also involves
the economic well-being of more than half of the Philippine population. Two
contesting parties are said to be laying claim on the ownership of the ECs, to wit:
(1) the persons running the ECs being directly controlled by the NEA, which has not
contributed any funds to fund debt-servicing except loan accommodations with high
interest rates, and (2) the member-consumers of ECs who have continuously
contributed their hard-earned money to fund the operations, cost, and debtservicing of the ECs.
Only petitioners Ping-ay and Ramirez satisfy the requirement of locus standi.
Petitioners have no legal standing to file this petition in their capacity as NACEELCO
Board members. It was not shown that respondent ECs are members of NACEELCO.
Further, while petitioners claim that they represent nine million member-consumers
of the ECs, they have not attached to the petition any documentary proof as
regards their purported authority to file the case on their behalf.
Also, petitioners Payuyo and Rosales have no legal standing to file the case as
member-consumers of the Palawan Electric Cooperative, Inc. (PALECO) and Agusan
Del Norte Electric Cooperative, Inc. (ANECO), respectively.[8] Even if ANECO is
within the coverage of RSEC-WR, it is not impleaded as respondent in the petition.
As for PALECO, it is neither a part of any group enumerated in RSEC-WR nor is it
impleaded as respondent herein.
While the Court held that legislators have the standing to maintain inviolate the
prerogatives, powers and privileges vested by the Constitution in their office and
are allowed to sue to question the validity of any official action which they claim
infringes their prerogatives as legislators, [9] there was no specific allegation of
usurpation of legislative function in this case. Moreover, We do not view that the
procedural rules on standing should be waived on the ground that the issues raised
in this petition are of transcendental importance. To consider a matter as one of
transcendental importance, all of the following must concur: (1) the public
character of the funds or other assets involved in the case; (2) the presence of a
clear case of disregard of a constitutional or statutory prohibition by the public
respondent agency or instrumentality of the government; and (3) the lack of any
other party with a more direct and specific interest in the questions being raised.
[10]
As will be shown in the discussion below, elements (2) and (3) are obviously
lacking in this case.

The above notwithstanding, petitioners Ping-ay and Ramirez have the legal standing
to sue. Ping-ay is a member-consumer of respondent Ilocos Sur Electric
Cooperative, Inc. (ISECO).[11] On the other hand, Ramirez is undisputedly the
spouse of Mary Ramirez,[12] who is the registered member-consumer of respondent
Eastern Samar Electric Cooperative, Inc. (ESAMELCO). Mary, who is not one of the
petitioners, only needs to be impleaded as a pro-forma party to the suit based on
Section 4, Rule 4 of the Rules.[13] The determination of whether Mary is a party who
is indispensable or necessary or neither indispensable nor necessary would no
longer matter since, as We said, Ping-ay possesses the required locus standi for the
Court to already take cognizance of the case.
It is a general rule that every action must be prosecuted or defended in the name
of the real party-in-interest, who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment
in the suit, or the party entitled to the avails of the suit.
Jurisprudence defines interest as "material interest, an interest in issue and to be
affected by the decree, as distinguished from mere interest in the question
involved, or a mere incidental interest. By real interest is meant a present
substantial interest, as distinguished from a mere expectancy or a future,
contingent, subordinate, or consequential interest." "To qualify a person to be a real
party-in-interest in whose name an action must be prosecuted, he must appear to
be the present real owner of the right sought to be enforced."
"Legal standing" or locus standi calls for more than just a generalized grievance.
The concept has been defined as a personal and substantial interest in the case
such that the party has sustained or will sustain direct injury as a result of the
governmental act that is being challenged. The gist of the question of standing is
whether a party alleges such personal stake in the outcome of the controversy as to
assure that concrete adversencss which sharpens the presentation of issues upon
which the court depends for illumination of difficult constitutional questions.
A party challenging the constitutionality of a law, act, or statute must show "not
only that the law is invalid, but also that he has sustained or is in immediate, or
imminent danger of sustaining some direct injury as a result of its enforcement,
and not merely that he suffers thereby in some indefinite way." It must shown that
he has been, or is about to be, denied some right or privilege to which he is lawfully
entitled, or that he is about to be subjected to some burdens or penalties by reason
of the statute complained of.[14]
Tested by the foregoing standards, petitioners Ping-ay and Ramirez clearly have
legal standing to file the petition. They are real parties-in-interest to assail the
constitutionality and legality of RSEC-WR and Resolution No. 14. Their cause of
action to declare invalid the subject Rule and Resolution is related to their right to
seek a refund of the payments made and to stop future imposition of the
MCC/RFSC.
Rule 65 as a Remedy
Despite the legal standing of petitioners Ping-ay and Ramirez, their choice of
remedy to question the validity of RSEC-WR and Resolution No. 14 is inexcusably
inapposite.
Section 1, Rule 65 of the Rules mandates:
SECTION 1. Petition for certiorari. - When any tribunal, board or officer exercising
judicial or quasi-judicial functions has acted without or in excess of its or his
jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of its or
his jurisdiction, and there is no appeal, or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy
in the ordinary course of law, a person aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition
in the proper court, alleging the facts with certainty and praying that judgment be
rendered annulling or modifying the proceedings of such tribunal, board or officer,
and granting such incidental reliefs as law and justice may require.
xxx
The Court agrees with respondents that RSEC-WR and Resolution No. 14 were
issued by the ERC in its quasi-legislative power.
A respondent is said to be exercising judicial function where he has the power to
determine what the law is and what the legal rights of the parties are, and then
undertakes to determine these questions and adjudicate upon the rights of the
parties.
Quasi-judicial function, on the other hand, is "a term which applies to the actions,
discretion, etc., of public administrative officers or bodies ... required to investigate
facts or ascertain the existence of facts, hold hearings, and draw conclusions from
them as a basis for their official action and to exercise discretion of a judicial
nature."
Before a tribunal, board, or officer may exercise judicial or quasi-judicial acts, it is
necessary that there be a law that gives rise to some specific rights of persons or
property under which adverse claims to such rights are made, and the controversy
ensuing therefrom is brought before a tribunal, board, or officer clothed with power
and authority to determine the law and adjudicate the respective rights of the
contending parties.[15]
As defined above, the ERC exercised neither judicial nor quasi-judicial function. In
issuing and implementing the RSEC-WR and Resolution No. 14, it was not called
upon to adjudicate the rights of contending parties to exercise, in any manner,
discretion of a judicial or quasi-judicial nature. Instead, RSEC-WR and Resolution
No. 14 were done in the exercise of the ERC's quasi-legislative and administrative
functions. It was in the nature of subordinate legislation, promulgated in the
exercise of its delegated power. Quasi-legislative power is exercised by
administrative agencies through the promulgation of rules and regulations within
the confines of the granting statute and the doctrine of non-delegation of powers
flowing from the separation of the branches of the government. [16] Particularly, the
ERC applied its rule-making power as expressly granted by Republic Act (R.A.) No.
9136 ("Electric Power Industry Reform Act of 2001" or EPIRA), to wit:
SEC. 43. Functions of the ERC. - The ERC shall xxx be responsible for the following
key functions in the restructured industry:
xxxx
f. In the public interest, establish and enforce a methodology for setting
transmission and distribution wheeling rates and retail rates for the
captive market of a distribution utility, taking into account all relevant
considerations, including the efficiency or inefficiency of the regulated entities. The
rates must be such as to allow the recovery of just and reasonable costs and a
reasonable return on rate base (RORB) to enable the entity to operate viably. The
ERC may adopt alternative forms of internationally-accepted rate-setting
methodology as it may deem appropriate. The rate-setting methodology so adopted
and applied must ensure a reasonable price of electricity. The rates prescribed shall
be non-discriminatory. To achieve this objective and to ensure the complete
removal of cross subsidies, the cap on the recoverable rate of system losses
prescribed in Section 10 of Republic Act No. 7832, is hereby amended and shall be
replaced by caps which shall be determined by the ERC" based on load density,
sales mix, cost of service, delivery voltage and other technical considerations it may
promulgate. The ERC shall determine such form of rate-setting methodology, which
shall promote efficiency. In case the rate setting methodology used is RORB, it shall
be subject to the following guidelines:
(i) For purposes of determining the rate base, the TRANSCO or any distribution
utility may be allowed to revalue its eligible assets not more than once every three
(3) years by an independent appraisal company: Provided, however, That ERC may
give an exemption in case of unusual devaluation: Provided, further, That the ERC
shall exert efforts to minimize price shocks in order to protect the consumers;
(ii) Interest expenses are not allowable deductions from permissible return on rate
base;
(iii) In determining eligible cost of services that will be passed on to the end-users,
the ERC shall establish minimum efficiency performance standards for the
TRANSCO and distribution utilities including systems losses, interruption frequency
rates, and collection efficiency;
(iv.) Further, in determining rate base, the TRANSCO or any distribution utility shall
not be allowed to include management inefficiencies like cost of project delays not
excused by force majeure, penalties and related interest during construction
applicable to these unexcused delays; and
(v.) Any significant operating costs or project investments of the TRANSCO
and distribution utilities which shall become part of the rate base shall be
subject to verification by the ERC to ensure that the contracting and procurement of
the equipment, assets and services have been subjected to transparent and
accepted industry procurement and purchasing practices to protect the public
interest. (Emphasis supplied)[17]
Granting arguendo, that the MCC/RFSC imposition is in the exercise of the ERC's
quasi-judicial function, still, the petition should have been filed before the Court of
Appeals, which may entertain a petition for certiorari whether or not the same is in
aid of its appellate jurisdiction. Indeed, petitioners violated the principle of
hierarchy of courts. As We said in one case:
xxx The petitioners appear to have forgotten that the Supreme Court is a court of
last resort, not a court of first instance. The hierarchy of courts should serve as a
general determinant of the appropriate forum for Rule 65 petitions. The
concurrence of jurisdiction among the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals and the
Regional Trial Courts to issue writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo
warranto, habeas corpus and injunction does not give the petitioners the
unrestricted freedom of choice of forum. By directly filing Rule 65 petitions before
us, the petitioners have unduly taxed the Court's time and attention which are
better devoted to matters within our exclusive jurisdiction. Worse, the petitioners
only contributed to the overcrowding of the Court's docket. We also wish to
emphasize that the trial court is better equipped to resolve cases of this nature
since this Court is not a trier of facts and does not normally undertake an
examination of the contending parties' evidence.[19]
Since the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court have original concurrent
jurisdiction over petitions for certiorari, the rule on hierarchy of courts determines
the venue of recourses to these courts. In original petitions for certiorari, this Court
will not directly entertain special civil action unless the redress desired cannot be
obtained elsewhere based on exceptional and compelling circumstances to justify
immediate resort to this Court,[20] which We found none in the present case that
likewise involves factual questions. Time and again, it has been held that this Court
is not a trier of fact.[21]
Glaringly, petitioners did not comply with the rule that "there is no appeal, or any
plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. " Since
petitioners assail the validity of the ERC issuances and seeks to declare them as
unconstitutional, a petition for declaratory relief under Rule 63 of the Rules is the
appropriate remedy. Under the Rules, any person whose rights are affected by any
other governmental regulation may, before breach or violation thereof, bring an
action in the appropriate Regional Trial Court to determine any question of
construction or validity arising, and for a declaration of his rights or duties,
thereunder.[22]
Noticeably, administrative remedies should have been exhausted by filing the case
in the ERC, which, has technical expertise, at the very least, to dwell on the issue.
Considering that petitioners are challenging the MCC/RFSC, which is a rate
component under the RSEC-WR, the original and exclusive jurisdiction is vested
with the ERC, pursuant to Section 43 of R.A. No. 9136, which states:
SEC. 43. Functions of the ERC. - The ERC shall xxx be responsible for the following
key functions in the restructured industry:
xxxx
u. The ERC shall have the original and exclusive jurisdiction over all cases
contesting rates, fees, fines and penalties imposed by the ERC in the exercise
of the abovementioned powers, functions and responsibilities and over all
cases involving disputes between and among participants or players in the energy
sector. (Emphasis supplied)[23]
All actions taken by the ERC, pursuant to R.A. No. 9136, are subject to judicial
review. As an independent quasi-judicial agency in the exercise of its quasi-judicial
functions, its judgment, final order or resolution is appealable to the Court of
Appeals via Rule 43 of the Rules, and, if still unfavorable, to this Court via Rule 65.
The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies is a cornerstone of our
judicial system.[24] As opined in a case:
The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies allows administrative

agencies to carry out their functions and discharge their responsibilities within the
specialized areas of their respective competence. The doctrine entails lesser
expenses and provides for the speedier resolution of controversies. Therefore,
direct recourse to the trial court, when administrative remedies are available, is a
ground for dismissal of the action.
The doctrine, however, is not without exceptions. Among the exceptions are: (1)
where there is estoppel on the part of the party invoking the doctrine; (2) where
the challenged administrative act is patently illegal, amounting to lack of
jurisdiction; (3) where there is unreasonable delay or official inaction that will
irretrievably prejudice the complainant; (4) where the amount involved is relatively
so small as to make the rule impractical and oppressive; (5) where the question
involved is purely legal and will ultimately have to be decided by the courts of
justice; (6) where judicial intervention is urgent; (7) where the application of the
doctrine may cause great and irreparable damage; (8) where the controverted acts
violate due process; (9) where the issue of non-exhaustion of administrative
remedies had been rendered moot; (10) where there is no other plain, speedy and
adequate remedy; (11) where strong public interest is involved; and (12) in quo
warranto proceedings.[25]
Assuming, for argument's sake, that this case falls under any of the recognized
exceptions, just the same, the petition must be dismissed for being filed out of
time. Under the Rules, a petition for certiorari should be filed not later than sixty
(60) days from notice of the judgment, order or resolution sought to be assailed. In
this case, Resolution No. 20, which adopted the RSEC-WR, and Resolution No. 14
were issued by the ERC on September 23, 2009 and July 6, 2011, respectively. The
petition was filed only on May 31, 2012, which is manifestly way beyond the
reglementary period.[26]
It is significant to note that, in drafting RSEC-WR, the ERC conducted a series of
expository hearings and public consultations for all ECs in Luzon, Visayas, and
Mindanao, and that it was only after taking into account the various manifestations,
comments, and oppositions during the public consultations that a new methodology
for setting the ECs' wheeling rates was developed. The Whereas clauses of
Resolution No. 20 narrated this long and tedious process:
WHEREAS, the current rates of ECs are no longer responsive since the costs of
providing electric service to the consumers increased significantly from the time
their rates were determined by the Commission based on 2000 test year;
WHEREAS, the ECs are cognizant of the inherent regulatory lag in the current cash
flow rate-setting methodology adopted through a quasi-judicial process which is
further exacerbated by the fact that if all the one hundred twenty (120) ECs file
their respective rate applications with each application to the resolved in one (1)
month, it will take the Commission one hundred twenty (120) months or ten (10)
years, to resolved all the applications;
WHEREAS, the Commission has conducted studies to establish a new rate-setting
methodology for ECs that will address their present problems and resolve the
regulatory lag in the resolution of rate applications, particularly, the "Benchmarking
Methodology";
WHEREAS, the results of said "Benchmarking Methodology" studies were subjected
to several expository and public consultations which were held on various dates and
venues. The ECs attended and actively participated in the said expository and public
consultations and submitted data to the Commission reflecting their respective
costs of service as part of the "Benchmarking Methodology studies;
WHEREAS, the rates as determined in the said "Benchmarking Methodology"
encourage the ECs to be financially self-sufficient, efficient and member-customer
responsive;
WHEREAS, on May 3 and 4, 2007, the Commission conducted a series of
expository hearings for all ECs in Luzon, Visayas and Mindanao on the proposed
"Benchmarking Methodology" for ECs;
WHEREAS, on May 17, 2007, the Commission conducted a public consultation on
the "Classification of ECs for Regulatory Purposes and the Proposed Efficiency
Benchmarking Methodology";
WHEREAS, on various dates, the Commission conducted a series of Expository
Public Consultations for all ECs in Luzon, Visayas and Mindanao on the classification
of on-grid ECs and the determination of the functionalized benchmark Operation
and Maintenance (O&M) rate, Capital Expenditure (CAPEX) rate, proposed customer
segmentation, proposed benchmark rate design, new lifeline charges, performance
indices, transition period and rate comparison;
WHEREAS, after considering all the comments and manifestations during the
various public consultations, the Commission developed a new methodology for
setting the ECs' wheeling rates embodied in a document denominated as "Rules for
Setting the Electric Cooperatives' Wheeling Rates" (RSEC-WR);
WHEREAS, on April 4, 2009, the General Managers of all the on-grid Electric
Cooperatives (ECs) in the Philippines adopted Resolution No. I, Series of 2009,
entitled "A Resolution Imploring Upon the Energy Regulatory Commission to
Implement a New Rate-Setting Methodology for Setting the Electric Cooperatives'
Wheeling Rates (RSEC-WR)";

WHEREAS, on April 21, 2009, the Commission issued a Notice of Proposed RuleMaking (Notice), wherein it treated the Resolution adopted by the General
Managers of all the on-grid ECs as a petition to initiate rule-making by the ECs that
are signatories thereto, docketed as ERC Case No. 2009-007 RM, entitled "In the
Matter of the Petition by the On-Grid Electric Cooperatives for the Adoption of the
Rules for Setting the Electric Coopratives' Wheeling Rates". The Draft RSEC-WR
adopted the Rule-Making proceedings under Rule 21 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure. All interested parties were directed to submit their
respective comments on the Draft RSEC-WR until May 15, 2009 and said petition
was set for public hearings on various dates and venues;
WHEREAS, on various dates, several ECs and interested parties submitted their
respective comments on the Draft RSEC-WR;
WHEREAS, from May 17 to July 20, 2009, the Commission conducted public
hearings on the instant petition at the respective localities of the ninety-six (96) ongrid ECs;
WHEREAS, on August 19, 2009, the Commission posted at its website and
published in newspapers of general circulation in the Philippines the revised Draft
RSEC-WR for solicitation of comments from interested parties;
WHEREAS, on various dates, several ECs and interested parties submitted their
respective comments on the revised Draft RSEC-WR;
WHEREAS, in accordance with the aforesaid mandate and after a careful
consideration of the various views and comments submitted by the interested
parties, the Commission adopts and promulgates the RSEC-WR[.] [27]
As ordered by the ERC, copies of Resolution No. 20 were furnished to the University
of the Philippines Law Center - Office of the National Administrative Register (UPLCONAR), Philippine Rural Electric Cooperatives' Association, Inc. (PHILRECA),[28] and
all on-grid ECs. In addition, PHILRECA was directed to publish the RSEC-WR in a
newspaper of general circulation in the Philippines.[29]
Petitioners could have filed their comment/opposition to the draft of RSEC-WR or
appealed its final version. Alternatively, they could have filed a
comment/opposition, motion for reconsideration, petition for relief from judgment
or appeal with regard to the rate adjustment applications of their respective ECs.
The records of this case, voluminous as it is, is bereft of evidence that they did.
Finally, it bears to stress that a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is the proper
remedy when the respondent has committed grave abuse of discretion amounting
to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
The term "grave abuse of discretion" has a specific meaning. An act of a court or
tribunal can only be considered as with grave abuse of discretion when such act is
done in a "capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of
jurisdiction." The abuse of discretion must be so patent and gross as to amount to
an "evasion of a positive duty or to 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." Furthermore, the
use of a petition for certiorari is restricted only to "truly extraordinary cases
wherein the act of the lower court or quasi-judicial body is wholly void.
x x x[30]
The stringent criterion imposed by the above-quoted precludes Us from giving due
course to this petition. The ERC rests on solid legal grounds as it is indubitably
empowered to establish and enforce a methodology for setting the distribution
wheeling rates of respondent ECs. The delegation of legislative powers by the
Congress to the ERC is explicit in Section 43 (f) and (u) of R.A. No. 9136, which is
elaborated in Section 5 (a), Rule 15 and Section 4 (n), Rule 3, respectively, of the
IRR; hence, the presumption of regularity of MCC/RFSC must be upheld.
As a new regulatory framework for the on-grid [31] ECs, RSEC-WR is designed to
achieve the following:
1. Develop a tariff setting methodology that would be more responsive to the needs
of the ECs given the objectives of the EP1RA;
2. Encourage reforms in the structure and operations of the ECs for greater
efficiency and lower costs;
3. Introduce incentives in the framework that will allow efficiency gains to be
shared between the EC and the end-users; and
4. Develop a regulatory framework that will ease regulatory burden and cut down
regulatory lag for implementation.[32]
Prior to the RSEC-WR, the ECs operated under a cash flow regulatory regime, which
allows the ECs to generate revenues sufficient to cover payroll, operations and
maintenance outlays, debt service, including interest and allowance strictly for
reinvestment purposes.[33] The ECs' tariff structure was equivalent to the
Distribution, Supply, and Metering (DSM) Charges, which consisted of Operations
and Maintenance Expenses (OPEX), Payroll and Other Revenue Item (ORI), Capital
Expenditures (CAPEX) or Reinvestment Fund and Debt Service. [34] With the
enactment of R.A. No. 9136, the operating and the capital costs are unbundled.
[35]
The DSM Charges represent only operating costs, while a separate charge,
Members' Contribution for Capital Expenditures (MCC) represent the ECs debt
service and capital expenditure requirements.[36] In the new tariff structure under
the RSEC-WR, the OPEX, Payroll and ORI are translated into DSM Charges, while
the Reinvestment Fund and Debt Service are translated into MCC. [37]
As admitted by respondents, the MCC is not a new imposition on the memberconsumers of the ECs. Before the formulation of said MCC Charge, the rates of all
the ECs already include a Reinvestment Fund provision calculated at five percent
(5%) of their unbundled retail rates, inclusive of Generation, Transmission and
Distribution Charges.[38] The intent of the RSEC-WR in translating Reinvestment
Fund into MCC is to recognize the fact that said MCC Charge indeed represents
contributions from the member-consumers for the expansion, rehabilitation and
upgrading of the ECs' distribution system which should be reflected in their bills for
greater transparency.[39] When MCC was eventually designated as RFSC, only the
appelation changed; its nature and purpose remain the same.
Under Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 269,[40] respondent ECs are vested with all
powers necessary or convenient for the accomplishment of its corporate purpose
that is supportive of the declared State policy of promoting sustainable
development in the rural areas through rural electrification. [41] Such powers include,
but are not limited to the power:
xxxx
(g) To construct, purchase, lease as lessee, or otherwise acquire, and to equip,
maintain, and operate, and to sell, assign, convey, lease as lessor, mortgage,
pledge, or otherwise dispose of or encumber, electric transmission and distribution
lines or systems, electric generating plants, lands, buildings, structures, dams,
plants, and equipment, and any other real or personal property, tangible or
intangible, which shall be deemed necessary, convenient or appropriate to
accomplish the purpose for which the cooperative is organized;
(h) To purchase, lease as lessee, or otherwise acquire, and to use, and exercise and
to sell, assign, convey, mortgage, pledge or otherwise dispose of or encumber
franchises, rights, privileges, licenses and easements;
xxxx
(j) To construct, acquire, own, operate and maintain electric subtransmission and
distribution lines along, upon, under and across publicly owned lands and public
thoroughfares, including, without limitation, all roads, highways, streets, alleys,

bridges and causeways. In the event of the need of such lands and thoroughfares
for the primary purpose of the government, the electric cooperative shall be
properly compensated;
(j-1) To construct, acquire, own, operate and maintain generating facilities within its
franchise area, x x x
xxxx
(p) To do and perform any other acts and things, and to have and exercise any
other powers which may be necessary, convenient or appropriate to accomplish the
purpose for which the cooperative is organized.[42]
Further, Section 35 of P.D. 269, which remains untouched despite amendments to
the law, provides:
SEC. 35. Non-profit, Non-discriminatory, Area Coverage Operation and Service. - A
cooperative shall be operated on a non-profit basis for the mutual benefit of its
members and patrons; shall, as to rates and services make or grant no
unreasonable preference or advantage to any member or patron nor subject any
member or patron to any unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage; shall not
establish or maintain any unreasonable difference as to rates or services either as
between localities or as between classes of service; shall not give, pay or receive
any rebate or bonus, directly or indirectly, or mislead its members in any manner as
to rates charged for its services; and shall furnish service on an area coverage
basis; Provided, That for any extension of service which if treated on the
basis of standard terms and conditions is so costly as to jeopardize the
financial feasibility of the cooperative's entire operation, the cooperative
may require such contribution in aid of construction, such facilities extension
deposit, such guarantee of minimum usage for a minimum term or such other
reasonable commitment on the part of the person to be served as may be
necessary and appropriate to remove such jeopardy, but no difference in standard
rates for use of service shall be imposed for such purpose.
x x x[43] (Emphasis supplied)
The MCC/RFSC is, therefore, an instrument to realize the foregoing statutory
powers and prerogatives of ECs. It is a charge that is vital to ensure the quality,
reliability, security, and affordability of electric power supply. To prevent any
prejudice to the public interest, the ERC is authorized to establish and enforce a
methodology for setting transmission and distribution wheeling rates and retail
rates that takes into account all relevant considerations, such as the expansion or
improvement of the transmission facilities pursuant to the ERC-approved plan. [44]

In closing, the Court observes that the ECs, whether under the control and
supervision of the National Electrification Administration (NEA) or registered with
the Cooperative Development Authority (CDA), use the RSEC-WR or collect
MCC/RFSC contributions from their member-consumers. [45] Petitioners, however,
excluded as parties to this case the CDA-registered ECs, such as QUIRELCO (in
Group A), ABRECO (in Group B), ISELCO II (in Group C), SORECO II (in Group C),
PANELCO I (in Group D), NUVELCO (in Group D), NORECO II (in Group E), and
DANECO (in Group F), SAJELCO (in Group F), and PELCO III (in Group G).
[46]
Instead, what they impleaded were the nineteen (19) off-grid [47] ECs, namely:
BATANELCO, LUBELCO, OMECO, ORMECO, MARELCO, TIELCO, ROMELCO, BISELCO,
FICELCO, MASELCO, TISELCO, BANELCO, PROSIELCO, CELCO, TAWELCO,
SIASELCO, SULECO, BASELCO, and DIELCO.[48] It is contended that although these
ECs are not covered by RSEC-WR, the ERC authorizes them to collect a
Reinvestment Fund as component of their over-all rate.[49]
If petitioners admit that the ECs, whether they belong to the off-grid or on-grid
category and whether they are CDA or NEA registered, are proper parties to the
petition as they will either suffer or benefit from the decision of the Court, [50] then
they should have equally impleaded as parties to the case the CDA-registered ECs
and the off-grid ECs. As indispensable parties, CDA-registered ECs should have
been joined as petitioners or respondents pursuant to Section 7, Rule 3 of
the Rules.[51]The reason behind this compulsory joinder of indispensable parties is
the complete determination of all possible issues, not only between the parties
themselves but also as regards other persons who may be affected by the
judgment.[52] While relief may be afforded to petitioners without the presence of the
CDA-registered ECs, it is uncertain whether the case can be finally decided on its
merits without taking into account, if not prejudicing, the rights and interests of the
latter.
There being no meritorious reason for Us to suspend the rules of procedure, any
discussion on substantive issues raised for resolution are unnecessary.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED for inexcusable procedural and technical
defects. Costs against petitioner.
SO ORDERED.
Sereno, C.J., Carpio, Velasco, Jr., Brion, Bersamin, Del Castillo, Perez, Mendoza,
Reyes, Leonen, and Caguioa, JJ., concur.
Leonardo-De Castro, J., no part.
Perlas-Bernabe, J., on leave..
Jardeleza, J., no part prior OSG action.
Entitled "A Resolution Adopting the Rules for Setting the Electric Cooperatives'
Wheeling Rates " (Rollo, pp. 68-100).
[1]
Entitled "A Resolution Modifying the Terms Members' Contribution for Capital
Expenditures (MCC) to Reinvestment Fund for Sustainable Capital Expenditures
(RFSC) and MCC-Real Property Tax (RPT) to Provision for RPT as Provided in the
Rules for Setting Electric Cooperatives' Wheeling Rates (RSEC-WR)" (Rollo, pp. 130138).
[2]
Based on their total operating distribution cost and operating distribution cost per
kWh, which, in turn, are affected by size (defined as number of customers) and
consumption (defined as MWH sales per customers), the RSEC-WR classified the
on-grid ECs into seven (7) groups as follows:
[3]
GROUP A
Aurora (AURELCO)
Biliran (BILECO)
Camiguin (CAMELCO)
Guimaras (GUIMELCO)
Ifugao (IFELCO)
Kalinga-Apayao
(KAELCO)
Leyte III (LEYECO III)
Mt. Province (MOPRECO)
Quezon II (QUEZELCO II)
Quirino (QUIRELCO)
Siargao (SIARELCO)
GROUP B
Abra (ABRECO)
Antique (ANTECO)
Camarines Sur I (CASURECO I)
Camarines Sur IV (CASURECO IV)
Lanao Del Norte (LANECO)
Leyte I (LEYECO I/DORELCO)
Leyte IV (LEYECO IV)
Misamis Occidental I (MOELCI I)
Eastern Samar (ESAMELCO)
Northern Samar (NORSAMELCO)
Samar I (SAMELCO I)
Samar II (SAMELCO II)
Sorsogon (SORECO I)
Southern Leyte (SOLECO)
Surigao Del Sur I (SURSECO I)
Surigao Del Sur II (SURSECO II)
GROUP C
Bohol II (BOHECO II)
Cagayan II (CAGELCO II)
Camarines Sur III (CASURECO III)
Isabela II (ISELCO II)
Sorsogon II (SORECO II)
GROUP D
Agusan Del Sur (ASELCO)
Bukidnon II (BUSECO)
Cebu III (CEBECO III)
Davao Oriental (DORECO)
First Laguna (FLECO)
Iloilo III (ILECO III)
Maguindanao (MAGELCO)
Misamis Occidental II (MOELCI II)
Misamis Oriental II (MORESCO II)
Negros Oriental 1 (NORECO I)
Nueva Viscaya (NUVELCO)
Pampanga Rural (PRESCO)
Pangasinan I (PANELCO I)
Sultan Kudarat (SUKELCO)
Surgao Del Norte (SURNECO)
Zambales I (ZAMECO I)
Zambales II (ZAMECO II)
GROUP E
Aldan (AKELCO)
Bohol I (BOHECO I)
Bukidnon I (FIBECO)
Cagayan I (CAGELCO I)
Camarines Norte (CANORECO)
Capiz (CAPELCO)
Cebu I (CEBECO I)
Cebu II (CEBECO II)
Davao Del Sur (DASURECO)
Iloilo I (ILECO I)
Iloilo II (ILECO II)
La Union (LUELCO)
Leyte V (LEYECO V)
Negrcs Occidental (NOCECO)
Negros Oriental II (NORECO II)
North Cotobato (COTELCO)
Nueva Ecija I (NEECO 1)
Nueva Ecija II (NEECO II) Area I
Nueva Ecija II (NEECO II) Area II
Pampanga I (PELCO I)
Pangasinan III (PANELCO III)
Quezon I (QUEZELCO I)
Tarlac I (TARELCO I)
Tarlac II (TARELCO II)
V-M-C Rural Electric Service (VRESCO)
Zamboanga Del Norte (ZANECO)
Zamboanga Del Sur I (ZAMBURECO I)
Zamboanga Del Sur II (ZAMBURECO II)
GROUP F
Agusan Del Norte (ANECO)
Albay (ALECO)
Batangas I (BATELEC I)
Benguet (BENECO)
Camarines Sur II (CASURECO II)
Central Pangasinan (CENPELCO)
Davao Del Norte (DANECO)
Ilocos Norte (INEC)
Ilocos Sur (ISECO)
Isabela I (ISELCO I)
Misamis Oriental I (MORESCO I)
Pampanga II (PELCO II)
Peninsula (PENELCO)
San Jose City (SAJELCO)
So. Cotabato (SOCOTECO I)
GROUP G
Batangas II (BATELEC II)
Central Negros (CENECO)
Leyte II (LEYECO II)
Pampanga III (PELCO III)
So. Cotabato II (SOCOTECO II)
Zamboanga City (ZAMCELCO) (Rollo, pp. 75-77).

[4]
Rollo, pp. 85-87.
[5]
Id. at 132-133.
[6]
Id. at 42-43.
[7]
Id at 37, 3683.
[8]
Id. at 102, 107.
Sergio R. Osmena III v. Power Sector Assets and Liabilities Management

Corporation, et al, G.R. No. 212686, September 28, 2015.
[9]
See Chamber of Real Estate and Builders' Ass'ns., Inc. v. Energy Regulatory
Commission (ERC), et al., 638 Phil 542, 556-557 (2010).
[10]
[11]
Rollo, p. 105.
[12]
Id. at 103-104.
[13]
Navarro v. Hon. Judge Escobido, 621 Phil. 1, 19 (2009).
Jose J. Ferrer, Jr. v. City Mayor Herbert Bautista, etc., et al., G.R. No. 210551,
June 30, 2015.
[14]
Liga ng mga Barangay National v. City Mayor of Manila, 465 Phil. 524, 540-541
(2004).
[15]
[16]
[17]
Gil G. Cawad, et al. v. Florencio B. Abad, et al., G.R. No. 207145, July 28, 2015.
Rule 15 of the IRR of R.A. No. 9136 provides:
Section 5. Ratemaking Design and Methodology.

(a) The ERC shall, in the public interest, establish and enforce a methodology for
setting transmission and distribution wheeling rates and Retail Rates for the Captive
Market of a Distribution Utility, taking into account all relevant considerations,
including the efficiency or inefficiency of the regulated entities, as well as the
expansion or improvement of the Transmission facilities pursuant to a plan
approved by the ERC under Section 10 of Rule 6 on Transmission Sector, and the
Distribution Utilities under Rule 7 on Distribution Sector. The rates must be such as
to allow the recovery of just and reasonable costs and a reasonable RORB to enable
the entity to operate viably. The ERC may adopt alternative forms of internationallyaccepted rate-setting methodology as it may deem appropriate. The rate-setting
methodology so adopted and applied must ensure a reasonable price of electricity.
The rates prescribed shall be nondiscriminatory and shall take into consideration,
among others, the franchise tax. To achieve this objective and to ensure the
complete removal of cross subsidies, the cap on the recoverable rate of system
losses prescribed in Section 10 of Republic Act No. 7832, is hereby amended and
shall be replaced by caps which shall be determined by the ERC based on load
density, sales mix, cost of service, delivery voltage and other technical
considerations it may promulgate. The ERC shall determine such form of ratesetting methodology, which shall promote efficiency. In case the rate setting
methodology used is RORB, it shall be subject to the following guidelines:
(i) For purposes of determining the rate base, the TRANSCO or its Buyer or
Concessionaire or any Distribution Utility may be allowed to revalue its eligible
assets not more than once every three (3) years by an independent appraisal
company: Provided, however, That ERC may give an exemption in case of unusual
devaluation: Provided, further, That the ERC shall exert efforts to minimize price
shocks in order to protect the consumers;
(ii) Interest expenses are not allowable deductions from permissible RORB;
(iii) In determining eligible cost of services that will be passed on to the End-users,
the ERC shall establish minimum efficiency performance standards for the
TRANSCO or its Buyer or Concessionaire and Distribution Utilities including systems
losses, interruption frequency rates, and collection efficiency;
(iv) Further, in determining rate base, the TRANSCO or its Buyer or Concessionaire
or any Distribution Utility shall not be allowed to include management inefficiencies
like cost of project delays not excused by force majeure, penalties and related
interest during construction applicable to these unexcused delays;
(v) Any significant operating costs or project investments of the TRANSCO or its
Buyer or Concessionaire and Distribution Utilities which shall become part of the
rate base shall be subject to verification by the ERC to ensure that the contracting
and procurement of the equipment, assets and services have been subjected to
transparent and accepted industry procurement and purchasing practices to protect
the public interest; and
(vi) The interest incurred during construction may be capitalized and included in the
rate base upon commissioning of the asset.
xxx
[18]
Rule 65, Sec. 4.
Kalipunan ng Damayang Mahihirap, Inc. v. Robredo, G.R. No. 200903, July 22,
2014 730 SCRA 322, 332-333.
[19]
Chamber of Real Estate and Builders' Ass'ns., Inc. v. Energy Regulatory

Commission (ERC), et al, supra, note 10, at 559.
[20]
Heirs of Spouses Hilario and Bernardino N. Marinas v. Bernardo Frianeza, et al.,

G.R. No. 179741, December 9, 2015.
[21]
[22]
Rule 63, Sec. 1.
[23]
Rule 3 of the IRR of R.A. No. 9136 provides:
Section 4. Responsibilities of the ERC.

xxxx
(n) The ERC shall have the original and exclusive jurisdiction over all cases
contesting rates, fees, fines and penalties imposed in the exercise of its powers,
functions and responsibilities and over all cases involving disputes between and
among participants or players in the energy sector relating to the foregoing powers,
functions and responsibilities.
xxxx
(p) All actions taken by the ERC pursuant to the Act are subject to judicial review
and the requirements of due process and the cardinal rights and principles
applicable to quasi-judicial bodies.
xxx
United Overseas Bank of the Philippines, Inc. v. The Board of CommissionersHLURB, G.R No 182133, June 23, 2015.
[24]
Department of Finance v. Hon. Dela Cruz, Jr., G.R. No. 20933 1, August 24
2015.
[25]
[26]
Rollo, p.3.
[27]
Id. at 98-100.
PHILRECA is the national association of all electric cooperatives organized and

registered pursuant to the provisions of P.D. No. 269, as amended. (Rollo, p. 3532).
[28]
[29]
Rollo, p. 100.
[30]
Yu v. Judge Reyes-Carpio, 667 Phil. 474, 481-482 (2011).
[31]
Sec, 4 of R.A. 95 13 ("Renewable Energy Act of 2008") provides:
(kk) "On-Grid System" refers to electrical systems composed of interconnected

transmission lines, distribution lines, substations, and related facilities for the
purpose of conveyance of bulk power on the grid of the Philippines[.]
[32]
Rollo, p. 72.
[33]
Id. at 69.
[34]
Id. at 131.
Pursuant to the declared policy of the State to ensure transparent and reasonable
prices of electricity, R.A. No. 9136 mandates distribution utilities like electric
cooperatives to functionally and structurally identify, separate and unbundle their
rates, charges, and costs. (See Sections 2 (c) and 36 of R.A. No. 9136 as well as
Sec. 4 [j.] Rule 3, Sec. 4 [b.] and [m.l Rule 7, and Sec. 3 [a] Rule 15 of its IRR)
[36]
Rollo, p. 78.
[37]
Id. 131.
[38]
Id.
[39]
Id.
CREATING THE "NATIONAL ELECTRIFICATION ADMINISTRATION" AS A

CORPORATION, PRESCRIBING ITS POWERS AND ACTIVITIES, APPROPRIATING THE
NECESSARY FUNDS THEREFOR AND DECLARING A NATIONAL POLICY OBJECTIVE
FOR THE TOTAL ELECTRIFICATION OF THE PHILIPPINES ON AN AREA COVERAGE
SERVICE BASIS, THE ORGANIZATION, PROMOTION AND DEVELOPMENT OF
ELECTRIC COOPERATIVES TO ATTAIN THE SAID OBJECTIVE, PRESCRIBING TERMS
AND CONDITIONS FOR THEIR OPERATIONS, THE REPEAL OF REPUBLIC ACT NO.
6038, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES (Issued and took effect on August 6, 1973)
[40]
Sec. 2 of P.D. No. 269, as amended by Sec. 2 (a) of R.A. No. 10531 ("National
Electrification Administration Reform Act of 2013") which was signed into law on
May 7, 2013.
[41]
[42]
Section 16 of P.D. No. 269, as amended by Sec. 9 of R. A. No. 10531.
Identical to Sec. 37 of R.A. No. 6038, which was expressly repealed by P.D. No.
269.
[43]
[44]
Sec. 5 (a) Rule 15, IRR of R.A. No. 9136.
See Comment of MORESCO I, MORESCO II, BUSECO, CAMELCO, MOELCI-I,

MOELCI-II, LANECO, FIBECO, and VRESCO (Rollo, pp. 209, 340, 443, 568, 10331034, 1137, 1235-1236, 1359- 1360, 3619). However, in the Comment of LEYECO
II, it stated that ECs under the CDA operate for profit; thus, their rates formula is
Return-On-Rate-Base (RORB) such that its power rate computation has profit factor
component. (Rollo, p. 1848)
[45]
[46]
See Comment of SUKELCO (Rollo, p. 1757).
Sec. 4 of R.A. 9513 ("Renewable Energy Act of 2008") provides:

(jj) "Off-Grid Systems" refer to electrical systems not connected to the wires and
related facilities of the On-Grid Systems of the Philippines[.]
[48]
See Answer-In-Intervention of PHILRECA (Rollo, p. 3544).
[47]
See Comment of impleaded off-grid ECs (BATANELCO, LUBELCO, OMECO,

ORMECO, MARELCO, TIELCO, ROMELCO, BISELCO, MASELCO, BANELCO,
PROSIELCO, BASELCO, and DIELCO) as well as the Answer-In-Intervention of
PHILRECA (Rollo, pp. 860, 2610, 2793, 3071, 3547).
[49]
See Petitioners' Comment and Reply to Answer-In-Intervention of PHILRECA

(Rollo, p. 3928).
[50]
SEC. 7. Compulsory joinder of indispensable parties. - Parties in interest without

whom no finai determination can be had of an action shall be joined either as
plaintiffs or defendants.
[51]
Crisologo v. JEWM Agro-Industrial Corporation, G.R. No. 196894, March 3, 2014,

717 SCRA 644, 656.
[52]

G.R.
PEOPLE
No.
OF
THE
PHILIPPINES,
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
202124
VS.
IRENEO
JUGUETA,
ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
April 05, 2016
EN BANC
[ G.R. No. 202124, April 05, 2016 ]
IRENEO JUGUETA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
DECISION
PERALTA, J.:
This resolves the appeal from the Decision[1] of the Court of Appeals (CA) dated
January 30, 2012 in CA-G.R. CR HC No. 03252. The CA affirmed the judgments of
the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 61, Gumaca, Quezon, finding accusedappellant Ireneo Jugueta y Flores guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Double Murder
in Criminal Case No. 7698-G and Multiple Attempted Murder in Criminal Case No.
7702-G.
In Criminal Case No. 7698-G, appellant was charged with Double Murder, defined
and penalized under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, allegedly committed as
follows:
That on or about the 6th day of June 2002, at about 9:00 o'clock in the evening, at
Barangay Caridad Ilaya, Municipality of Atimonan, Province of Quezon, Philippines,
armed with a caliber .22 firearm, with intent to kill, qualified by treachery and
evident premeditation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously
attack, assault and shoot with said firearm Mary Grace Divina, a minor, 13 years
old, who suffered the following:
"Gunshot wound Point of Entry - lower abdomen, right, 2 cm. from the midline and 6 cm. from the
level of the umbilicus, directed upward toward the left upper abdomen."
and Claudine Divina, a minor, 3 V% years of age, who suffered the following:
"Gunshot wound Point of Entry - 9th ICS along the mid-axillary line, right, 1 cm. diameter
Point of Exit - 7th ICS mid-axillary line, left;"
which directly caused their instant death.
That the crime committed in the dwelling of the offended party who had not given
provocation for the attack and the accused took advantage of nighttime to facilitate
the commission of the offense.
Contrary to law.[2]
In Criminal Case No. 7702-G, appellant, together with Gilbert Estores and Roger
San Miguel, was charged with Multiple Attempted Murder, allegedly committed as
follows:
That on or about 9:00 o'clock in the evening of 6 th day of June, 2002, at Barangay
Caridad Ilaya, Municipality of Atimonan, Province of Quezon, Philippines and within
the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court,the above-named accused, conspiring and
confederating together and mutually helping one another, armed with short
firearms of undetermined calibres, with intent to kill, qualified by treachery, with
evident premeditation and abuse of superior strength, did then and there wilfully,
unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault, and shoot with the said firearms the
house occupied by the family of Norberto Divina, thereby commencing the
commission of the crime of Murder, directly by overt acts, but did not perform all
the acts of execution which would have produced it by reason of some cause or
accident other than the spontaneous desistance of the accused, that is, the
occupants Norberto Divina, his wife Maricel Divina and children Elizabeth Divina and
Judy Ann Divina, both elementary pupils and who are minors, were not hit.
CONTRARY TO LAW.[3]
Roger San Miguel, however, moved for reinvestigation of the case against them. At
said proceedings, one Danilo Fajarillo submitted his sworn statement stating that on
June 6, 2002, he saw appellant with a certain "Hapon" and Gilbert Estores at the
crime scene, but it was only appellant who was carrying a firearm while the other
two had no participation in the shooting incident. Fajarillo further stated that Roger
San Miguel was not present at the crime scene. Based on the sworn statement of
Fajarillo, the Provincial Prosecutor found no prima facie case against Gilbert Estores
and Roger San Miguel.[4] Thus, upon motion of the prosecution, the case for
Attempted Murder against Gilbert Estores and Roger San Miguel was dismissed, and
trial proceeded only as to appellant.[5]
At the trial, the prosecution presented the testimonies of Norberto Divina, the
victim, and Dr. Lourdes Taguinod who executed the Medico-Legal Certificate and
confirmed that the children of Norberto, namely, Mary Grace and Claudine, died
from gunshot wounds. Dr. Taguinod noted that the trajectory of the bullet wounds
showed that the victims were at a higher location than the shooter, but she could
not tell what kind of ammunitions were used.[6]
Norberto testified that the appellant is his brother-in-law. He recounted that in the
evening of June 6, 2002, as his entire family lay down on the floor of their oneroom nipa hut to sleep, the "sack" walling of their hut was suddenly stripped off,
and only the supporting bamboo (fences) remained. With the covering of the wall
gone, the three (3) men responsible for the deed came into view. Norberto clearly
saw their faces which were illuminated by the light of a gas lamp hanging in their
small hut. Norberto identified the 3 men as appellant, Gilbert Estores and Roger
San Miguel.
The 3 men ordered Norberto to come down from his house, but he refused to do so.
The men then uttered, "Magdasal ka na at katapusan mo na ngayon" Norberto
pleaded with them, saying, "Maawa kayo sa amin, matanda na ako at marami
akong anak. Anong kasalanan ko sa inyo?" Despite such plea for mercy, a gunshot
was fired, and Norberto immediately threw his body over his children and wife in an
attempt to protect them from being hit. Thereafter, he heard successive gunshots
being fired in the direction where his family huddled together in their hut. [7]
When the volley of shots ceased and the three (3) men left, Norberto saw that his
two (2) young daughters were wounded. His wife went out of their house to ask for
help from neighbors, while he and his older daughter carried the two (2) wounded
children out to the street. His daughter Mary Grace died on the way to the hospital,
while Claudine expired at the hospital despite the doctors' attempts to revive her.[8]
In answer to questions of what could have prompted such an attack from appellant,
Norberto replied that he had a previous altercation with appellant who was angered
by the fact that he (Norberto) filed a case against appellant's two other brothers for
molesting his daughter.[9]
On the other hand, appellant was only able to proffer denial and alibi as his
defense. Appellant's testimony, along with those of Gilbert Estores, Roger San
Miguel, Isidro San Miguel and Ruben Alegre, was that he (appellant) was just
watching TV at the house of Isidro San Miguel, where he had been living for several
years, at the time the shooting incident occurred. However, he and the other
witnesses admitted that said house was a mere five-minute walk away from the
crime scene.[10]
Finding appellant's defense to be weak, and ascribing more credence to the
testimony of Norberto, the trial court ruled that the evidence clearly established
that appellant, together with two other assailants, conspired to shoot and kill the
family of Norberto. Appellant was then convicted of Double Murder in Criminal Case
No. 7698-G and Multiple Attempted Murder in Criminal Case No. 7702-G.
The dispositive portion of the trial court's judgment in Criminal Case No. 7698-G
reads:
WHEREFORE and in view of all the foregoing, the Court finds accused Ireneo
Jugueta guilty beyond reasonable doubt for Double Murder defined and punished
under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code and is hereby sentenced to
suffer Reclusion Perpetua for the death of Mary Grace Divina and to indemnify her
heirs in the amount of Php50,000.00 and another to suffer Reclusion Perpetua for
the death of Claudine Divina and accused is further ordered to indemnify the heirs
of Claudine Divina in the sum of Php50,000.00. In addition, he is hereby ordered to
pay the heirs of the victims actual damages in the amount of Php16,150.00 and to
pay for the costs,
SO ORDERED.[11]
On the other hand, the dispositive portion of the trial court's judgment in Criminal
Case No. 7702-G, reads:
WHEREFORE and in view of all the foregoing, the Court finds accused Ireneo
Jugueta guilty beyond reasonable doubt for Multiple Attempted Murder defined and
penalized under Article 248 in relation to Article 51 of the Revised Penal Code and is
hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of FOUR (4) YEARS and TWO (2) MONTHS
of Prision Correctional as minimum to EIGHT (8) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY of Prision
Mayor as maximum for each of the offended parties; Norberto Divina, Maricel
Divina, Elizabeth Divina and Judy Ann Divina. Further, accused is ordered to pay for
the costs of the suit.

SO ORDERED.[12]
Aggrieved by the trial court's judgments, appellant appealed to the CA. On January
30, 2012, the CA rendered a Decision affirming appellant's conviction for the crimes
charged.[13]
Dissatisfied with the CA Decision, appellant elevated the case to this Court. On July
30, 2012, the Court issued a Resolution [14] notifying the parties that they may
submit their respective Supplemental Briefs. Both parties manifested that they will
no longer submit supplemental briefs since they had exhaustively discussed their
positions before the CA.[15]
The main issue advanced in the Appellant's Brief deals with the inconsistencies in
Norberto's testimony, such as his failure to state from the beginning that all three
assailants had guns, and to categorically identify appellant as the one holding the
gun used to kill Norberto's children.
The appeal is unmeritorious.
At the outset, it must be stressed that factual findings of the trial court, its
assessment of the credibility of witnesses and the probative weight of their
testimonies, and the conclusions based on these factual findings are to be given the
highest respect. Thus, generally, the Court will not recalibrate and re-examine
evidence that had been analyzed and ruled upon by the trial court and affirmed by
the CA.[16]
The evidence on record fully supports the trial court's factual finding, as affirmed by
the CA, that appellant acted in concert with two other individuals, all three of them
carrying firearms and simultaneously firing at Norberto and his family, killing his
two young daughters. Norberto clearly saw all of the three assailants with their
firearms as there is illumination coming from a lamp inside their house that had
been laid bare after its walling was stripped off, to wit:
Q: When the wall of your house was stripped off by these three persons at the
same time, do you have light in your house?
A: Yes., sir.
Q: What kind of light was there?
A: A gas lamp.
Q: Where was the gas lamp placed at that time?
A: In the middle of our house.

xxxx
Q: when did they fire a shot?
A: On the same night, when they had stripped off the wallings.
Q: How many gunshots did you hear?
A: Only one.
Q: Do you know the sound of a gunshot? A firearm? A: Yes, sir, it is loud? (sic)
xxxx
Q: After the first shot, was there any second shot?
A: After that, successive fire shot (sic) followed and my youngest and eldest
daughters were hit.
xxxx
Q: How many of the three were holding guns at that time?
A: All of them.
Q: You mean to tell the honorable court that these three persons were having one
firearm each?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: And they fired shots at the same time?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: To what direction these three persons fired (sic) their firearms during that night?
A: To the place where we were.
Q: When those three persons were firing their respective firearms, what was your
position then?
A: I ordered my children to lie down.
Q: How about you, what was your position when you were ordering your children to
lie down?
A: (witness demonstrated his position as if covering his children with his body and
ordering them to line (sic) down face down)
Q: Mr. Witness, for how long did these three persons fire shots at your house?
A: Less than five minutes, sir.

Q: After they fired their shots, they left your house?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: And when these persons left your house, you inspected your children to see
what happened to them?
A: Yes, sir, they were hit.
x x x[17]
Appellant and the two other malefactors are equally responsible for the death of
Norberto's daughters because, as ruled by the trial court, they clearly conspired to
kill Norberto's family. Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an
agreement regarding the commission of a crime and decide to commit it. Proof of a
prior meeting between the perpetrators to discuss the commission of the crime is
not necessary as long as their concerted acts reveal a common design and unity of
purpose. In such case, the act of one is the act of all. [18] Here, the three men
undoubtedly acted in concert as they went to the house of Norberto together, each
with his own firearm. It is, therefore, no longer necessary to identify and prove that
it is the bullet particularly fired from appellant's firearm that killed the children.
Murder is defined under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code as the unlawful killing
of a person, which is not parricide or infanticide, attended by circumstances such as
treachery or evident premeditation.[19] The presence of any one of the
circumstances enumerated in Article 248 of the Code is sufficient to qualify a killing
as murder.[20] The trial court correctly ruled that appellant is liable for murder
because treachery attended the killing of Norberto's two children, thus:
xxx Evidence adduced show that the family of Norberto Divina, were all lying down
side by side about to sleep on June 6, 2002 at around 9:00 o'clock in the evening,
when suddenly their wall made of sack was stripped off by [appellant] Ireneo
Jugueta, Roger San Miguel and Gilbcrto Alegre (sic) [Gilbert Estores]. They ordered
him to go out of their house and when he refused despite his plea for mercy, they
fired at them having hit and killed his two (2) daughters. The family of Norberto
Divina were unarmed and his children were at very tender ages. Mary Grace Divina
and Claudine who were shot and killed were 13 years old and 3 lA years old
respectively. In this case, the victims were defenseless and manifestly overpowered
by armed assailants when they were gunned down. There was clear showing that
the attack was made suddenly and unexpectedly as to render the victims helpless
and unable to defend themselves. Norberto and his wife and his children could have
already been asleep at that time of the night, xxx[21]
Verily, the presence of treachery qualified the killing of the hapless children to
murder. As held in People v. Fallorina,[22] the essence of treachery is the sudden and
unexpected attack on an unsuspecting victim without the slightest provocation on
his part. Minor children, who by reason of their tender years, cannot be expected to
put up a defense. When an adult person illegally attacks a child, treachery exists.
As to the charge of multiple attempted murder, the last paragraph of Article 6 of the
Revised Penal Code states that a felony is attempted when the offender commences
the commission of a felony directly by overt acts, and does not perform all the acts
of execution which should produce the felony by reason of some cause or accident
other than his own spontaneous desistance. In Esqueda v. People,[23] the Court
held:
If one inflicts physical injuries on another but the latter survives, the crime
committed is either consummated physical injuries, if the offender had no intention
to kill the victim, or frustrated or attempted homicide or frustrated murder or
attempted murder if the offender intends to kill the victim. Intent to kill may be
proved by evidence of: (a) motive; (b) the nature or number of weapons used in
the commission of the crime; (c) the nature and number of wounds inflicted on the
victim; (d) the manner the crime was committed; and (e) the words uttered by the
offender at the time the injuries are inflicted by him on the victim.
In this case, the prosecution has clearly established the intent to kill on the part of
appellant as shown by the use of firearms, the words uttered [24] during, as well as
the manner of, the commission of the crime. The Court thus quotes with approval
the trial court's finding that appellant is liable for attempted murder, viz.:
In the case at bar, the perpetrators who acted in concert commenced the felony of
murder first by suddenly stripping off the wall of their house, followed by successive
firing at the intended victims when Norberto Divina refused to go out of the house
as ordered by them. If only there were good in aiming their target, not only Mary
Grace and Claudine had been killed but surely all the rest of the family would surely
have died. Hence, perpetrators were liable for Murder of Mary Grace Divina and
Claudine Divina but for Multiple Attempted Murder for Norberto Divina, Maricel
Divina, Elizabeth Divina and Judy Ann Divina. But as [appellant] Ireneo Jugueta was
the only one charged in this case, he alone is liable for the crime committed. [25]
Meanwhile, the supposed inconsistencies in Norberto's testimony, i.e., that he failed
to state from the very beginning that all three assailants were carrying firearms,
and that it was the shots from appellant's firearm that killed the children, are too
trivial and inconsequential to put a dent on said witness's credibility. An
examination of Norberto's testimony would show that there are no real
inconsistencies to speak of. As ruled in People v. Cabtalan,[26] "[m]inor

inconsistencies and discrepancies pertaining to trivial matters do not affect the
credibility of witnesses, as well as their positive identification of the accused as the
perpetrators of the crime."[27] Both the trial court and the CA found Norberto's
candid and straightforward testimony to be worthy of belief and this Court sees no
reason why it should not conform to the principle reiterated in Medina, Jr. v.
People[28] that:
Time and again, this Court has deferred to the trial court's factual findings and
evaluation of the credibility of witnesses, especially when affirmed by the CA, in the
absence of any clear showing that the trial court overlooked or misconstrued cogent
facts and circumstances that would justify altering or revising such findings and
evaluation. This is because the trial court's determination proceeds from its firsthand opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witnesses, their conduct and
attitude under grilling examination, thereby placing the trial court in unique position
to assess the witnesses' credibility and to appreciate their truthfulness, honesty and
candor x x x.[29]
The records of this case, particularly the testimonies of the witnesses, reveal no
outstanding or exceptional circumstance to justify a deviation from such longstanding principle. There is no cogent reason to overturn the trial court's ruling that
the prosecution evidence, particularly the testimony of Norberto Divina identifying
appellant as one of the assailants, is worthy of belief. Thus, the prosecution
evidence established beyond any reasonable doubt that appellant is one of the
perpetrators of the crime.
However, the Court must make a clarification as to the nomenclature used by the
trial court to identify the crimes for which appellant was penalized. There is some
confusion caused by the trial court's use of the terms "Double Murder" and "Multiple
Attempted Murder" in convicting appellant, and yet imposing penalties which
nevertheless show that the trial court meant to penalize appellant for two (2)
separate counts of Murder and four (4) counts of Attempted Murder.
The facts, as alleged in the Information in Criminal Case No. 7698-G, and as proven
during trial, show that appellant is guilty of 2 counts of the crime of Murder and not
Double Murder, as the killing of the victims was not the result of a single act but of
several acts of appellant and his cohorts. In the same vein, appellant is also guilty
of 4 counts of the crime of Attempted Murder and not Multiple Attempted Murder in
Criminal Case No. 7702-G. It bears stressing that the Informations in this case
failed to comply with the requirement in Section 13, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules
of Court that an information must charge only one offense.
As a general rule, a complaint or information must charge only one offense,
otherwise, the same is defective. The reason for the rule is stated in People of the
Philippines and AAA v. Court of Appeals, 21st Division, Mindanao Station, et al.,
[30]
thus:
The rationale behind this rule prohibiting duplicitous complaints or informations is to
give the accused the necessary knowledge of the charge against him and enable
him to sufficiently prepare for his defense. The State should not heap upon the
accused two or more charges which might confuse him in his defense. Noncompliance with this rule is a ground for quashing the duplicitous complaint or
information under Rule 117 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure and the accused
may raise the same in a motion to quash before he enters his plea, otherwise, the
defect is deemed waived.
However, since appellant entered a plea of not guilty during arraignment and failed
to move for the quashal of the Informations, he is deemed to have waived his right
to question the same. Section 9 of Rule 117 provides that "[t]he failure of the
accused to assert any ground of a motion to quash before he pleads to the
complaint or information, either because he did not file a motion to quash or failed
to allege the same in said motion, shall be deemed a waiver of any objections
except those based on the grounds provided for in paragraphs (a), (b), (g), and (i)
of Section 3 of this Rule."
It is also well-settled that when two or more offenses are charged in a single
complaint or information but the accused fails to object to it before trial, the court
may convict him of as many offenses as are charged and proved, and impose upon
him the proper penalty for each offense.[31] Appellant can therefore be held liable for
all the crimes alleged in the Informations in Criminal Case Nos. 7698-G and 7702G, i.e., 2 counts of murder and 4 counts of attempted murder, respectively, and
proven during trial.
Meanwhile, in People v. Nelmida,[32] the Court explained the concept of a complex
crime as defined in Article 48[33] of the Revised Penal Code, thus:
In a complex crime, two or more crimes are actually committed, however, in the
eyes of the law and in the conscience of the offender they constitute only one
crime, thus, only one penalty is imposed. There are two kinds of complex crime.
The first is known as a compound crime, or when a single act constitutes two or
more grave or less grave felonies while the other is known as a complex crime
proper, or when an offense is a necessary means for committing the other. The
classic example of the first kind is when a single bullet results in the death of two or
more persons. A different rule governs where separate and distinct acts result in a
number killed. Deeply rooted is the doctrine that when various victims expire from
separate shot, such acts constitute separate and distinct crimes. [34]
Here, the facts surrounding the shooting incident clearly show that appellant and
the two others, in firing successive and indiscriminate shots at the family of
Norberto from their respective firearms, intended to kill not only Norberto, but his
entire family. When several gunmen, as in this case, indiscriminately fire a series of
shots at a group of people, it shows their intention to kill several individuals. Hence,
they are committing not only one crime. What appellant and his cohorts committed
cannot be classified as a complex crime because as held in People v. Nelmida,
[35]
"each act by each gunman pulling the trigger of their respective firearms, aiming
each particular moment at different persons constitute distinct and individual acts
which cannot give rise to a complex crime."[36]
Furthermore, the Court notes that both the trial court and the CA failed to take into
account dwelling as an ordinary, aggravating circumstance, despite the fact that the
Informations in Criminal Case Nos. 7698-G and 7702-G contain sufficient
allegations to that effect, to wit:
Criminal Case No. 7698-G for Double Murder:
That the crime was committed in the dwelling of the offended party who had not
given provocation for the attack and the accused took advantage of nighttime to
facilitate the commission of the offense.[37]
Criminal Case No. 7702-G for Multiple Attempted Murder:
xxx the above-named accused, conspiring and confederating together and mutually
helping one another, armed with short firearms of undetermined calibres, with
intent to kill, qualified by treachery, with evident premeditation and abuse of
superior strength, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack,
assault, and shoot with the said firearms the house occupied by the family of
Norberto Divina, thereby commencing the commission of the crime of Murder,
directly by overt acts, but did not perform all the acts of execution which would
have produced it by reason of some cause or accident other than the spontaneous
desistance of the accused x x x[38]
In People v. Agcanas,[39] the Court stressed that "[i]t has been held in a long line of
cases that dwelling is aggravating because of the sanctity of privacy which the law
accords to human abode. He who goes to another's house to hurt him or do him
wrong is more guilty than he who offends him elsewhere." Dwelling aggravates a
felony where the crime is committed in the dwelling of the offended party provided
that the latter has not given provocation therefor.[40] The testimony of Norberto
established the fact that the group of appellant violated the victims' home by
destroying the same and attacking his entire family therein, without provocation on
the part of the latter. Hence, the trial court should have appreciated dwelling as an
ordinary aggravating circumstance.
In view of the attendant ordinary aggravating circumstance, the Court must modify
the penalties imposed on appellant. Murder is punishable by reclusion perpetua to
death, thus, with an ordinary aggravating circumstance of dwelling, the imposable
penalty is death for each of two (2) counts of murder.[41] However, pursuant to
Republic Act (RA) No. 9346, proscribing the imposition of the death penalty, the
penalty to be imposed on appellant should be reclusion perpetua for each of the two
(2) counts of murder without eligibility for parole. With regard to the four (4)
counts of attempted murder, the penalty prescribed for each count is prision
mayor. With one ordinary aggravating circumstance, the penalty should be imposed
in its maximum period. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the maximum
penalty should be from ten (10) years and one (1) day to twelve (12) years
of prision mayor, while the minimum shall be taken from the penalty next lower in
degree, i.e., prision correccional, in any of its periods, or anywhere from six (6)
months and one (1) day to six (6) years. This Court finds it apt to impose on
appellant the indeterminate penalty of four (4) years, two (2) months and one (1)
day of prision correccional, as minimum, to ten (10) years and one (1) day
of prision mayor, as minimum, for each of the four (4) counts of attempted murder.
Anent the award of damages, the Court deems it proper to address the matter in
detail as regards criminal cases where the imposable penalty is reclusion
perpetua to death. Generally, in these types of criminal cases, there are three kinds
of damages awarded by the Court; namely: civil indemnity, moral, and exemplary
damages. Likewise, actual damages may be awarded or temperate damages in
some instances.
First, civil indemnity ex delicto is the indemnity authorized in our criminal law for
the offended party, in the amount authorized by the prevailing judicial policy and
apart from other proven actual damages, which itself is equivalent to actual or
compensatory damages in civil law.[42]
This award stems from Article 100 of the RPC which states, "Every person criminally
liable for a felony is also civilly liable."
It is to be noted that civil indemnity is, technically, not a penalty or a fine; hence, it
can be increased by the Court when appropriate. [43] Article 2206 of the Civil Code
provides:
Art. 2206. The amount of damages for death caused by a crime or quasi-delict shall
be at least three thousand pesos, even though there may have been mitigating
circumstances. In addition:
(1) The defendant shall be liable for the loss of the earning capacity of the
deceased, and the indemnity shall be paid to the heirs of the latter; such indemnity
shall in every case be assessed and awarded by the court, unless the deceased on
account of permanent physical disability not caused by the defendant, had no
earning capacity at the time of his death;
(2) If the deceased was obliged to give support according to the provisions of
Article 291, the recipient who is not an heir called to the decedent's inheritance by
the law of testate or intestate succession, may demand support from the person
causing the death, for a period not exceeding five years, the exact duration to be
fixed by the court;
(3) The spouse, legitimate and illegitimate descendants and ascendants of the
deceased may demand moral damages for mental anguish by reason of the death
of the deceased.
In our jurisdiction, civil indemnity is awarded to the offended party as a kind of
monetary restitution or compensation to the victim for the damage or infraction
that was done to the latter by the accused, which in a sense only covers the civil
aspect. Precisely, it is civil indemnity. Thus, in a crime where a person dies, in
addition to the penalty of imprisonment imposed to the offender, the accused is also
ordered to pay the victim a sum of money as restitution. Also, it is apparent from
Article 2206 that the law only imposes a minimum amount for awards of civil
indemnity, which is P3,000.00. The law did not provide for a ceiling. Thus, although
the minimum amount for the award cannot be changed, increasing the amount
awarded as civil indemnity can be validly modified and increased when the present
circumstance warrants it.[44]
The second type of damages the Court awards are moral damages, which are also
compensatory in nature. Del Mundo v. Court of Appeals[45] expounded on the nature
and purpose of moral damages, viz.:
Moral damages, upon the other hand, may be awarded to compensate one for
manifold injuries such as physical suffering, mental anguish, serious anxiety,
besmirched reputation, wounded feelings and social humiliation. These damages
must be understood to be in the concept of grants, not punitive or corrective in
nature, calculated to compensate the claimant for the injury suffered. Although
incapable of exactness and no proof of pecuniary loss is necessary in order that
moral damages may be awarded, the amount of indemnity being left to the
discretion of the court, it is imperative, nevertheless, that (1) injury must have
been suffered by the claimant, and (2) such injury must have sprung from any of
the cases expressed in Article 2219[46] and Article 2220[47] of the Civil Code, x x x.
Similarly, in American jurisprudence, moral damages are treated as "compensatory

damages awarded for mental pain and suffering or mental anguish resulting from a
wrong."[48] They may also be considered and allowed "for resulting pain and
suffering, and for humiliation, indignity, and vexation suffered by the plaintiff as
result of his or her assailant's conduct, as well as the factors of provocation, the
reasonableness of the force used, the attendant humiliating circumstances, the sex
of the victim, [and] mental distress."[49]
The rationale for awarding moral damages has been explained in Lambert v. Heirs
ofRey Castillon: "[T]he award of moral damages is aimed at a restoration, within
the limits possible, of the spiritual status quo ante; and therefore, it must be
proportionate to the suffering inflicted." [50]
Corollarily, moral damages under Article 2220[51] of the Civil Code also does not fix
the amount of damages that can be awarded. It is discretionary upon the court,
depending on the mental anguish or the suffering of the private offended party. The
amount of moral damages can, in relation to civil indemnity, be adjusted so long as
it does not exceed the award of civil indemnity.[52]
Finally, the Civil Code of the Philippines provides, in respect to exemplary damages,
thus:
ART. 2229. Exemplary or corrective damages are imposed, by way of example or
correction for the public good, in addition to the moral, temperate, liquidated or
compensatory damages.
ART. 2230. In criminal offenses, exemplary damages as a part of the civil liability
may be imposed when the crime was committed with one or more aggravating
circumstances. Such damages are separate and distinct from fines and shall be paid
to the offended party.
Also known as "punitive" or "vindictive" damages, exemplary or corrective damages
are intended to serve as a deterrent to serious wrong doings, and as a vindication
of undue sufferings and wanton invasion of the rights of an injured or a punishment
for those guilty of outrageous conduct. These terms are generally, but not always,
used interchangeably. In common law, there is preference in the use of exemplary
damages when the award is to account for injury to feelings and for the sense of
indignity and humiliation suffered by a person as a result of an injury that has been
maliciously and wantonly inflicted,[53] the theory being that there should be
compensation for the hurt caused by the highly reprehensible conduct of the
defendant associated with such circumstances as willfulness, wantonness,
malice, gross negligence or recklessness, oppression, insult or fraud or gross
fraud[54] - that intensifies the injury. The terms punitive or vindictive damages are
often used to refer to those species of damages that may be awarded against a
person to punish him for his outrageous conduct. In either case, these damages are
intended in good measure to deter the wrongdoer and others like him from similar
conduct in the future.[55]
The term aggravating circumstances used by the Civil Code, the law not having
specified otherwise, is to be understood in its broad or generic sense. The
commission of an offense has a two-pronged effect, one on the public as it
breaches the social order and the other upon the private victim as it causes
personal sufferings, each of which is addressed by, respectively, the prescription of
heavier punishment for the accused and by an award of additional damages to the
victim. The increase of the penalty or a shift to a graver felony underscores the
exacerbation of the offense by the attendance of aggravating circumstances,
whether ordinary or qualifying, in its commission. Unlike the criminal liability which
is basically a State concern, the award of damages, however, is likewise, if not
primarily, intended for the offended party who suffers thereby. It would make little
sense for an award of exemplary damages to be due the private offended party
when the aggravating circumstance is ordinary but to be withheld when it is
qualifying. Withal, the ordinary or qualifying nature of an aggravating circumstance
is a distinction that should only be of consequence to the criminal, rather than to
the civil, liability of the offender. In fine, relative to the civil aspect of the case, an
aggravating circumstance, whether ordinary or qualifying, should entitle the
offended party to an award of exemplary damages within the unbridled meaning of
Article 2230 of the Civil Code.[56]
The reason is fairly obvious as to why the Revised Rules of Criminal
Procedure[57] requires aggravating circumstances, whether ordinary or qualifying, to
be stated in the complaint or information. It is in order not to trample on the
constitutional right of an accused to be informed of the nature of the alleged
offense that he or she has committed. A criminal complaint or information should
basically contain the elements of the crime, as well as its qualifying and ordinary
aggravating circumstances, for the court to effectively determine the proper penalty
it should impose. This, however, is not similar in the recovery of civil liability. In the
civil aspect, the presence of an aggravating circumstance, even if not alleged in the
information but proven during trial would entitle the victim to an award of
exemplary damages.
Being corrective in nature, exemplary damages, therefore, can be awarded, not
only due to the presence of an aggravating circumstance, but also where the
circumstances of the case show the highly reprehensible or outrageous conduct of
the offender. In much the same way as Article 2230 prescribes an instance when
exemplary damages may be awarded, Article 2229, the main provision, lays down
the very basis of the award. Thus, in People v, Matrimonio,[58] the Court imposed
exemplary damages to deter other fathers with perverse tendencies or aberrant
sexual behavior from sexually abusing their own daughters. Also, in People v.
Cristobal,[59] the Court awarded exemplary damages on account of the moral
corruption, perversity and wickedness of the accused in sexually assaulting a
pregnant married woman. In People v. Caada,[60] People v. Neverio[61] and People
v. Layco, Sr. ,[62] the Court awarded exemplary damages to set a public example, to
serve as deterrent to elders who abuse and corrupt the youth, and to protect the
latter from sexual abuse.
Existing jurisprudence pegs the award of exemplary damages at P30,000.00,
[63]
despite the lack of any aggravating circumstance. The Court finds it proper to
increase the amount to P50,000.00 in order to deter similar conduct.
If, however, the penalty for the crime committed is death, which cannot be imposed
because of the provisions of R.A. No. 9346, prevailing jurisprudence [64] sets the
amount of P100,000.00 as exemplary damages.
Before awarding any of the above mentioned damages, the Court, however, must
first consider the penalty imposed by law. Under RA 7659 or An Act to Impose the
Death Penalty on Certain Heinous Crimes, Amending for that Purpose the Revised
Penal Laws, and for Other Purposes, certain crimes under the RPC and special penal
laws were amended to impose the death penalty under certain circumstances.
[65]
Under the same law, the following crimes are punishable by reclusion perpetua:
piracy in general,[66] mutiny on the high seas,[67] and simple rape.[68] For the
following crimes, RA 7659 has imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death:
qualified piracy;[69] qualified bribery under certain circumstances; [70] parricide;
[71]
murder;[72] infanticide, except when committed by the mother of the child for the
purpose of concealing her dishonor or either of the maternal grandparents for the
same purpose;[73] kidnapping and serious illegal detention under certain
circumstances;[74] robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons under
certain circumstances;[75] destructive arson, except when death results as a
consequence of the commission of any of the acts penalized under the article;
[76]
attempted or frustrated rape, when a homicide is committed by reason or on
occasion thereof; plunder; and carnapping, when the driver or occupant of the
carnapped motor vehicle is killed or raped in the course of the commission of the
carnapping or on the occasion thereof.[78] Finally, RA 7659 imposes the death
penalty on the following crimes:
(a) In qualified bribery, when it is the public officer who asks or demands the gift or
present.
b) In kidnapping and serious illegal detention: (i) when the kidnapping or detention
was committed for the purpose of extorting ransom from the victim or any other
person; (ii) when the victim is killed or dies as a consequence of the detention; (iii)
when the victim is raped, subjected to torture or dehumanizing acts.
(c) In destructive arson, when as a consequence of the commission of any of the
acts penalized under Article 320, death results.
(d) In rape: (i) when by reason or on occasion of the rape, the victim becomes
insane or homicide is committed; (ii) when committed with any of the following
attendant circumstances: (1) when the victim is under eighteen (18) years of age
and the offender is a parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian, relative by
consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, or the common-law-spouse of
the parent of the victim; (2) when the victim is under the custody of the police or
military authorities; (3) when the rape is committed in full view of the husband,
parent, any of the children or other relatives within the third degree of
consanguinity; (4) when the victim is a religious or a child below seven years old;
(5) when the offender knows that he is afflicted with Acquired Immune Deficiency
Syndrome (AIDS) disease; (6) when committed by any member of the Armed
Forces of the Philippines or the Philippine National Police or any law enforcement
agency; and (7) when by reason or on the occasion of the rape, the victim has
suffered permanent physical mutilation.
From these heinous crimes, where the imposable penalties consist of two (2)
indivisible penalties or single indivisible penalty, all of them must be taken in
relation to Article 63 of the RPC, which provides:
Article 63. Rules for the application of indivisible penalties. - In all cases in which
the law prescribes a single indivisible penalty, it shall be applied by the courts
regardless of any mitigating or aggravating circumstances that may have attended
the commission of the deed.
In all cases in which the law prescribes a penalty composed of two indivisible
penalties, the following rules shall be observed in the application thereof:
1. when in the commission of the deed there is present only one aggravating
circumstance, the greater penalty shall be applied.
2. when there are neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstances in the
commission of the deed, the lesser penalty shall be applied.
3. when the commission of the act is attended by some mitigating circumstance
and there is no aggravating circumstance, the lesser penalty shall be applied.
4. when both mitigating and aggravating circumstances attended the commission of

the act, the courts shall reasonably allow them to offset one another in
consideration of their number and importance, for the purpose of applying the
penalty in accordance with the preceding rules, according to the result of such
compensation. (Revised Penal Code, Art. 63)
Thus, in order to impose the proper penalty, especially in cases of indivisible
penalties, the court has the duty to ascertain the presence of any mitigating or
aggravating circumstances. Accordingly, in crimes where the imposable penalty
is reclusion perpetua to death, the court can impose either reclusion perpetua or
death, depending on the mitigating or aggravating circumstances present.
But with the enactment of RA 9346 or An Act Prohibiting the Imposition of Death
Penalty in the Philippines, the imposition of death penalty is now prohibited. It
provides that in lieu of the death penalty, the penalty of reclusion perpetua shall be
imposed when the law violated makes use of the nomenclature of the penalties of
the RPC.[79]
As a result, the death penalty can no longer be imposed. Instead, they have to
impose reclusion perpetua. Despite this, the principal consideration for the award of
damages, following the ruling in People v. Salome[80] and People v. Quiachon[81] is
"the penalty provided by law or imposable for the offense because of its
heinousness, not the public penalty actually imposed on the offender." [82]
When the circumstances surrounding the crime would justify the imposition of the
death penalty were it not for RA 9346, the Court has ruled, as early as July 9, 1998
inPeople v. Victor[83] that the award of civil indemnity for the crime of rape -when
punishable by death should be P75,000.00 We reasoned that "[t]his is not only a
reaction to the apathetic societal perception of the penal law and the financial
fluctuations over time, but also an expression of the displeasure of the Court over
the incidence of heinous crimes against chastity."[84] Such reasoning also applies to
all heinous crimes found in RA 7659. The amount was later increased to
P100,000.00.[85]
In addition to this, the Court likewise awards moral damages. In People v.
Arizapa[86] P50,000.00 was awarded as moral damages without need of pleading or
proving them, for in rape cases, it is recognized that the victim's injury is
concomitant with and necessarily results from the odious crime of rape to warrant
per se the award of moral damages.[87] Subsequently, the amount was increased to
P75,000.00 in People v. Soriano[88] and P100,000.00 in People v. Gambao[89]
Essentially, despite the fact that the death penalty cannot be imposed because of
RA 9346, the imposable penalty as provided by the law for the crime, such as those
found in RA 7569, must be used as the basis for awarding damages and not the
actual penalty imposed.
Again, for crimes where the imposable penalty is death in view of the attendance of
an ordinary aggravating circumstance but due to the prohibition to impose the
death penalty, the actual penalty imposed is reclusion perpetna, the latest
jurisprudence[90] pegs the amount of P100,000.00 as civil indemnity and
P100,0000.00 as moral damages. For the qualifying aggravating circumstance
and/or the ordinary aggravating circumstances present, the amount of P100,000.00
is awarded as exemplary damages aside from civil indemnity and moral damages.
Regardless of the attendance of qualifying aggravating circumstance, the exemplary
damages shall be fixed at P100,000.00. "[T]his is not only a reaction to the
apathetic societal perception of the penal law and the financial fluctuation over
time, but also an expression of the displeasure of the Court over the incidence of
heinous crimes x x x."[91]
When the circumstances surrounding the crime call for the imposition of reclusion
perpetua only, there being no ordinary aggravating circumstance, the Court rules
that the proper amounts should be P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as
moral damages and P75,000.00 exemplary damages, regardless of the number of
qualifying aggravating circumstances present.
When it comes to compound and complex crimes, although the single act done by
the offender caused several crimes, the fact that those were the result of a single
design, the amount of civil indemnity and moral damages will depend on the
penalty and the number of victims. For each of the victims, the heirs should be
properly compensated. If it is multiple murder without any ordinary aggravating
circumstance but merely a qualifying aggravating circumstance, but the penalty
imposed is death because of Art. 48 of the RPC wherein the maximum penalty shall
be imposed,[92] then, for every victim who dies, the heirs shall be indemnified with
P100,000.00 as civil indemnity, P100,000.00 as moral damages and P100,000.00
as exemplary damages.
In case of a special complex crime, which is different from a complex crime under
Article 48 of the RPC, the following doctrines are noteworthy:
In People of the Philippines v. Conrado Laog,[93] this Court ruled that special
complex crime, or more properly, a composite crime, has its own definition and
special penalty in the Revised Penal Code, as amended. Justice Regalado, in his
Separate Opinion in the case of People v. Barros,[94] explained that composite
crimes are "neither of the same legal basis as nor subject to the rules on complex
crimes in Article 48 [of the Revised Penal Code], since they do not consist of a
single act giving rise to two or more grave or less grave felonies [compound crimes]
nor do they involve an offense being a necessary means to commit another

[complex crime proper]. However, just like the regular complex crimes and the
present case of aggravated illegal possession of firearms, only a single penalty is
imposed for each of such composite crimes although composed of two or more
offenses."[95]
In People v. De Leon,[96] we expounded on the special complex crime of robbery
with homicide, as follows:
In robbery with homicide, the original criminal design of the malefactor is to
commit robbery, with homicide perpetrated on the occasion or by reason of the
robbery. The intent to commit robbery must precede the taking of human life. The
homicide may take place before, during or after the robbery. It is only the result
obtained, without reference or distinction as to the circumstances, causes or modes
or persons intervening in the commission of the crime that has to be taken into
consideration. There is no such felony of robbery with homicide through reckless
imprudence or simple negligence. The constitutive elements of the crime, namely,
robbery with homicide, must be consummated.
It is immaterial that the death would supervene by mere accident; or that the
victim of homicide is other than the victim of robbery, or that two or more persons
are killed, or that aside from the homicide, rape, intentional mutilation, or
usurpation of authority, is committed by reason or on the occasion of the crime.
Likewise immaterial is the fact that the victim of homicide is one of the robbers; the
felony would still be robbery with homicide. Once a homicide is committed by or on
the occasion of the robbery, the felony committed is robbery with homicide. All the
felonies committed by reason of or on the occasion of the robbery are integrated
into one and indivisible felony of robbery with homicide. The word "homicide" is
used in its generic sense. Homicide, thus, includes murder, parricide, and
infanticide.[97]
In the special complex crime of rape with homicide, the term "homicide" is to be
understood in its generic sense, and includes murder and slight physical injuries
committed by reason or on occasion of the rape.[98] Hence, even if any or all of the
circumstances (treachery, abuse of superior strength and evident premeditation)
alleged in the information have been duly established by the prosecution, the same
would not qualify the killing to murder and the crime committed by appellant is still
rape with homicide. As in the case of robbery with homicide, the aggravating
circumstance of treachery is to be considered as a generic aggravating
circumstance only. Thus we ruled in People v. Macabales:[99]
Finally, appellants contend that the trial court erred in concluding that the
aggravating circumstance of treachery is present. They aver that treachery applies
to crimes against persons and not to crimes against property. However, we find that
the trial court in this case correctly characterized treachery as a generic
aggravating, rather than qualifying, circumstance. Miguel was rendered helpless by
appellants in defending himself when his arms were held by two of the attackers
before he was stabbed with a knife by appellant Macabales, as their other
companions surrounded them. In People v. Salvatierra, we ruled that when alevosia
(treachery) obtains in the special complex crime of robbery with homicide, such
treachery is to be regarded as a generic aggravating circumstance. Robbery with
homicide is a composite crime with its own definition and special penalty in the
Revised Penal Code. There is no special complex crime of robbery with murder
under the Revised Penal Code. Here, treachery forms part of the circumstances
proven concerning the actual commission of the complex crime. Logically it could
not qualify the homicide to murder but, as generic aggravating circumstance, it
helps determine the penalty to be imposed.[100]
Applying the above discussion on special complex crimes, if the penalty is death but
it cannot be imposed due to RA 9346 and what is actually imposed is the penalty
of reclusion perpetua, the civil indemnity and moral damages will be P100,000.00
each, and another P100,000.00 as exemplary damages in view of the heinousness
of the crime and to set an example. If there is another composite crime included in
a special complex crime and the penalty imposed is death, an additional
P100,000.00 as civil indemnity, P100,000.00 moral damages and P100,000.00
exemplary damages shall be awarded for each composite crime committed.
For example, in case of Robbery with Homicide[101] wherein three (3) people died as
a consequence of the crime, the heirs of the victims shall be entitled to the award
of damages as discussed earlier. This is true, however, only if those who were killed
were the victims of the robbery or mere bystanders and not when those who died
were the perpetrators or robbers themselves because the crime of robbery with
homicide may still be committed even if one of the robbers dies. [102] This is also
applicable in robbery with rape where there is more than one victim of rape.
In awarding civil indemnity and moral damages, it is also important to determine
the stage in which the crime was committed and proven during the trial. Article 6 of
the RPC provides:
Art. 6. Consummated, frustrated, and attempted felonies. -Consummated felonies,
as well as those which are frustrated and attempted, are punishable.
A felony is consummated when all the elements necessary for its execution and
accomplishment are present; and it is frustrated when an offender performs all the
acts of execution which would produce the felony as a consequence but which,
nevertheless, do not produce it by reason of causes independent of the will of the
perpetrator.
There is an attempt when the offender commences the commission of a felony
directly by overt acts, and does not perform all the acts of execution which should
produce the felony by reason of some cause or accident other than his own
spontaneous desistance.
As discussed earlier, when the crime proven is consummated and the penalty
imposed is death but reduced to reclusion perpetua because of R.A. 9346, the civil
indemnity and moral damages that should be awarded will each be P100,000.00
and another P100,000.00 for exemplary damages or when the circumstances of the
crime call for the imposition of reclusion perpetua only, the civil indemnity and
moral damages should be P75,000.00 each, as well as exemplary damages in the
amount of P75,000.00. If, however, the crime proven is in its frustrated stage, the
civil indemnity and moral damages that should be awarded will each be
P50,000.00, and an award of P25,000.00 civil indemnity and P25,000.00 moral
damages when the crime proven is in its attempted stage. The difference in the
amounts awarded for the stages is mainly due to the disparity in the outcome of
the crime committed, in the same way that the imposable penalty varies for each
stage of the crime. The said amounts of civil indemnity and moral damages
awarded in cases of felonies in their frustrated or attempted stages shall be the
bases when the crimes committed constitute complex crime under Article 48 of the
RPC. For example, in a crime of murder with attempted murder, the amount of civil
indemnity, moral damages and exemplary damages is P100,000.00 each, while in
the attempted murder, the civil indemnity, moral damages and exemplary damages
is P25,000.00 each.
In a special complex crime, like robbery with homicide, if, aside from homicide,
several victims (except the robbers) sustained injuries, they shall likewise be
indemnified. It must be remembered that in a special complex crime, unlike in a
complex crime, the component crimes have no attempted or frustrated stages
because the intention of the offender/s is to commit the principal crime which is to
rob but in the process of committing the said crime, another crime is committed.
For example, if on the occasion of a robbery with homicide, other victims sustained
injuries, regardless of the severity, the crime committed is still robbery with
homicide as the injuries become part of the crime, "Homicide", in the special
complex crime of robbery with homicide, is understood in its generic sense and now
forms part of the essential element of robbery,[103] which is the use of violence or
the use of force upon anything. Hence, the nature and severity of the injuries
sustained by the victims must still be determined for the purpose of awarding civil
indemnity and damages. If a victim suffered mortal wounds and could have died if
not for a timely medical intervention, the victim should be awarded civil indemnity,
moral damages, and exemplary damages equivalent to the damages awarded in a
frustrated stage, and if a victim suffered injuries that are not fatal, an award of civil
indemnity, moral damages and exemplary damages should likewise be awarded
equivalent to the damages awarded in an attempted stage.
In other crimes that resulted in the death of a victim and the penalty consists of
divisible penalties, like homicide, death under tumultuous affray, reckless
imprudence resulting to homicide, the civil indemnity awarded to the heirs of the
victim shall be P50,000.00 and P50,000.00 moral damages without exemplary
damages being awarded. However, an award of P50,000.00 exemplary damages in
a crime of homicide shall be added if there is an aggravating circumstance present
that has been proven but not alleged in the information.
Aside from those discussed earlier, the Court also awards temperate damages in
certain cases. The award of P25,000.00 as temperate damages in homicide or
murder cases is proper when no evidence of burial and funeral expenses is
presented in the trial court.[104] Under Article 2224 of the Civil Code, temperate
damages may be recovered, as it cannot be denied that the heirs of the victims
suffered pecuniary loss although the exact amount was not proved. [105] In this case,
the Court now increases the amount to be awarded as temperate damages to
P50,000.00.
In the case at bar, the crimes were aggravated by dwelling, and the murders
committed were further made atrocious by the fact that the victims are innocent,
defenseless minors one is a mere 3 1/2-year-old toddler, and the other a 13year-old girl. The increase in the amount of awards for damages is befitting to show
not only the Court's, but all of society's outrage over such crimes and wastage of
lives.
In summary:
I. For those crimes[106] like, Murder,[107] Parricide,[108] Serious Intentional Mutilation,
[109]
Infanticide,[110] and other crimes involving death of a victim where the penalty
consists of indivisible penalties:
1.1 Where the penalty imposed is death but reduced to reclusion perpetua because
of RA 9346:
a. Civil indemnity-P100,000.00
b. Moral damages - P100,000.00
c. Exemplary damages -P100,000.00
1.2 Where the crime committed was not consummated:
a. Frustrated:
i.
Civil indemnity - P75,000.00
ii.
Moral damages - P75,000.00
iii.
Exemplary damages P75,000.00
b. Attempted:
i.
Civil indemnity-P50,000.00
ii.
Exemplary damages - P50,000.00
iii.
2.1 Where the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua, other than the abovementioned:
a. Civil indemnity -P75,000.00
c. Exemplary damages - P75,000.00
2.2 Where the crime committed was not consummated:

a. Frustrated:
i.
Civil indemnity - P50,000.00
ii.
iii.
b. Attempted:
i.
Civil indemnity-P25,000.00
ii.
iii.
II. For Simple Rape/Qualified Rape:

1.1 Where the penalty imposed is Death but reduced to reclusion perpetua
because of RA 9346:
c. Exemplary damages"[111] -P100,000.00
1.2 Where the crime committed was not consummated but merely attempted:" [112]
a. Civil indemnity-P50.000.00
a. Civil indemnity - P75,000.00
2.2 Where the crime committed was not consummated, but merely attempted:
b. Moral damages-P25,000.00
III. For Complex crimes under Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code where death,
injuries, or sexual abuse results, the civil indemnity, moral damages and exemplary
damages will depend on the penalty, extent of violence and sexual abuse; and the
number of victims where the penalty consists of indivisible penalties:
1.1 Where the penalty imposed is Death but reduced to reclusion perpetua because
of RA 9346:
The above Rules apply to every victim who dies as a result of the crime committed.
In other complex crimes where death does not result, like in Forcible Abduction with
Rape, the civil indemnity, moral and exemplary damages depend on the prescribed
penalty and the penalty imposed, as the case may be.
IV. For Special Complex Crimes like Robbery with Homicide,[113] Robbery with Rape,
[114]
Robbery with Intentional Mutilation,[115] Robbery with Arson,[116] Rape with
Flomicide,[117] Kidnapping with Murder,[118] Carnapping with Homicide[119] or
Carnapping with Rape,[120] Highway Robbery with Homicide.[121] Qualified Piracy,
[122]
Arson with Homicide,[123] Hazing with Death, Rape, Sodomy or Mutilation[124] and
other crimes with death, injuries, and sexual abuse as the composite crimes, where
the penalty consists of indivisible penalties:
1.1 Where the penalty imposed is Death but reduced to reclusion perpetua because
of RA 9346:

In Robbery with Intentional Mutilation, the amount of damages is the same as the
above if the penalty imposed is Death but reduced to reclusion perpetua although
death did not occur.
1.2 For the victims who suffered mortal/fatal wounds[125] and could have died if not
for a timely medical intervention, the following shall be awarded:
1.3 For the victims who suffered non-mortal/non-fatal injuries:

a. a. Civil indemnity - P75,000.00
In Robbery with Intentional Mutilation, the amount of damages is the same as the
above if the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua.
2.2 For the victims who suffered mortal/fatal wounds and could have died if not for
a timely medical intervention, the following shall be awarded:

c. Exemplary damages -P50,000.00
2.3 For the victims who suffered non-mortal/non-fatal injuries:

c. Exemplary damages P25,000.00
In Robbery with Physical Injuries,[126] the amount of damages shall likewise be
dependent on the nature/severity of the wounds sustained, whether fatal or nonfatal.
The: above Rules do not apply if in the crime of Robbery with Homicide, the
robber/s or perpetrator/s are themselves killed or injured in the incident.
Where the component crime is rape, the above Rules shall likewise apply, and that
for every additional rape committed, whether against the same victim or other
victims, the victims shall be entitled to the same damages unless the other crimes
of rape are treated as separate crimes, in which case, the damages awarded to
simple rape/qualified rape shall apply.
V. In other crimes that result in the death of a victim and the penalty consists of
divisible penalties, i.e., Homicide, Death under Tumultuous Affray, Infanticide to
conceal the dishonour of the offender,[127] Reckless Imprudence Resulting to
Homicide, Duel, Intentional Abortion and Unintentional Abortion, etc.:
1.1 Where the crime was consummated:
1.2 Where the crime committed was not consummated, except those crimes where
there are no stages, i.e., Reckless Imprudence and Death under tumultuous affray:
a. Frustrated:
i. Civil indemnity -P30,000.00
ii. Moral damages-P30,000.00
b. Attempted:
i. Civil indemnity-P20,000.00
ii. Moral damages - P20,000.00
If an aggravating circumstance was proven during the trial, even if not alleged in
the Information,[128] in addition to the above mentioned amounts as civil indemnity
and moral damages, the amount of P50,000.00 exemplary damages for
consummated; P30,000.00 for frustrated; and P20,000.00 for attempted, shall be
awarded.
VI. A. In the crime of Rebellion where the imposable penalty is reclusion
perpetua and death occurs in the course of the rebellion, the heirs of those who
died are entitled to the following:[129]
c. Exemplary damages - P100,000.00[l30]
B. For the victims who suffered mortal/fatal wounds in the course of the rebellion
and could have died if not for a timely medical intervention, the following shall be
awarded:
C. For the victims who suffered non-mortal/non-fatal injuries:
VII. In all of the above instances, when no documentary evidence of burial or
funeral expenses is presented in court, the amount of P50,000.00 as temperate
damages shall be awarded.
To reiterate, Article 2206 of the Civil Code provides that the minimum amount for
awards of civil indemnity is P3,000.00, but does not provide for a ceiling. Thus,
although the minimum amount cannot be changed, increasing the amount awarded
as civil indemnity can be validly modified and increased when the present
circumstance warrants it.[131]
Prescinding from the foregoing, for the two (2) counts of murder, attended by the
ordinary aggravating circumstance of dwelling, appellant should be ordered to pay
the heirs of the victims the following damages: (1) P100,000.00 as civil indemnity
for each of the two children who died; (2) P100,000.00 as moral damages for each
of the two victims; (3) another PI00,000.00 as exemplary damages for each of the
two victims; and (4) temperate damages in the amount of P50,000.00 for each of
the two deceased. For the four (4) counts of Attempted Murder, appellant should
pay P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral damages and P50,000.00
as exemplary damages for each of the four victims. In addition, the civil indemnity,
moral damages, exemplary damages and temperate damages payable by the
appellant are subject to interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the
finality of this decision until fully paid.[132]
Lastly, this Court echoes the concern of the trial court regarding the dismissal of the
charges against Gilberto Estores and Roger San Miguel who had been identified by
Norberto Divina as the companions of appellant on the night the shooting occurred.
Norberto had been very straightforward and unwavering in his identification of
Estores and San Miguel as the two other people who fired the gunshots at his
family. More significantly, as noted by the prosecutor, the testimonies of Estores
and San Miguel, who insisted they were not at the crime scene, tended to conflict
with the sworn statement of Danilo Fajarillo, which was the basis for the Provincial
Prosecutor's ruling that he finds no probable cause against the two. Danilo
Fajarillo's sworn statement said that on June 6, 2002, he saw appellant with a
certain "Hapon" and Gilbert Estores at the crime scene, but it was only appellant
who was carrying a firearm and the two other people with him had no participation
in the shooting incident. Said circumstances bolster the credibility of Norberto
Divina's testimony that Estores and San Miguel may have been involved in the
killing of his two young daughters.
After all, such reinvestigation would not subject Estores and San Miguel to double
jeopardy because the same only attaches if the following requisites are present: (1)
a first jeopardy has attached before the second; (2) the first jeopardy has been
validly terminated; and (3) a second jeopardy is for the same offense as in the first.
In turn, a first jeopardy attaches only (a) after a valid indictment; (b) before a
competent court; (c) after arraignment; (d) when a valid plea has been entered;
and (e) when the accused has been acquitted or convicted, or the case dismissed or
otherwise terminated without his express consent.[133] In this case, the case against
Estores and San Miguel was dismissed before they were arraigned. Thus, there can
be no double jeopardy to speak of. Let true justice be served by reinvestigating the
real participation, if any, of Estores and San Miguel in the killing of Mary Grace and
Claudine Divina.
WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is DISMISSED. The Decision of the Court of
Appeals dated January 30, 2012 in CA-G.R. CR HC No. 03252 is AFFIRMED with
the following MODIFICATIONS:
(1) In Criminal Case No. 7698-G, the Court finds accused-appellant Ireneo
Jugueta GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of two (2) counts of the crime of murder
defined under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, attended by the aggravating
circumstance of dwelling, and hereby sentences him to suffer two (2) terms
of reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole under R.A. 9346. He
is ORDERED to PAY the heirs of Mary Grace Divina and Claudine Divina the
following amounts for each of the two victims: (a) P100,000.00 as civil indemnity;
(b) P100,000.00 as moral damages; (c) P100,000.00 as exemplary damages; and
(d) P50,000.00 as temperate damages.
(2) In Criminal Case No. 7702-G, the Court finds accused-appellant Ireneo
Jugueta GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of four (4) counts of the crime of
attempted murder defined and penalized under Article 248 in relation to Article 51
of the Revised Penal Code, attended by the aggravating circumstance of dwelling,
and sentences him to suffer the indeterminate penalty of four (4) years, two (2)
months and one (1) day of prision correctional, as minimum, to ten (10) years and
one (1) day of prision mayor, as maximum, for each of the four (4) counts of
attempted murder. He is ORDERED to PAY moral damages in the amount of
P50,000.00, civil indemnity of P50,000.00 and exemplary damages of P50,000.00
to each of the four victims, namely, Norberto Divina, Maricel Divina, Elizabeth
Divina and Judv Ann Divina.
(3) Accused-appellant Ireneo Jugueta is also ORDERED to PAY interest at the rate
of six percent (6%) per annum from the time of finality of this decision until fully
paid, to be imposed on the civil indemnity, moral damages, exemplary damages
and temperate damages.
(4) Let the Office of the Prosecutor General, through the Department of Justice,
be FURNISHED a copy of this Decision. The Prosecutor General is DIRECTED to
immediately conduct a REINVESTIGATION on the possible criminal liability of
Gilbert Estores and Roger San Miguel regarding this case. Likewise, let a copy of
this Decision be furnished the Secretary of Justice for his information and guidance.
SO ORDERED.
Sereno, C.J., Carpio, Velasco, Jr., Leonardo-De Castro, Brion, Bersamin, Del
Castillo, Perez, Mendoza, Reyes, Leonen, and Caguioa, JJ., concur.
Perlas-Bernabe, J., on leave.
Jardeleza, J., no part.
NOTICE OF JUDGMENT
Sirs/Mesdames:
original of which was received by this Office on May 3, 2016 at 1:44 p.m.
Very truly yours,
(SGD)
Clerk of Court
Penned by Associate Justice Jane Aurora T. Lantion, with Associate Justices Isaias
P. Dicdican and Rodil V. Zalameda, concurring; rollo, pp. 2-21.
[1]
[2]
Record, Vol. 1, pp. 2-3.
[3]
Record, Vol. II., p. 2.
[4]
Order of the Provincial Prosecutor, Record, Vol. I, pp. 12-14.
[5]
RTC Order, Record, Vol. II, pp. 66-67.
[6]
TSN, February 5, 2004, Folder of TSN's.
[7]
TSN, March 3, 2004, Folder of TSN's
[8]
Id.
[9]
TSN, June 28, 2004, Folder of TSN's.
TSN's, February 10, 2005, April 7, 2005, February 15, 2006, August 3, 2006,
September 6 2006 and June 7, 2006.
[10]
[11]
Record, Vol, I, pp. 293-294.
[12]
Record, Vol. II, p. 131.
[13]
Supra note 1.
[14]
Rollo, p. 27.
[15]
Rollo, pp. 33-34.
[16]
People of the Philippines v. Renandang Mamaruncas, 680 Phil. 192, 211 (2012).
[17]
TSN, July 14, 2004, pp. 6-8.
[18]
People v. Nazareno, 698 Phil. 187, 193 (2012).
[19]
People v. Advienlo, et al., 684 Phil. 507, 519 (2012)
Art. 248. 2 Any person who, not falling within the provisions of Article 246
shall kill another, shall be guilty of murder and shall be punished by reclusion
temporalin its maximum period to death, if committed with any of the following
attendant circumstances:
[20]
1. With treachery, taking advantage of superior strength, with the aid of armed
men, or employing moans to weaken the defense or of means or persons to insure
or afford impunity.
2. In consideration of a price, reward, or promise.
3. By means of inundation, fire, poison, explosion, shipwreck, stranding of a vessel,
derailment or assault upon a street car or locomotive, fall of an airship, by means of
motor vehicles, or with the use of any other means involving great waste and ruin.
4. On occasion of any of the calamities enumerated in the preceding paragraph, or
of an earthquake, eruption of a volcano, destructive cyclone, epidemic or other
public calamity.
5. With evident premeditation.
6. With cruelty, by deliberately and inhumanly augmenting the suffering of the
victim, or outraging or scoffing at his person or corpse.
[21]
468 Phil. 816, 840 (2004), citing People v. Bustamante; 445 Phil. 345, 363-364
(2003); People v. Magno, 379 Phil, 531, 554 (2000).
[22]
[23]
607 Phil. 480, 505 (2009).
[24]
"Magdasal ka na at katapusan mo na ngayon."
[25]
[26]
682 Phil. 164 (2012).
[27]
People v. Cabtalan, supra, at 168.
[28]
G.R. No. 161308, January 15, 2014, 713 SCRA 311.
[29]
Medina, Jr. v. People, supra, at 320.
[30]
G.R. No. 183652, February 25, 2015.
People of the Philippines and AAA v. Court of Appeals, 21st Division, Mindanao
Station, et al, supra.
[31]
[32]
694 Phil. 529, 581 (2012).
Art. 48. Penalty for Complex Crimes - When a single act constitutes two or more
grave or less grave felonies, or when an offense is a necessary means for
committing the other, the penalty for the most serious crime shall be imposed, the
same to be applied in its maximum period.
[34]
People v. Nelmida, supra note 32, at 569-570. (Emphasis omitted)
[35]
Supra note 32.
[36]
People v. Nelmida, supra, at 570.
[37]
Supra note 2.
[38]
Supra note 3.
[39]
674 Phil. 626, 635 (2011).1
[40]
People v. Evangelic, 672 Phil. 229, 248-249 (2011).
Revised Penal Code, Art. 63, par. (1), provides, in part, that when the penalty
consists of two (2) indivisible penalties and is attended by one or more aggravating
circumstances, the greater penalty shall be applied, and in this case, the death
penalty shall be imposed.
[41]
People v. Combate, 653 Phil. 487, 504 (2010), citing People v. Victor, 354 Phil.
195, 209 (1998)
[42]
Corpuz v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 180016, April 29, 2014 724 SCRA
1, 57.
[43]
[44]
Id. at 58-59.
[45]
G.R. No. 104576, January 20, 1995, 240 SCRA 348, 356-357.
Art. 2219. Moral damages may be recovered in the following and analogous
cases:
[46]
(1)A criminal offense resulting in physical injuries;

(2) Quasi-delicts causing physical injuries;
(3) Seduction, abduction, rape or other lascivious acts;
(4) Adultery or concubinage;
(5) Illegal or arbitrary detention or arrest;
(6) Illegal search;
(7) Libel, slander or any other form of defamation;
(8) Malicious prosecution;
(9) Acts mentioned in Article 309;
(10) Acts and actions referred to in Articles 21, 26,27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 34, and 35.
The parents of the female seduced, abducted, raped or abused, referred to in No. 3
of this article, may also recover moral damages.
The s,pouse, descendants, ascendants, and brother and sisters may bring the
action mentioned in No. 9 of this article, in the order named.
Art. 2220. Willful injury to property may be a legal ground for awarding moral
damages if the court should find that, under the circumstances, such damages are
justly due. The same rule applies to breaches of contract where the defendant acted
fraudulently or in bad faith.
[47]
Bagumbayan Corp. v. Intermediate Appellate Court, No. L-66274, September 30

1984 132 SCRA 441,446.
[48]
[49]
6A C.J.S. Assault 68.
[50]
G.R. No. 160709, February 23, 2005, 452 SCRA 285, 296.
Art. 2220. Willful injury to property may be a legal ground for awarding moral
damages if the court should find that, under the circumstances, such damages are
justly due. The same rule applies to breaches of contract where the defendant acted
fraudulently or in bad faith.
[51]
[52]
Lilo Corpuz v. People of the Philippines, supra note 43, at 59.
People v. Dalisay, 620 Phil. 831, 844 (2009), citing People v. Catubig, 416 Phil.
102, 119 (2001), citing American Cent. Corp. v. Stevens Van Lines, Inc., 103 Mich
App 507, 303 NW2d 234; Morris v. Duncan, 126 Ga 467, 54 SE 1045; Faircloth v.
Greiner, 174 Ga app 845, 332 SE 2d 905; 731, 22 Am Jur 2d, p. 784; American
Surety Co. v. Gold, 375 F 2d 523, 20 ALR 3d 335; Erwin v. Michigan, 188 Ark 658,
67SW2d592.
[53]
[54]
762, 22 Am Jur 2d pp. 817-818.
733. 22 Am Jur 2d, p. 785; Symposium: Punitive Damages, 56 So Cal LR 1,

November 1982.
[55]
[56]
People v. Catubig, supra note 53, at 119-120.
[57]
Rule 110 of the Rules of Court provides:
Sec. 8 Designation of the offense. - The complaint or information shall state the
designation of the offense given by the statute, aver the acts or omissions
constituting the offense, and specify its qualifying and aggravating
circumstances. If there is no designation of the offense, reference shall be made
to the section or subsection of the statute punishing it. (Emphasis supplied)
Sec. 9, Cause of the accusations. - The acts or omissions complained of as
constituting the offense and the qualifying and aggravating circumstances
must be stated in ordinary and concise language and not necessarily in the
language used in the statute but in terms sufficient to enable a person of
common understanding to know what offense is being charged as well as
its qualifying and aggravating circumstances and for the court to
pronounce judgment. (Emphasis supplied)
[58]
G.R. Nos. 82223-24, November 13, 1992, 215 SCRA613, 634.
[59]
322 Phil. 551 (1996).
[60]
617 Phil. 587(2009).
[61]
613 Phil. 507(2009).
[62]
605 Phil. 877 (2009).
[63]
People v. Abdlera, 553 Phil. 307 (2007).
People v. Gambao, G.R. No. 172707, October 1, 2013, 706 SCRA 508, 533534. People v. Combats, supra note 41, at 509.
[64]
Art. 122. Piracy in general and mutiny on the high seas or in Philippine waters. The penalty of reclusion perpetua shall be inflicted upon any person who, on the
high seas, or in Philippine waters, shall attack or seize a vessel or, not being a
member of its complement nor a passenger, shall seize the whole or part of the
cargo of said vessel, its equipment or passengers. The same penalty shall be
inflicted in case of mutiny on the high seas or in Philippine waters.
[67]
Id.
Art. 335. When and how rape is committed. - Rape is committed by having
carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances:
[68]
1. By using force or intimidation;

2. When the woman is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; and
3. When the woman is under twelve years of age or is demented. The crime of rape
shall be punished by reclusion temporal, x x x.
Art. 123. Qualified piracy. - The penalty of reclusion perpetua to death shall be
imposed upon those who commit any of the crimes referred to in the preceding
article, under any of the following circumstances:
[69]
1. Whenever they have seized a vessel by boarding or firing upon the same;
2. Whenever the pirates have abandoned their victims without means of saving
themselves or;
3. Whenever the crime is accompanied by murder, homicide, physical injuries or
rape.
Art. 211-A. Qualified Bribery. - If any public officer is entrusted with law
enforcement and he refrains from arresting or prosecuting an offender who has
committed a crime punishable by reclusion perpetua and/or death in consideration
of any offer, promise, gift or present, he shall suffer the penalty for the offense
which was not prosecuted, x x x
[70]
Art. 246. Parricide. - Any person who shall kill his father, mother, or child,
whether legitimate or illegitimate, or any of his ascendants, or descendants, or his
spouse, shall be guilty of parricide and shall be punished by the penalty of reclusion
perpetua to death.
[71]
Art. 248. Murder. - Any person who, not falling within the provisions of Article
246 shall kill another, shall be guilty of murder and shall be punished by reclusion
perpetua, to death if committed with any of the following attendant circumstances:
[72]
1. With treachery, taking advantage of superior strength, with the aid of armed
men, or employing means to weaken the defense or of means or persons to insure
or afford impunity.
2. In consideration of a price, reward or promise.
3. By means of inundation, fire, poison, explosion, shipwreck, stranding of a vessel,
derailment or assault upon a railroad, fall of an airship, or by means of motor
vehicles, or with the use of any other means involving great waste and ruin.
4. On occasion of any of the calamities enumerated in the preceding paragraph, or
of an earthquake, eruption of a volcano, destructive cyclone, epidemic or other
public calamity.
5. With evident premeditation.
6. With cruelty, by deliberately and inhumanly augmenting the suffering of the
victim, or outraging or scoffing at his person or corpse.
Art. 255. Infanticide. - The penalty provided for parricide in Article 246 and for
murder in Article 248 shall be imposed upon any person who shall kill any child less
than three days of age.
[73]
Art. 267. Kidnapping and serious illegal detention. - Any private individual who
shall kidnap or detain another, or in any other manner deprive him of his liberty,
shall suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death:
[74]
1. If the kidnapping or detention shall have lasted more than three days.
2. If it shall have been committed simulating public authority.
3. If any serious physical injuries shall have been inflicted upon the person
kidnapped or detained; or if threats to kill him shall have been made.
4. If the person kidnapped or detained shall be a minor, except when the accused is
any of the parents, female or a public officer.
xxxx
Art. 294. Robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons - Penalties. Any person guilty of robbery with the use of violence against or intimidation of any
[76]
person shall suffer:

1. The penalty of reclusion perpetua to death, when by reason or on occasion of the
robbery, the crime of homicide shall have been committed, or when the robbery
shall have been accompanied by rape or intentional mutilation or arson.
x x x x.
Art. 320. Destructive Arson. - The penalty of reclusion perpetua to death shall
be imposed upon any person who shall burn:
1. One (1) or more buildings or edifices, consequent to one single act of burning, or
as a result of simultaneous burnings, committed on several or different occasions.
[76]
2. Any building of public or private ownership, devoted to the public in general or

where people usually gather or congregate for a definite purpose such as, but not
limited to, official governmental function or business, private transaction,
commerce, trade, workshop, meetings and conferences, or merely incidental to a
definite purpose such as but not limited to hotels, motels, transient dwellings,
public conveyances or stops or terminals, regardless of whether the offender had
knowledge that there are persons in said building or edifice at the time it is set on
fire and regardless also of whether the building is actually inhabited or not.
3. Any train or locomotive, ship or vessel, airship or airplane, devoted to
transportation or conveyance, or for public use, entertainment or leisure.
4. Any building, factory, warehouse installation and any appurtenances thereto,
which are devoted to the service of public utilities.
5. Any building the burning of which is for the purpose of concealing or destroying
evidence of another violation of law, or for the purpose of concealing bankruptcy or
defrauding creditors or to collect from insurance.
Irrespective of the application of the above enumerated qualifying circumstances,
the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death shall likewise be imposed when the arson
is perpetrated or committed by two (2) or more persons or by a group of persons,
regardless of whether their purpose is merely to burn or destroy the building or the
burning merely constitutes an overt act in the commission or another violation of
law.
The penalty of reclusion perpetua to death shall also be imposed upon any person
who shall burn:
1. Any arsenal, shipyard, storehouse or military powder or fireworks factory,
ordnance, storehouse, archives or general museum of the Government.

2. In an inhabited place, any storehouse or factory of inflammable or explosive
materials.
xxxx
Republic Act No. 7080 (1991), Sec. 2. Definition of the Crime of Plunder;
Penalties. - Any public officer who, by himself or in connivance with members of his
family, relatives by affinity or consanguinity, business associates, subordinates or
other persons, amasses, accumulates or acquires ill-gotten wealth through a
combination or series of overt criminal acts as described in Section 1 (d) hereof in
the aggregate amount or total value of at least Fifty million pesos (P50,000,000.00)
shall be guilty of the crime of plunder and shall be punished by reclusion perpetua
to death. Any person who participated with the said public officer in the commission
of an offense contributing to the crime of plunder shall likewise be punished for
such offense. In the imposition of penalties, the degree of participation and the
attendance of mitigating and extenuating circumstances, as provided by the
Revised Penal Code, shall be considered by the court. The court shall declare any
and all ill-gotten wealth and their interests and other incomes and assets including
the properties and shares of stocks derived from the deposit or investment thereof
forfeited in favor of the State.
[77]
Republic Act No. 6539 (1972), Sec. 14. Penalty for Carnapping. - Any person
who is found guilty of carnapping, as this term is defined in Section Two of this Act,
shall, irrespective of the value of motor vehicle taken, be punished by x x x the
penalty of reclusion perpetua to death shall be imposed when the owner, driver or
occupant of the carnapped motor vehicle is killed or raped in the course of the
commission of the carnapping or on the occasion thereof.
[78]
[79]
RA 9346, Sec. 2.
[80]
532 Phil. 368, 385 (2006).
[81]
532 Phil. 414, 428(2006).
[82]
See People v. Sarcia, 615 Phil. 97 (2009). Supra note 41.
[83]
People v. Victor, supra, at 210.
[84]
People v. Gambao, supra note 64, at 533.
[86]
384 Phil. 766 (2000).
[87]
People v. Anzapa, supra.
[88]
436 Phil. 719(2002).
[89]
Supra note 64.
[90]
People v. Gambao, supra note 64.
[91]
People v. Victor, supra note 42, at 210.
ARTICLE 48. Penalty for complex crimes. When a single act constitutes two or
more grave or less grave felonies, or when an offense is a necessary means for
committing the other, the penalty for the most serious crime shall be imposed, the
same to be applied in its maximum period.
[92]
[93]
674 Phil. 444 (2011).
[94]
315 Phil. 314(1995).
[95]
Id. at 338.
[96]
608 Phil. 701 (2009).
People v. De Leon, supra, at 716-717, citing People v. Salazar, 342 Phil. 745,
765 (1997)- People v. Abuyen, G.R. No. 77285, September 4, 1992, 213 SCRA
569, 582; People v. Ponciano, G.R. No. 86453 December 5, 1991, 204 SCRA 627,
639 and People v. Mangulabnan, et al., 99 Phil. 992 999 (1956)
[97]
People v. Nonas, 415 Phil. 683 (2001), citing People v. Penillos, G.R. No. 65673,
January 30, 1992, 205 SCRA 546, 564 and People v. Sequino, 332 Phil. 90 (1996).
[98]
[99]
400 Phil. 1221 (2000).
People v. Macabales, supra, at 1236-1237, citing People v. Vivas, G.R. No,

100914, May 6, 1994, 232 SCRA 238, 242.
[100]
Art. 294. Robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons; Penalties.

Any person guilty of robbery with the use of violence against or intimidation of any
person shall suffer:
[101]
1. The penalty of reclusion perpetua to death, when by reason or on occasion of the

robbery, the crime of homicide shall have been committed.
2. The penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium period to reclusion

perpetua when the robbery shall have been accompanied by rape or intentional
mutilation, or if by reason or on occasion of such robbery, any of the physical
injuries penalized in subdivision 1 of Article 263 shall have been inflicted; Provided,
however, that when the robbery accompanied with rape is committed with a use of
a deadly weapon or by two or more persons, the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua
to death (As amended by PD No. 767).
3. The penalty of reclusion temporal, when by reason or on occasion of the robbery,
any of the physical injuries penalized in subdivision 2 of the article mentioned in the
next preceding paragraph, shall have been inflicted.
4. The penalty of prision mayor in its maximum period to reclusion temporal in its
medium period, if the violence or intimidation employed in the commission of the
robbery shall have been carried to a degree clearly unnecessary for the commission
of the crime, or when the course of its execution, the offender shall have inflicted
upon any person not responsible for its commission any of the physical injuries
covered by sub-divisions 3 and 4 of said Article 263. (As amended by R.A. 18)
5. The penalty of prision correccional in its maximum period to prision mayor in its
medium period in other cases. (As amended by R, A. 18).
[102]
People v. De Leon, supra note 96; People v. Ebet, 649 Phil. 181 (2010).
Revised Penal Code, Art. 293. Who are guilty of robbery. - Any person who,
with intent to gain, shall take any personal property belonging to another, by means
of violence against or intimidation of any person, or using force upon anything,
shall be guilty of robbery.
[103]
People v. Tagudar; 600 Phil. 565, 590 (2009), citing People v. Dacillo, 471 Phil.
497, 5 10 (2004).
[104]
[105]
Id, citing People v. Surongon, 554 Phil. 448, 458 (2007).
[106]
Article 255, RTC.
[107]
Article 248, RTC.
[108]
Article 246, RTC.
[109]
Article 262, RTC.
Note that if the crime penalized in Article 255 [Infanticide] was committed by the
mother of the child for the purpose of concealing her dishonor, she shall suffer the
penalty of prision mayor in its medium and maximum periods, and if said crime was
committed for the same purpose by the maternal grandparents or either of them,
the penalty shall be reclusion temporal. (As amended by R.A. 7659). Hence, the
damages to be awarded should be the same as in Roman Numeral Number Five (V)
of the summary, i.e., In other crimes that result in the death of the victim and the
penalty consists of divisible, because the prescribed penalties arc divisible.
Exemplary damages in rape cases are awarded for the inherent bestiality of the
act committed even if no aggravating circumstance attended the commission of the
crime.
[111]
[112]
There is no frustrated stage in the crime of rape.
[113]
Art. 294(1), RPC.
[114]
Id.
[115]
Id.
[116]
Id.
[117]
Art. 266-A, RPC as amended by RA 8353.
[118]
Art. 267, RPC.
[119]
RA No. 6539.
[220]
Id.
[221]
P.D. 532.
[122]
Art. 123, RPC.
[123]
Art. 320, RPC.
[124]
RA No. 8049.
This is so because there are no stages of the component crime in special complex
crimes but the victims must be compensated as if the component crimes were
separately committed.
[126]
Art. 294 (3), RPC.
If the crime of infanticide in Art. 255 of the RPC was committed by the mother
of the child or by the maternal grandparent/s in order to conceal her dishonor, the
penalties against them are divisible, i.e., prision mayor in its medium and
maximum periods, and reclusion temporal, respectively.
[127]
[128]
See People v. Catubig, supra note 53.
Although the penalty prescribed by law is reclusion perpetua, the damages

awarded should be the same as those where the penalty is death due to the gravity
of the offense and the manner of committing the same.
[129]
In order to deter the commission of the crime of rebellion and serve as an

example, exemplary damages should be awarded.
[130]
[131]
Supra note 38.
See Dario Nacar v. Gallery Frames and/or Felipe Bordey, Jr., G.R. No 189871,
August 13 2013 703 SCRA 439, 459.
[132]
Quiambao v. People, G.R. No. 185267, September 17, 2014, 735 SCRA 345,
356-357.
[133]

A.M.
No.
P-16-3436
[Formerly
A.M.
No.
13-12-261-RTC]
REPORT ON THE THEFT OF COURT EXHIBIT BY ROBERTO R. CASTRO, UTILITY WORKER I, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT,
BRANCH
April 05, 2016
172,
VALENZUELA
CITY
EN BANC
[ A.M. No. P-16-3436 [Formerly A.M. No. 1312-261-RTC], April 05, 2016 ]
REPORT ON THE THEFT OF COURT EXHIBIT BY ROBERTO R.
CASTRO, UTILITY WORKER I, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT,
BRANCH 172, VALENZUELA CITY
DECISION
PER CURIAM:
This resolves the report[1] filed by Executive Judge Maria Nena J. Santos (Executive
Judge Santos) of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Valenzuela City, Metro Manila
with the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), relative to the theft of court
exhibit by Roberto R. Castro (Castro), a Utility Worker I at the RTC of Valenzuela
City, Branch 172.
Facts
On February 4, 2013, Judge Nancy Rivas-Palmones (Judge Palmones), Presiding
Judge of the RTC of Valenzuela City, Branch 172, sent a letter-complaint [2] to
Executive Judge Santos regarding the theft of court exhibit by Castro. Judge
Palmones alleged that on August 31, 2011, the Internal Security of Valenzuela City
Hall of Justice confiscated from Castro a caliber 9mm firearm with serial number
BA009746 and a magazine therefor. Upon inquiry, Castro failed to present any
license or permit to carry the firearm.[3]
Thereafter, Castro was subjected to inquest proceedings by the Valenzuela Police
Station, which recommended that he be indicted for illegal possession of firearm
under Presidential Decree No. 1866, as amended by Republic Act No. 8294.
[4]
Castro was eventually charged for illegal possession of firearm before the
Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Valenzuela City, Branch 82.[5]
Judge Palmones further alleged that they later on discovered that the firearm that
was confiscated from Castro is the exhibit in Criminal Case No. 210-V-98,
entitledPeople of the Philippines v. Anthony De Gula Lopez, which was decided by
the RTC of Valenzuela City, Branch 172, on August 10, 2012. Apparently, sometime
in November 2012, a certain Maria Elizabeth De Gula Lopez requested for the
release of the subject firearm in Criminal Case No. 210-V-98 considering that
accused Anthony De Gula Lopez was already acquitted of the charge against him.
Osita De Guzman (De Guzman), Legal Researcher of Branch 172, searched for the
said firearm, but to no avail. Eventually, De Guzman went to the Valenzuela Police
Station where she discovered that the missing firearm in Criminal Case No. 210-V98 is the same firearm that was confiscated from Castro.[6]
In a separate incident, Judge Palmones, on May 25, 2011, was informed by De
Guzman that a cable wire used as evidence in a case was missing. The theft of the
cable wire is the subject of a separate administrative case.[7]
Acting on the letter-complaint, Executive Judge Santos set the case for an informal
and preliminary inquiry on February 15, 2013.[8] During the inquiry, Castro averred
that the subject firearm was actually handed to him by Atty. Levi Dybongco-Banez,
the Clerk of Court (COC) of Branch 172, during an inventory of exhibits, with
instruction to put the gun back in the exhibit room. Instead of complying with the
instruction, Castro claimed that he put the gun inside his black shoulder bag, which
he kept on top of his office table.[9] He explained that he kept the gun because a
certain Oca, a former utility worker in the RTC of Valenzuela City, challenged him to
a gun fight outside the City Hall; he thought that the gun would be useful should
Oca try to hurt him.[10]
Accordingly, Executive Judge Santos recommended that an appropriate
administrative complaint be filed against Castro since the latter admitted that he
took the subject firearm, which is an exhibit in Criminal Case No. 210-V-98. [11]
On July 24, 2013, the Court, upon recommendation of the OCA, placed Castro
under preventive suspension and directed him to file his Comment within 10 days
from notice.[12]
In October 2013, Castro filed his "Salaysay"[13] and his "Sinumpaang
Salaysay"[14] wherein he denied the allegations against him in Judge Palmones'
letter-report. Contrary to his statements during the preliminary inquiry conducted
by Executive Judge Santos, he denied that there was a gun inside his bag when he
entered the Valenzuela City Hall of Justice on August 31, 2011. He insinuated that
he was framed-up by the police officers, who placed a gun inside his bag when he
left their office in the afternoon of the said date. While he admitted that he was
indicted for the crime of illegal possession of firearms, he claimed that the MeTC of
Valenzuela City, Branch 82, dismissed the indictment on March 4, 2013 for lack of
evidence.
Report and Recommendation of the OCA
On November 21, 2014, the OCA issued its report, [15] which recommended that
Castro be dismissed from the service with forfeiture of all benefits except accrued
leave credits, if any, and with prejudice to re-employment in any government office.
The OCA pointed out that Castro did not dispute the charge of illegal possession of
firearm and theft of firearm from the exhibit room, although he gave reasons
therefor. The OCA opined that theft of court exhibit merits the penalty of dismissal
from service.
With regard to the issue on the illegal possession of firearm which is an exhibit in a
criminal case pending before his court, Mr. Castro pleads no contest as he promptly
admitted to his unlawful possession of a gun, although he gave reasons why he had
to possess and carry it. He asks forgiveness and another chance. However, he has
given statements implying that he might go back to his old, illegal activities if he
would be dismissed from the service. This is not a good sign of a truly repentant
person.[16]
Ruling of the Court
The findings and recommendations of the OCA are well-taken.
Castro, during the informal investigations conducted by Executive Judge Santos,
admitted that he took the 9mm caliber firearm, which was an exhibit in a criminal
case, from the former COC of Branch 172 and, instead of placing it inside the
exhibit room as instructed, placed it inside his bag.[17] This is an admission of theft
of court exhibit for which Castro should be held administratively liable. It is
immaterial that Castro did not bring the gun outside of the Valenzuela City Hall of
Justice; the theft of the 9mm caliber firearm was already consummated when he
placed it inside his bag.
Castro's subsequent claim in his "salaysay"[18] dated September 25, 2013 that he
was just framed-up by the police officers is but a futile attempt to evade
responsibility for his indiscretion. Indeed, at no point during the informal
investigations conducted by Executive Judge Santos did Castro ever deny that he
took the said 9mm caliber firearm and placed it inside his bag. He merely claimed
that he needed the firearm since his co-employee challenged him to a gun fight.
Castro's flimsy justification for his actions shows an utter lack of respect for the
office he holds. In any case, frame-up is a defense that has been invariably viewed
by the Court with disfavor as it can be easily concocted.
Castro's misconduct in the performance of his official duties, consisting of
dishonesty and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, are grounds
for dismissal under the Civil Service Law.[19]
In In the Matter of the Loss of One (1) Tamaya Transit, An Exhibit in Criminal Case
No. 193,[20] Salvador Lopez (Salvador), a court employee, took out and pawned a
wristwatch under his custody, which is an exhibit in a case. The Court held that
Salvador, by taking out and pawning the wristwatch, "has shown a glaring unfitness
for the position he holds which requires integrity and
trustworthiness."[21] Accordingly, the Court found him guilty of dishonesty and grave
misconduct and directed his dismissal from the service with forfeiture of his
retirement benefits and pay and with prejudice to reinstatement to any branch of
the government.
In Re: Jovelita Olivas and Antonio Cuyco,[22] the Court found Jovelita Olivas guilty of
grave misconduct for stealing several pieces of plyboard from the Court of Appeals'
compound and dismissed her from the service with forfeiture of all benefits
excluding leave credits, if any, and with prejudice to re-employment in any branch
or agency of the government.
In view of the prevailing jurisprudence and the foregoing facts, the Court agrees
with the recommendation of the OCA that Castro should be dismissed from service.
"This Court has emphasized time and time again that the conduct and behavior of
every one connected with an office charged with the dispensation of justice, from
the presiding judge to the sheriff and to the lowliest clerk should be circumscribed
with the heavy burden of responsibility."[23] In performing their duties and
responsibilities, court personnel serve as sentinels of justice and any act of
impropriety on their part immeasurably affects the honor .and dignity of the
Judiciary and the peoples' confidence in it.[24]
WHEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing disquisitions, the Court finds
Roberto R. Castro GUILTY of dishonesty and grave misconduct and is
herebyDISMISSED from the service with forfeiture of all benefits excluding leave
credits, if any, and with prejudice to re-employment in any branch or agency of the
government, including government-owned and controlled corporations.
SO ORDERED.
Sereno, C. J., Carpio, Velasco, Jr., Leonardo-De Castro, Brion, Peralta, Bersamin,
Del Castillo, Perez, Mendoza, Reyes, Leonen, Jardeleza, and Caguioa, JJ., concur.
NOTICE OF JUDGMENT
Sirs/Mesdames:
a.m.
Very truly yours,

Clerk of Court
[1]
Rollo (A.M. No. P-16-3436), pp. 2-5.
[2]
Id. at 10-11.
[3]
Id. at 13.
[4]
Id.
[5]
Id. at 10.
[6]
Id. at 3.
[7]
A.M. No. 13-5-78-RTC.
[8]
Rollo (A.M. No. P-16-3436), p. 2.
[9]
Id. at 3.
[10]
Id. at 3-4.
[11]
Id. at 5.
[12]
Rollo (A.M. No. 13-5-78-RTC), id. at 19.
[13]
Id. at 22-24.
[14]
Id. at 75-77.
[15]
Id. at 83-86.
[16]
Id.
[17]
Rollo (A.M. No. P-16-3436), pp. 65-67.
[18]
Rollo (A.M. No. 13-5-78-RTC), p. 73.
Rule XIV, Sec. 23(c), on grave offenses of the Omnibus Rules Implementing
Book V of Executive Order No. 292.
[19]
[20]
200 Phil. 82 (1982).
[21]
Id. at 90.
[22]
431 Phil. 379 (2002).
Ferrer v. Gapasin, Sr., A.M. No. P-92-736, November 16, 1993, 227 SCRA 764,
769.
[23]
[24]
See THE CODE OF CONDUCT FOR COURT PERSONNEL.

G.R.
No.
216607
ARLENE LLENA EMPAYNADO CHUA, PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, IMELDA E. FRAGATA, AND
KRYSTLE
MARIE
C.
BACANI,
RESPONDENTS.
April 05, 2016
EN BANC
[ G.R. No. 216607, April 05, 2016 ]
ARLENE LLENA EMPAYNADO CHUA, PETITIONER, VS.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, IMELDA E. FRAGATA, AND
KRYSTLE MARIE C. BACANI, RESPONDENTS.

DECISION
LEONEN, J.:
Dual citizens are disqualified from running for any elective local position. They
cannot successfully run and assume office because their ineligibility is inherent in
them, existing prior to the filing of their certificates of candidacy. Their certificates
of candidacy are void ab initio, and votes cast for them will be disregarded.
Consequently, whoever gamers the next highest number of votes among the
eligible candidates is the person legally entitled to the position.
This resolves a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition [1] assailing the Commission on
Elections Resolutions dated October 17, 2013[2] and January 30, 2015.[3] The
Commission on Elections annulled the "proclamation of... Arlene Llena Empaynado
Chua as Councilor for the Fourth District of Manila[,]"[4] and directed the Board of
Canvassers to reconvene and proclaim Krystle Marie C. Bacani (Bacani) as Councilor
for having garnered the next highest number of votes. [5]
On October 3, 2012, Arlene Llena Empaynado Chua (Chua) filed her Certificate of
Candidacy[6] for Councilor for the Fourth District of Manila during the May 13, 2013
National and Local Elections. The Fourth District of Manila is entitled to six (6) seats
in the Sangguniang Panlungsod.[7]
After the conduct of elections, Chua garnered the sixth highest number of votes.
[8]
She was proclaimed by the Board of Canvassers on May 15, 2013. [9]
On the date of Chua's proclamation, however, Imelda E. Fragata . (Fragata) filed a
Petition[10] captioned as a "petition to declare [Chua] as a nuisance candidate"[11]and
"to deny due course and/or cancel [Chua's] Certificate of Candidacy." [12] Fragata
was allegedly a registered voter in the Fourth District[13] who claimed that Chua was
unqualified to run for Councilor on two grounds: Chua was not a Filipino citizen, and
she was a permanent resident of the United States of America. [14] Fragata
specifically alleged the following in her Petition:
3. [Chua] is not a Filipino Citizen.
4. Prior to the filing of her candidacy, [Chua] has been living in the United States of
America (USA) for at least 33 years.
5. [Chua] is an immigrant and was validly issued a Green Card by the Government
of the USA.
6. She resided and continues to reside [in Georgia, USA].

7. [Chua] has been a Registered Professional Nurse in the State of Georgia, USA
since November 17, 1990.
8. ... [Chua's] Professional License in the USA is still to expire in 31 January 2014.
[15]
The last paragraph of the Petition prayed that Chua "be disqualified as a candidate
for the position of councilor in the Fourth District of the City of Manila[.]" [16]
Answering the Petition, Chua contended that she was a natural-born Filipino, born
to Filipino parents in Cabanatuan City, Nueva Ecija.[17] With respect to her residency,
Chua alleged that she had been residing in Sampaloc, Manila since 2008 [18] and had
more than complied with the one-year period required to run for Councilor.[19]
According to Chua, Fragata's Petition was belatedly filed,[20] whether it was treated
as one for declaration of a nuisance candidate[21] or for denial of due course or
cancellation of certificate of candidacy.[22] Fragata filed her Petition on May 15,
2013, which was beyond five (5) days from October 5, 2012, the last day of the
filing of certificates of candidacy.[23] The Petition was also filed beyond 25 days from
October 3, 2012,[24] the date Chua filed her Certificate of Candidacy.[25]
Chua stressed that she had already been proclaimed on May 15, 2013, the same
date that Fragata filed her Petition; hence, Fragata's proper remedy was to file a
petition for quo warranto[26] under Section 253 of the Omnibus Election Code. Chua
prayed that the Commission dismiss Fragata's Petition.[27]
On June 19, 2013, Bacani filed a Motion to Intervene with Manifestation and Motion
to Annul Proclamation.[28] Bacani alleged that she likewise ran for Councilor in the
Fourth District of Manila, and that after the canvassing of votes, she ranked seventh
among all the candidates, next to Chua.[29] Should Chua be disqualified, Bacani
claimed that she should be proclaimed Councilor[30] following this Court's ruling
in Maquiling v. Commission on Elections.[31]
Bacani argued that Chua, being a dual citizen, was unqualified to run for Councilor.
[32]
Based on an Order of the Bureau of Immigration, Chua was allegedly naturalized
as an American citizen on December 7, 1977.[33] She was issued an American
passport[34] on July 14, 2006.
Chua took an Oath of Allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines on September 21,
2011.[35] Nonetheless, Chua allegedly continued on using her
American passport, specifically on the following dates:

October 16, 2012
December 11, 2012
May 30, 2013
Departure for the United States

Arrival in the Philippines
Departure for the United States[36]
Moreover, Chua did not execute an oath of renunciation of her American citizenship.
[37]
With Chua being a dual citizen at the time she filed her Certificate of Candidacy,
Bacani prayed that the Commission on Elections annul Chua's proclamation. [38]
In her Comment/Opposition (to the Motion to Intervene of Krystle Marie Bacani),
[39]
Chua argued that the Motion was a belatedly filed petition to deny due course or
cancel a certificate of candidacy, having been filed after the day of the elections.
[40]
According to Chua, the Motion should not even be considered since she was
already proclaimed by the Board of Canvassers.[41] Thus, Chua prayed that the
Motion to Intervene be denied and expunged from the records of the case. [42]
The Commission on Elections then ordered the parties to file their respective
memoranda.[43]
In her Memorandum,[44] Chua maintained that Fragata's Petition was filed out of
time and should have been outright dismissed.[45] Reiterating that she had already
been proclaimed, Chua argued that Fragata's proper remedy was a petition for quo
warranto.[46]
Countering Chua's claims, Fragata and Bacani restated in their Joint
Memorandum[47] that Chua was a dual citizen disqualified from running for any
elective local position.
The Commission on Elections Second Division resolved Fragata's Petition. Ruling
that Bacani had a legal interest in the matter in litigation, it allowed Bacani's Motion
to Intervene.[48] The Commission said that should Fragata's Petition be granted, the
votes for Chua would not be counted.[49] In effect, Bacani would garner the sixth
highest number of votes among the qualified candidates, which would earn her a
seat in the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Manila.[50]
With respect to the nature of Fragata's Petition, the Commission on Elections held
that it was one for disqualification, regardless of the caption stating that it was a
petition to declare Chua a nuisance candidate.[51] The Petition alleged a ground for
disqualification under Section 40 of the Local Government Code, [52] specifically, that
Chua was a permanent resident in the United StEites.
Since Fragata filed a petition for disqualification, Rule 25, Section 3 of the
Commission on Elections Rules of Procedure governed the period for its filing.
[53]
Under the Rules, a petition for disqualification should be filed "any day after the
last day for filing of certificates of candidacy, but not later than the date of the
proclamation." Fragata filed the Petition within this period, having filed it on the
date of Chua's proclamation on May 15, 2013.[54]
The Commission no longer discussed whether Chua was a permanent resident of
the United States. Instead, it found that Chua was a dual citizen when she filed her
Certificate of Candidacy.[55] Although she reacquired her Filipino citizenship in 2011
by taking an Oath of Allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines, petitioner failed
to take a sworn and personal renunciation of her American citizenship required
under Section 5(2) of the Citizenship Retention and Re-acquisition Act of 2003. [56]
Considering that Chua is a dual citizen, the Commission held that Chua was
disqualified to run for Councilor pursuant to Section 40 of the Local Government
Code.[57]Consequently, Chua's Certificate of Candidacy was void ab initio, and all
votes casted for her were stray.[58] Chua's proclamation was likewise voided, and
perMaquiling, Bacani was declared to have garnered sixth highest number of votes.
[59]
Thus, in the Resolution dated October 17, 2013, the Commission on Elections
Second Division ruled in favor of Fragata and Bacani.[60] The dispositive portion of
the October 17, 2013 Resolution reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Commission (Second
Division) RESOLVES, as it hereby RESOLVED:
1. To ANNUL the proclamation of respondent Arlene Llena Empaynado Chua as
Councilor for the Fourth District of Manila;
2. To DIRECT the Board of Canvassers of the City of Manila
to CONVENE and PROCLAIM Intervenor Krystle Marie C. Bacani as the duly
elected Councilor of the Fourth District of the City of Manila, having obtained
the sixth highest number of votes for said position.
Let the Deputy Executive Director for Operations implement this Resolution.
SO ORDERED.[61]
Chua moved for reconsideration,[62] but the Commission on Elections En Bane

denied the Motion in the Resolution dated January 30, 2015.
Arguing that the Commission issued its October 17, 2013 and January 30, 2015
Resolutions with grave abuse of discretion, Chua filed before this Court a Petition
for Certiorari and Prohibition with prayer for issuance of temporary restraining order
and/or writ of preliminary injunction.[63] Fragata and Bacani jointly filed their
Comment,[64] while the Commission on Elections filed its Comment[65] through the
Office of the Solicitor General.
Chua emphasizes that she was already proclaimed as a duly elected Councilor.
[66]
Assuming that she was ineligible to run for office, this created a permanent
vacancy in the Sangguniang Panlungsod, which was to be filled according to the
rule on succession under Section 45 of the Local Government Code, and not by
proclamation of the candidate who garnered the next highest number of votes. [67]
Chua maintains that Fragata belatedly filed her Petition before the Commission on
Elections.[68] Since Fragata filed a Petition to deny due course or cancel certificate of
candidacy, it should have been filed within five (5) days from the last day for filing
of certificates of candidacy, but not later than 25 days from the time of the filing of
the certificate of candidacy assailed.[69] Fragata filed the Petition on May 15, 2013,
more than 25 days after Chua filed her Certificate of Candidacy on October 3, 2012.
[70]
The Commission on Elections, therefore, should have outright dismissed
Fragata's Petition.[71]
With her already proclaimed, Chua argues that the Commission on Elections should
have respected the voice of the people.[72] Chua prays that the Resolutions annulling
her proclamation and subsequently proclaiming Bacani be set aside. [73]
As for Fragata and Bacani as well as the Commission on Elections, all maintain that
Fragata's Petition was a petition for disqualification assailing Chua's citizenship and
status as a permanent resident in the United States. [74] The Petition, which Fragata
filed on the date of Chua's proclamation, was filed within the reglementary period.
[75]
The Commission on Elections stresses that Chua was a dual citizen at the time she
filed her Certificate of Candidacy.[76] Consequently, she was ineligible to run for
Councilor and was correctly considered a non-candidate.[77] All the votes casted in
Chua's favor were correctly disregarded, resulting in Bacani garnering the next
highest number of votes.[78] Following Maquiling, the Commission argues that
Bacani was validly proclaimed as Councilor, and, contrary to Chua's claim, the rule
on succession under Section 45 of the Local Government Code did not apply, with
the disqualifying circumstance existing prior to the filing of the Certificate of

Candidacv.[79]
Although Chua was already proclaimed, the Commission on Elections argues that
"[t]he will of the people as expressed through the ballot cannot cure the vice of
ineligibility, especially if they mistakenly believed that the candidate was
qualified."[80] Fragata, Bacani, and the Commission on Elections pray that the
Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition be dismissed.[81]
The issues for this Court's resolution are the following:
First, whether private respondent Imelda E. Fragata filed a petition for
disqualification or a petition to deny due course or cancel certificate of candidacy;
and
Second, whether the rule on succession under Section 45 of the Local Government
Code applies to this case.
We dismiss the Petition. The allegations of private respondent Fragata's Petition
before the Commission on Elections show that it was a timely filed petition for
disqualification. Moreover, the Commission on Elections did not gravely abuse its
discretion in disqualifying petitioner Arlene Llena Empaynado Chua, annulling her
proclamation, and subsequently proclaiming private respondent Krystle Marie C.
Bacani, the candidate who garnered the sixth highest number of votes among the
qualified candidates.
I
As this Court has earlier observed in Fermin v. Commission on Elections,
[82]
members of the bench and the bar have "indiscriminately interchanged" [83] the
remedies of a petition to deny due course or cancel certificate of candidacy and a
petition for disqualification, thus "adding confusion to the already difficult state of
our jurisprudence on election laws."[84]
The remedies, however, have different grounds and periods for their filing. The
remedies have different legal consequences.
A person files a certificate of candidacy to announce his or her candidacy and to
declare his or her eligibility for the elective office indicated in the certificate.
[85]
Section 74 of the Omnibus Election Code on the contents of a certificate of
candidacy states:
Sec. 74. Contents of certificate of candidacy. - The certificate of candidacy shall

state that the person filing it is announcing his candidacy for the office stated
therein and that he is eligible for said office; if for Member of the Batasang
Pambansa, the province, including its component cities, highly urbanized city or
district or section which he seeks to represent; the political party to which he
belongs; civil status; his date of birth; residence; his post office address for all
election purposes; his profession or occupation; that he will support and defend the
Constitution of the Philippines and will maintain true faith and allegiance thereto;
that he will obey the laws, legal orders, and decrees promulgated by the duly
constituted authorities; that he is not a permanent resident or immigrant to a
foreign country; that the obligation imposed by his oath is assumed voluntarily,
without mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that the facts stated in the
certificate of candidacy are true to the best of his knowledge.
Unless a candidate has officially changed his name through a court approved
proceeding, a candidate shall use in a certificate of candidacy the name by which he
has been baptized, or if has not been baptized in any church or religion, the name
registered in the office of the local civil registrar or any other name allowed under
the provisions of existing law or, in the case of a Muslim, his Hadji name after
performing the prescribed religious pilgrimage: Provided,That when there are two
or more candidates for an office with the same name and surname, each candidate,
upon being made aware of such fact, shall state his paternal and maternal
surname, except the incumbent who may continue to use the name and surname
stated in his certificate of candidacy when he was elected. He may also include one
nickname or stage name by which he is generally or popularly known in the locality.
The person filing a certificate of candidacy shall also affix his latest photograph,
passport size; a statement in duplicate containing his bio-data and program of
government not exceeding one hundred words, if he so desires.
The Commission on Elections has the ministerial duty to receive and acknowledge
receipt of certificates of candidacy.[86] However, under Section 78 of the Omnibus
Election Code,[87] the Commission may deny due course or cancel a certificate of
candidacy through a verified petition filed exclusively on the ground that "any
material representation contained therein as required under Section 74 hereof is
false." The "material representation" referred to in Section 78 is that, which
involves the eligibility or qualification for the office sought by the person who filed
the certificate.[88] Section 78 must, therefore, be read "in relation to the
constitutional and statutory provisions on qualifications or eligibility for public
office."[89] Moreover, the false representation "must consist of a deliberate attempt
to mislead, misinform, or hide a fact which would otherwise render a candidate
ineligible."[90]
A person intending to run for public office must not only possess the required
qualifications for the position for which he or she intends to run. The candidate
must also possess none of the grounds for disqualification under the law. As Justice
Vicente V. Mendoza said in his Dissenting Opinion in Romualdez-Marcos v.
Commission on Elections,[91] "that an individual possesses the qualifications for a
public office does not imply that he is not disqualified from becoming a candidate or
continuing as a candidate for a public office and vice-versa."[92]
Section 68 of the Omnibus Election Code provides for grounds in filing a petition for
disqualification:
Sec. 68 Disqualifications. - Any candidate who, in action or protest in which he is
a party is declared by final decision of a competent court guilty of, or found by the
Commission of having (a) given money or other material consideration to influence,
induce or corrupt the voters or public officials performing electoral functions; (b)
committed acts of terrorism to enhance his candidacy; (c) spent in his election
campaign an amount in excess of that allowed by this Code; (d) solicited, received
or made any contribution prohibited under Sections 89, 95, 96, 97 and 104; or (e)
violated any of Sections 80, 83, 85, 86 and 261, paragraphs d, e, k, v, and cc, subparagraph 6, shall be disqualified from continuing as a candidate, or if he has been
elected, from holding the office. Any person who is a permanent resident of or an
immigrant of a foreign country in accordance with the residence requirement
provided for in the election laws.
Apart from the grounds provided in Section 68, any of the grounds in Section 12 of
the Omnibus Election Code as well as in Section 40 of the Local Government Code
may likewise be raised in a petition for disqualification. Section 12 of the Omnibus
Election Code states:
Sec. 12. Disqualifications. - Any person who has been declared by competent
authority insane or incompetent, or has been sentenced by final judgment for
subversion, insurrection, rebellion, or for any offense for which he has been
sentenced to a penalty of more than eighteen months or for a crime involving moral
turpitude, shall be disqualified to be a candidate and to hold any office, unless he
has been given plenary pardon or granted amnesty.
This disqualifications to be a candidate herein provided shall be deemed removed
upon the declaration by competent authority that said insanity or incompetence had
been removed or after the expiration of a period of five years from his service of
sentence, unless within the same period he again becomes disqualified.
Disqualifications specifically applicable to those running for local elective positions
are found in Section 40 of the Local Government Code:
SECTION 40. Disqualifications. - The following persons are disqualified from

running for any elective local position:
(a) Those sentenced by final judgment for an offense involving moral turpitude or
for an offense punishable by one (1) year or more of imprisonment, within two (2)
years after serving sentence;
(b) Those removed from office as a result of an administrative case;
(c) Those convicted by final judgment for violating the oath of allegiance to the
Republic;
(d) Those with dual citizenship;
(e) Fugitives from justice in criminal or nonpolitical cases here or abroad;
(f) Permanent residents in a foreign country or those who have acquired the right
to reside abroad and continue to avail of the same right after the effectivity of this
Code; and
(g) The insane or feeble-minded.
Private respondent Fragata alleges in her Petition that petitioner is a permanent
resident in the United States, a green card holder who, prior to the filing of her
Certificate of Candidacy for Councilor, has resided in the State of Georgia for 33
years. She anchors her Petition on Section 40 of the Local Government Code, which
disqualifies permanent residents of a foreign country from running for any elective
local position.
It is true that under Section 74 of the Omnibus Election Code, persons who file their
certificates of candidacy declare that they are not a permanent resident or
immigrant to a foreign country. Therefore, a petition to deny due course or cancel a
certificate of candidacy may likewise be filed against a permanent resident of a
foreign country seeking an elective post in the p Philippines on the ground of
material misrepresentation in the certificate of A candidacy.[93]
What remedy to avail himself or herself of, however, depends on the petitioner. If
the false material representation in the certificate of candidacy relates to a ground
for disqualification, the petitioner may choose whether to file a petition to deny due
course or cancel a certificate of candidacy or a petition for disqualification, so long
as the petition filed complies with the requirements under the law.[94]
Before the Commission on Elections, private respondent Fragata had a choice of
filing either a petition to deny due course or cancel petitioner's certificate of

candidacy or a petition for disqualification. In her Petition, private respondent
Fragata did not argue that petitioner made a false material representation in her
Certificate of Candidacy; she asserted that petitioner was a permanent resident
disqualified to run for Councilor under Section 40 of the Local Government Code.
Private respondent Fragata's Petition, therefore, was a petition for disqualification.
It follows that private respondent Fragata timely filed her Petition before the
Commission on Elections. Under Rule 25, Section 3 of the Rules of Procedure of the
Commission, a petition for disqualification "shall be filed any day after the last day
for filing of certificates of candidacy, but not later that the date of proclamation."
Private respondent Fragata filed her Petition on the date of petitioner's proclamation
on May 15, 2013. The Commission on Elections did not gravely abuse its discretion
in taking cognizance of private respondent Fragata's Petition.
In addition, the Commission on Elections correctly admitted private respondent
Bacani's pleading-in-intervention.
An adverse decision against petitioner would require a pronouncement as to who
should assume the position of Councilor. Hence, those who believe that they are
entitled to the position may prove their legal interest in the matter in
litigation[95] and may properly intervene for a complete disposition of the case.
Private respondent Bacani claims that she is entitled to the position of Councilor. In
her Motion to Intervene, she argues for petitioner's disqualification and alleges the
circumstances surrounding petitioner's dual citizenship. She then cites Maquiling,
arguing that she should be proclaimed a in lieu of petitioner because she obtained
the sixth highest number of votes among the qualified candidates. Private
respondent Bacani's intervention was, therefore, proper.
II
The Commission on Elections did not gravely abuse its discretion in disqualifying
petitioner, annulling her proclamation, and subsequently proclaiming private
respondent Bacani as the duly elected Councilor for the Fourth District of Manila.
Petitioner was born to Filipino parents in 1967, which makes her a natural-born
Filipino under the 1935 Constitution.[96] Ten years later, on December 7, 1977,
petitioner became a naturalized American. Hence, she lost her Filipino citizenship
pursuant to Section 1 of Commonwealth Act No. 63.[97]
It was on September 21, 2011 when petitioner took an Oath of Allegiance to the
Republic of the Philippines, thus reacquiring her Filipino citizenship. [98] From
September 21, 2011 up to the present, however, petitioner failed to execute a

sworn and personal renunciation of her foreign citizenship particularly required of
those seeking elective public office. Section 5(2) of the Citizenship Retention and
Re-acquisition Act of 2003 provides:
SECTION 5. Civil and Political Rights and Liabilities. - Those who retain or re-acquire
Philippine citizenship under this Act shall enjoy full civil and political rights and be
subject to all attendant liabilities and responsibilities under existing laws of the
Philippines and the following conditions:
....
(2) Those seeking elective public office in the Philippines shall meet the
qualifications for holding such public office as required by the Constitution and
existing laws and, at the time of the filing of the certificate of candidacy, make a
personal and sworn renunciation of any and all foreign citizenship before any public
officer authorized to administer an oath[.]
Petitioner cannot claim that she has renounced her American citizenship by taking
the Oath of Allegiance. The oath of allegiance and the sworn and personal
renunciation of foreign citizenship are separate requirements, the latter being
an additional requirement for qualification to run for public office. In Jacot v. Dal:[99]
[T]he oath of allegiance contained in the Certificate of Candidacy, which is
substantially similar to the one contained in Section 3 of Republic Act No. 9225,
does not constitute the personal and sworn renunciation sought under Section 5(2)
of Republic Act No. 9225. It bears to emphasize that the said oath of allegiance is a
general requirement for all those who wish to run as candidates in Philippine
elections; while the renunciation of foreign citizenship is an additional requisite only
for those who have retained or reacquired Philippine citizenship under Republic Act
No. 9225 and who seek elective public posts, considering their special circumstance
of having more than one citizenship.[100]
With petitioner's failure to execute a personal and sworn renunciation of her
American citizenship, petitioner was a dual citizen at the time she filed her
Certificate of Candidacy on October 3, 2012. Under Section 40 of the Local
Government Code, she was disqualified to run for Councilor in the Fourth District of
Manila during the 2013 National and Local Elections.
Petitioner, however, argues that the Commission on Elections gravely abused its
discretion in proclaiming private respondent Bacani, the mere seventh placer
among the candidates for Councilor and, therefore, not the electorate's choice.
Petitioner maintains that the vacancy left by her disqualification should be filled
according to the rule on succession under Section 45(a)(l) of the Local Government
Code, which provides:
SECTION 45. Permanent Vacancies in the Sanggunian. - (a) Permanent
vacancies in the sanggunian where automatic successions provided above do not
apply shall be filled by appointment in the following manner:
(1) The President, through the Executive Secretary, in the case of the sangguniang
panlalawigan and the sangguniang panlungsod of highly urbanized cities and
independent component cities[.]
The permanent vacancies referred to in Section 45 are those arising "when an
elective local official fills a higher vacant office, refuses to assume office, fails to
qualify, dies, is removed from office, voluntarily resigns, or is otherwise
permanently incapacitated to discharge the functions of his office." [101] In these
situations, the vacancies were caused by those whose certificates of candidacy were
valid at the time of the filing "but subsequently had to be cancelled because of a
violation of law that took place, or a legal impediment that took effect, after the
filing of the certificate of candidacy."[102]
The rule on succession under Section 45, however, would not apply if the
permanent vacancy was caused by one whose certificate of candidacy was void ab
initio. Specifically with respect to dual citizens, their certificates of candidacy are
void ab initio because they possess "a substantive [disqualifying circumstance] . . .
[existing] prior to the filing of their certificate of candidacy."[103] Legally, they should
not even be considered candidates. The votes casted for them should be considered
stray and should not be counted.[104]
In cases of vacancies caused by those with void ab initio certificates of candidacy,
the person legally entitled to the vacant position would be the candidate who
garnered the next highest number of votes among those eligible. [105] In this case, it
is private respondent Bacani who is legally entitled to the position of Councilor,
having garnered the sixth highest number of votes among the eligible candidates.
The Commission on Elections correctly proclaimed private respondent Bacani in lieu
of petitioner.
Petitioner may have garnered more votes than private respondent Bacani. She may
have already been proclaimed. Nevertheless, elections are more than a numbers
game. Hence, in Maquiling:
The ballot cannot override the constitutional and statutory requirements for
qualifications and disqualifications of candidates. When the law requires certain
qualifications to be possessed or that certain disqualifications be not possessed by
persons desiring to serve as elective public officials, those qualifications must be

met before one even becomes a candidate. When a person who is not qualified is
voted for and eventually garners the highest number of votes, even the will of the
electorate expressed through the ballot cannot cure the defect in the qualifications
of the candidate. To rule otherwise is to trample upon and rent asunder the very
law that sets forth the qualifications and disqualifications of candidates. We might
as well write off our election laws if the voice of the electorate is the sole
determinant of who should be proclaimed worthy to occupy elective positions in our
republic.
....
As in any contest, elections are governed by rules that determine the qualifications
and disqualifications of those who are allowed to participate as players. When there
are participants who turn out to be ineligible, their victory is voided and the laurel is
awarded to the next in rank who does not possess any of the disqualifications nor
lacks any of the qualifications set in the rules to be eligible as candidates. [106]
All told, petitioner Arlene Llena Empaynado Chua is a dual citizen correctly
disqualified from running for the position of Councilor in the Fourth District of
Manila during the 2013 National and Local elections. With her dual citizenship
existing prior to the filing of the certificate of candidacy, her Certificate of Candidacy
was void ab initio. She was correctly considered a non-candidate. All votes casted
for her were stray, and the person legally entitled to the position is private
respondent Krystle Marie C. Bacani, the candidate with the next highest number of
votes among the eligible candidates. The Commission on Elections did not gravely
abuse its discretion in annulling Chua's proclamation and subsequently proclaiming
private respondent Bacani.
WHEREFORE, the Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition is DISMISSED. This
Decision is immediately executory.
SO ORDERED.
Del Castillo, Perez, Mendoza, Reyes, Jardeleza, and Caguioa, JJ., concur.
NOTICE OF JUDGMENT
Sirs/Mesdames:
Very truly yours,
(SGD)
Clerk of Court
[1]
Rollo, pp. 3-19.
Id. at 32-52. The Resolution was signed by Presiding Commissioner Elias R.

Yusoph and Commissioners Maria Gracia Cielo M Padaca and Luie Tito F. Guia of the
Second Division.
[2]
Id. at 22-31. The Resolution was signed by Chairman Sixto S. Brillantes, Jr. and
Commissioners Lucenito N. Tagle, Elias R. Yusoph, Christian Robert S. Lim, Al A.
Parreiio, Luie Tito F. Guia, and Arthur D. Lim of the COMELEC En Banc.
[3]
[4]
Id. at 51, COMELEC Second Division Resolution dated October 17, 2013.
[5]
Id.
[6]
Id. at 100.
Rep. Act. No. 7166 (1991), sec. 3(c), in relation to Rep. Act No. 6636 (1987),
sec. 2. Rep. Act No. 7166 (1991), sec. 3(c) provides:
[7]
Section 3. Election of Members of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan, Sangguniang

Panlungsod and Sangguniang Bayan. - The elective members of the Sangguniang
Panlalawigan, Sangguniang Panlungscd and Sangguniang Bayan shall be elected as
follows:
....
c. The number and election of elective members of the Sangguniang
Panlungsod and Sangguniang Bayan in the Metro Manila Area, City of Cebu,
City of Davao and any other city with two (2) or more legislative districts
shall continue to be governed by the provisions of Sections 2 and 3 of
Republic Act No. 6636: Provided, That, the Municipalities of Malabon,
Navotas, San Juan, Mandaluyong, Muntinlupa, Las Pifias and Taguig shall
have twelve (12) councilors, and Pateros, ten (10): Provided, further, That,
the Commission shall divide each of the municipalities in Metro Manila Area
into two (2) districts by barangay for purposes of representation in the
Sangguniang Bayan as nearly as practicable according to the number of
inhabitants, each comprising a compact, contiguous and adjacent territory[.]

Section 2. Metro Manila Area. - For purposes of the Local Elections on January 18,
1988, the City of Manila, Quezon City and the City of Caloocan shall have six (6)
councilors for each of their representative districts who shall be residents thereof to
be elected by the qualified voters therein. The City of Pasay and the Municipalities
of Makati, Paraflaque, Pasig, Marikina, and Valenzuela, each of which comprises a
representative district, shall have twelve (12) councilors each to be elected at large
by the qualified voters of the said city or municipality. All the other municipalities
within the Metropolitan Manila area shall have ten (10) councilors each, with the
exception of the Municipality of Pateros which shall have eight (8) councilors, to be
elected at large by their respective qualified voters.
[8]
Rollo, p. 23, COMELEC En Banc Resolution dated January 30, 2015.
[9]
Id.
[10]
Id. at 95-98.
[11]
Id. at 95.
[12]
Id.
[13]
Id.
[14]
Id.at 96.
[15]
Id.
[16]
Id.at 97.
[17]
Id. at 104, Verified Answer.
[18]
Id. at 118, Barangay Certification dated May 21, 2010.
[19]
[20]
Id. at 106-107.
COMELEC Rules of Procedure, as amended by Resolution No. 9523, rule 24, sec.
3 provides: Section 3. Period to File the Petition. - The Petition shall be filed
personally or through an authorized representative, within five (5) days from the
last day for the filing of certificates of candidacy. In case of a substitute candidate,
the Petition must be filed within five (5) days from the time the substitute candidate
filed his certificate of candidacy.
[21]
COMELEC Rules of Procedure, as amended by Resolution No. 9523, rule 23, sec.
2 provides: Section 2. Period to File Petition. - The Petition must be filed within five
(5) days from the last day for filing of certificate of candidacy; but not later than
twenty five (25) days from the time of filing of the certificate of candidacy subject
of the Petition. In case of a substitute candidate, the Petition must be filed within
five (5) days from the time the substitute candidate filed his certificate of
candidacy.
[22]
[23]
Rollo, p. 107, Verified Answer.
[24]
Id. at 100, Certificate of Candidacy.
[25]
[26]
Id. at 111.
[27]
Id. at 112.
[28]
Id. at 133-140.
[29]
Id. at 133.
[30]
Id. at 136-137.
[31]
709 Phil. 408 (2013) [Per C.J. Sereno, En Banc].
Rollo, p. 134, Motion to Intervene with Manifestation and Motion to Annul

Proclamation.
[32]
[33]
Id.
[34]
Id. at 129.
Id. at 134, Motion to Intervene with Manifestation and Motion to Annul

Proclamation.
[35]
[36]
Id. at 135.
[37]
Id.
[38]
Id. at 137.
[39]
Id. at 146-153.
[40]
Id. at 149-152.
[41]
Id. at 151.
[42]
Id. at 152.
[43]
Id. at 24, COMELEC En Banc Resolution dated January 30 2015.
[44]
Id. at 175-196.
[45]
Id. atl86.
[46]
Id. atl90-191.
[47]
Id. at 154-169.
[48]
Id. at 39-41, COMELEC Second Division Resolution dated October 17 2013
[49]
Id.
[50]
Id.
[51]
Id. at 4142.
[52]
Id.
[53]
Id.
[54]
Id. at 42. COMELEC Second Division Resolution dated October 17 2013.
[55]
Id. at 46.
[56]
Id. at 43-44.
[57]
Id. at 50-51.
[58]
Id. at 51.
[59]
Id. at 47-51.
[60]
Id. at 51.
[61]
Id.
[62]
Id. at 53-69.
[63]
Id. at 3-4, Urgent Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition.
[64]
Id. at 205-215.
[65]
Id. at 219-238.
[66]
Id. at 13, Urgent Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition.
[67]
Id. at 9-11.
[68]
Id. at 11.
[69]
Id. at 13.
[70]
Id.
[71]
Id.
[72]
Id. at 13-15.
[73]
Id. at 16-17.
[74]
Id. at 210, Fragata and Bacani's Joint Comment, and 231, COMELEC's Comment
[75]
Id.
[76]
Id. at 227-228, COMELEC's Comment.
[77]
Id. at 228 and 235.
[78]
Id. at 235.
[79]
Id. at 233-235.
[80]
Id. at 236.
[81]
Id. at 212, Fragata and Bacani's Joint Comment, and 237. COMELEC's Comment
[82]
595 Phil. 449 (2008) [Per J. Nachura, En Banc].
[83]
Id. at 457.
[84]
Id.
[85]
ELECTION CODE, sec. 74.
[86]
ELECTION CODE, sec. 76.
[87]
ELECTION CODE, sec. 78 provides:
Sec. 78. Petition to deny due course to or cancel a certificate of candidacy. A

verified petition seeking to deny due course or to cancel a certificate of candidacy
may be filed by the person exclusively on the ground that any material
representation contained therein as required under Section 74 hereof is false. The
petition may be filed at any time not later than twenty-five days from the time of
the filing of the certificate of candidacy and shall be decided, after due notice and
hearing, not later than fifteen days before the election.
Villafuerte v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 206698, February 25, 2014 717
SCRA 312 3?3 [Per J. Peralta, En Banc].
[88]
Fermin v. Commission on Elections, 595 Phil. 449, 465-466 (2008) [Per J.

Nachura, En Banc].
[89]
Villafuerte v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 206698, February 25, 2014,

717 SCRA 312, 323 [Per J. Peralta, En Banc].
[90]
[91]
318 Phil. 329 (1995) [Per J. Kapunan, En Banc].
J. Mendoza, Dissenting Opinion in Romualdez-Marcos v. Commission on

Elections, 318 Phil 329 464-465 (1995) [Per J. Kapunan, En Banc].
[92]
See Jalosjos, Jr. v. Commission on Elections, 696 Phil. 601, 632 (2012) [Per J.
Carpio, En Banc].
[93]
[94]
[95]
COMELEC Rules of Procedure, rule 8, sec. 1 provides:
Section 1. When Proper and Who may be Permitted to Intervene. - Any person
allowed to initiate an action or proceeding may, before or during the trial of an
action or proceeding, be permitted by the Commission, in its discretion, to
intervene in such action or proceeding, if he has legal interest in the matter in
litigation, or in the success of either of the parties, or an interest against both, or
when he is so situated as to be adversely affected by such action or proceeding.
[96]
CONST. (1935), art. IV, sec. 1 provides:
Sec. 1. The following are citizens of the Philippines:

(1) Those who are citizens of the Philippine Islands at the time of the adoption of
this Constitution.
(2) Those born in the Philippine Islands of foreign parents who, before the adoption
of this Constitution, had been elected to public office in the Philippine Islands.
(3) Those whose fathers are citizens of the Philippines.
(4) Those whose mothers are citizens of the Philippines and, upon reaching the age
of majority, elect Philippine citizenship.
(5) Those who are naturalized in accordance with law.
[97]
Com. Act No. 63 (1936), sec. 1 provides:
Sec. 1. How citizenship may be lost. A Filipino citizen may lose his citizenship in
any of the following ways and/or events:
(1) By naturalization in a foreign country[.]
[98]
Sec. 3. Retention of Philippine Citizenship. Any provision of law to the contrary

notwithstanding, natural-bom citizens of the Philippines who have lost their
Philippine citizenship by reason of their naturalization as citizens of a foreign
country are hereby deemed to have re-acquired Philippine citizenship upon taking
the following oath of allegiance to the Republic:
"I________________ , solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend
the Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines and obey the laws and legal
orders promulgated by the duly constituted authorities of the Philippines, and I
hereby declare that I recognize and accept the supreme authority of the Philippines
and will maintain true faith and allegiance thereto; and that I impose this obligation
upon myself voluntarily without mental reservation or purpose of evasion." Naturalbom citizens of the Philippines who, after the effectivity of this Act, become citizens
of a foreign country shall retain their Philippine citizenship upon taking the
aforesaid oath.
[99]
592 Phil. 661 (2008) [Per J. Chico-Nazario, En Banc].
[100]
Id. at 673.
[101]
Local Govt. Code, sec. 44.
See Jalosjos, Jr. v. Commission on Elections, 696 Phil. 601, 633 (2012) [Per J.
Carpio, En Bane].
[102]
Maquiling v. Commission on Elections, 709 Phil. 408, 448 (2013) [Per C.J.
Sereno En Band
[103]
[104]
Id. at 450.
[103]
Id. at 447-450.
[106]
Id. at 444-447.

G.R.
No.
215548
UNDERSECRETARY AUSTERE A. PANADERO AND REGIONAL DIRECTOR RENE K. BURDEOS, BOTH OF THE DEPARTMENT
OF INTERIOR AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (DILG), PETITIONERS, VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, RESPONDENT. [G.R.
NO.
215726]
UNDERSECRETARY AUSTERE A. PANADERO AND REGIONAL DIRECTOR RENE K. BURDEOS, BOTH OF THE DEPARTMENT
OF INTERIOR AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (DILG), PETITIONERS, VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND MOHAMMAD
EXCHAN
GABRIEL
MANGONDAYA
ASUM
TAGO,
LIMBONA,
PETITIONER,
RESPONDENTS.
VS.
COMELEC
AND
[G.R.
MOHAMMAD
EXCHAN
NO.
GABRIEL
216158]
LIMBONA,
RESPONDENTS.
April 05, 2016
EN BANC
[ G.R. No. 215548, April 05, 2016 ]
UNDERSECRETARY AUSTERE A. PANADERO AND REGIONAL
DIRECTOR RENE K. BURDEOS, BOTH OF THE DEPARTMENT OF
INTERIOR AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (DILG), PETITIONERS,
VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, RESPONDENT.
[G.R. NO. 215726]
UNDERSECRETARY AUSTERE A. PANADERO AND REGIONAL
DIRECTOR RENE K. BURDEOS, BOTH OF THE DEPARTMENT OF
INTERIOR AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (DILG), PETITIONERS,
VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND MOHAMMAD EXCHAN
GABRIEL LIMBONA, RESPONDENTS.
[G.R. NO. 216158]
MANGONDAYA ASUM TAGO, PETITIONER, VS. COMELEC AND

MOHAMMAD EXCHAN GABRIEL LIMBONA, RESPONDENTS.
DECISION
REYES, J.:
Before the Court are consolidated petitions for certiorari docketed as G.R. No.
215548,[1] G.R. No. 215726[2] and G.R. No. 216158,[3] which assail the Resolutions
dated November 17, 2014[4] and January 5, 2015[5] of the Commission on Elections
(COMELEC) en bane, in EM. No. 14-005, citing Department of Interior and Local
Government (DILG) Undersecretary Austere A. Panadero (Usec. Panadero), DILG
Regional Director Rene K. Burdeos (RD Burdeos) and Mangondaya Asum Tago
(Tago) (petitioners) in indirect contempt and providing penalties therefor, following
the DILG's implementation of the Decision[6] dated September 30, 2009 of the
Office of Ombudsman (Ombudsman) in OMB-L-A-08-0530-H, against Mohammad
Exchan Gabriel Limbona (Limbona).
The Antecedents
In the Decision rendered by the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon on
September 30, 2009 and approved by then Ombudsman Ma. Merceditas N.
Gutierrez on October 23, 2009,[7] Limbona was among the persons[8] found to be
guilty of grave misconduct, oppression and conduct prejudicial to the best interest
of the service, which he committed while he was still the Chairman of Barangay
Kalanganan Lower, Pantar, Lanao del Norte, and in relation to the killing of Hadji
Abdul Rasid Onos, the former Municipal Vice Mayor of Pantar. Limbona was meted
the penalty of dismissal from public service, with the accessory penalties of
cancellation of eligibility, forfeiture of retirement benefits and perpetual
disqualification from re-employment in the government service. In the dispositive
portion of the decision, the DILG Secretary was directed to immediately implement
the ruling against Limbona, pursuant to Section 7, Rule III of Administrative Order
No. 17 (Ombudsman Rules of Procedure) in relation to Memorandum Circular No. 1,
series of 2006. Limbona moved for reconsideration, but this was denied by the
Ombudsman in a Joint Order[9]dated March 22, 2010.
On November 15, 2013, the Ombudsman issued an Order [10] forwarding to the DILG
Secretary a copy of its Decision against Limbona for implementation, as it had
become final and executory in 2011. The order indicated that Limbona had been
elected as Municipal Mayor of Pantar. Acting on the order, Usec. Panadero issued, on
April 3, 2014, a Memorandum[11] directing RD Burdeos, as the RD of the DILG
Region X Office, to cause the immediate implementation of the Ombudsman
decision insofar as Limbona was concerned.

On April 21, 2014, however, RD Burdeos reported that he received from Limbona's
counsel a copy of the Resolution[12] dated June 6, 2013 issued by the COMELEC First
Division, dismissing the petition for disqualification filed against Limbona. The
petition, entitled Malik T. Alingan v. Mohammad Limbona, docketed as SPA No. 13252 (DC), questioned Limbona's eligibility to run for public office in the 2013
elections after the Ombudsman found him guilty in 2009 in OMB-L-A-08-0530-H. In
the COMELEC resolution, Limbona was declared to still be qualified to run for public
office, citing the case of Aguinaldo v. Santos[13] (Aguinaldo doctrine), holding that "a
public official cannot be removed for administrative misconduct committed during a
prior term, since his re-election to office operates as a condonation of the officer's
previous misconduct to the extent of cutting off the right to remove him
therefor."[14] Thus, the resolution reads in part:
In other words, misconduct committed by [Limbona] in 2008 have been condoned
by the people of Pantar, Lanao del Norte[,] when they elected him as their Mayor in
2010. Hence, such fact cannot serve as ground for his disqualification for purposes
of the 2013 elections.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant Petition is
hereby DISMISSED. [Limbona] is QUALIFIED to run for Municipal Mayor of
Pantar, Lanao del Norte.
SO ORDERED.[15]
On April 30, 2014, Usec. Panadero then sought clarification from Ombudsman
Conchita Carpio-Morales on the applicability of the Aguinaldo doctrine in Limbona's
case in light of the COMELEC First Division's resolution. [16] Pending receipt of the
Ombudsman's reply, Usec. Panadero also issued on even date a Memorandum,
[17]
addressed to RD Burdeos, directing him to proceed with the implementation of
the Ombudsman's decision. He explained that:
Pending such clarification, you are hereby directed to proceed with the
implementation of the Ombudsman Decision and Joint Order dated 30 September
2009 and 22 March 2010, respectively, pursuant to Ombudsman Memorandum
Circular No. 01, series of 2006 in relation to the case of Office of the Ombudsman
vs. De Chavez, et al. that the decision of the Ombudsman is immediately executory
pending appeal and may not be stayed by the filing of an appeal or the issuance of
an injunctive writ.
For compliance.[18] (Citation omitted)
Limbona, on the other hand, sought the Office of the President's (OP) revocation
and/or recall of the DILG Memoranda dated April 3, 2014 and April 30, 2014,
relative to the implementation of the Ombudsman's decision against him. [19]
On May 5, 2014, the DILG served the dismissal order of Limbona, which led to his
removal from office and the assumption to the mayoralty of then Vice Mayor Tago.
[20]
Displeased by the DILG's actions, Limbona filed with the COMELEC a
petition[21] to cite the petitioners for indirect contempt. In his petition, he also
sought the COMELEC's issuance of an injunctive writ that would enjoin the
performance of any act that would directly or indirectly contravene the tenor and
substance of the COMELEC First Division's resolution.
Meanwhile, Usec. Panadero followed up from the Ombudsman its reply to the
clarification sought by the DILG on Limbona's case.[22] The DILG later received from
the Ombudsman an Indorsement[23] dated June 23, 2014 still referring to the DILG
the said Ombudsman decision "for implementation, with the information that
[therein] respondents' petitions filed with-the [CA] and Supreme Court had all been
dismissed."[24]
In their Comment[25] on the petition for indirect contempt, Usec. Panadero and RD
Burdeos contended, among other arguments, that: first, the petition was premature
because the COMELEC First Division's resolution was not yet final, as it remained
pending with the COMELEC en banc; second, the COMELEC had no jurisdiction over
the petitioners and the decision of the Ombudsman; and third, the petitioners were
not in bad faith but were merely implementing a final and executory decision of the
Ombudsman.
In the meantime, the motion for reconsideration filed by Malik Alingan against the
COMELEC First Division's Resolution dated June 6, 2013 was later resolved by the
COMELEC en banc. On August 8, 2014, the DILG received a copy of the
COMELEC en banc's Resolution[26] dated July 8, 2014, which affirmed with
modification its division's Resolution. The COMELEC en banc disagreed with the First
Division's application of the Aguinaldo doctrine. It said that the doctrine on
condonation could not apply in Limbona's case because he was elected as Mayor for
the term 2010-2013, which was different from his position as Barangay Chairman in
2007-2010 when his administrative case was filed. The COMELEC en banc,
nonetheless, declared that Limbona was qualified to run for public office because he
was not removed from his post as Barangay Chairman, and was able to finish his
term prior to the finality of the Ombudsman's decision. Section 40(b) of the Local
Government Code (LGC) disqualifies from running for any elective local position
"those removed from office as a result of an administrative case." [27]
On August 5, 2014, the COMELEC issued a Certificate of Finality [28] covering

COMELEC Resolutions dated June 6, 2013 and July 8, 2014. These COMELEC
resolutions were assailed in a petition docketed as G.R. No. 213291, which was
dismissed via this Court's Resolutions dated March 24, 2015[29] and June 16, 2015.
[30]
Meanwhile, Limbona's petition with the OP for the revocation and/or recall of the
DILG's Memoranda dated April 3, 2014 and April 30, 2014 was dismissed in a
Decision[31] dated December 5, 2014.
Ruling of the COMELEC
On November 17, 2014, the COMELEC en banc issued its Resolution[32] citing the
petitioners in indirect contempt. It explained:
The violation of the final and executory resolution of the Comelec constitutes
contempt. The [COMELEC] already ruled that the Ombudsman Decision cannot be
the cause of the disqualification or ouster of [Limbona]. The [petitioners]
completely disregarded the ruling despite their knowledge and receipt of the Entry
of Judgment thereof. The fact that the DILG is not a party to the case cannot be
used to circumvent the Resolution of [COMELEC]. They themselves admit of the
receipt of the same. It behooves the [COMELEC] the motivation of the [petitioners]
to blatantly disobey the Resolutions of [COMELEC].
All told, the [COMELEC] finds the [petitioners] [to have] disobeyed the legal
order/resolution of [COMELEC].[33]
No penalty for the contempt was provided in the aforequoted COMELEC resolution,
the dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, petition is hereby GRANTED. The [COMELEC]
(En Banc) hereby RESOLVES to CITE [THE PETITIONERS] in CONTEMPT.
SO ORDERED.[34]
Among the petitioners, only Tago filed a motion for reconsideration before the
COMELEC en banc, assailing the abovequoted resolution.
The Present Petitions
G.R. No. 215548
The foregoing prompted the filing on December 17, 2014 by Usec. Panadero and RD
Burdeos, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), the Petition
forCertiorari (under Rule 64 of the Rules of Court) [35] docketed as G.R. No. 215548,
contending that: (1) the COMELEC had no jurisdiction over the acts of the
Ombudsman; (2) there was no basis to hold the parties in contempt; and (3)
the Aguinaldo doctrine does not apply to the case of Limbona. They, thus, asked the
Court to set aside the COMELEC resolution citing them in contempt.
G.R. No. 215726
On January 5, 2015, after the petition in G.R. No. 215548 had been filed, the
COMELEC en banc issued a Resolution[36] resolving Tago's motion for reconsideration
of the COMELEC en bane's Resolution dated November 17, 2014. The COMELEC en
bane denied Tago's motion, imposed penalties upon the petitioners for indirect
contempt, and ordered their arrest. The dispositive portion of the new resolution
reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant Motion for Reconsideration is
DENIED. The Resolution of [COMELEC] dated November 17. 2014 is AFFIRMEDin
toto.
Accordingly, a fine of One thousand pesos (Phpl,000.00) and a penalty of
imprisonment for six (6) months is imposed against [the petitioners].
Let a warrant of arrest be issued against [the petitioners].
SO ORDERED.[37]
Aggrieved, Usec. Panadero and RD Burdeos filed with the Court another Petition
for Certiorari With a Very Urgent Application for a Writ of Preliminary Injunction
and/or Temporary Restraining Order[38] (TRO) docketed as G.R. No. 215726, which
sought to set aside the COMELEC en banc's Resolutions dated November 17, 2014
and January 5, 2015. They argued that the COMELEC cannot motu proprio amend
its decision by imposing upon them the penalties of fine and imprisonment. They
further reiterated their argument that the COMELEC did not have jurisdiction over
the petitioners and the acts of the Ombudsman.
Acting on the application for a TRO against the issuance of warrants of arrest
pending determination of the merits of the petition, the Court issued, on January 8,
2015, a TRO to enjoin the COMELEC, its agents, representatives, or persons acting
in its place and stead, from implementing the COMELEC Resolution dated January
5, 2015 effective immediately until further orders from the Court. [39]
G.R. No. 216158
On February 5, 2015, Tago filed his own Petition for Certiorari with Motion to Adopt,
[40]
docketed as G.R. No. 216158, against the COMELEC and Limbona. Tago argued,
among several grounds, that the petitioners did not commit acts constituting
indirect contempt as defined by law. His assumption to office, in particular, was
supported by legal bases given the issuances of the Ombudsman and the DILG, in
light of pertinent provisions on succession under the LGC. Tago further adopted the
petition filed by the OSG for Usec. Panadero and RD Burdeos.
The Issue
The core issue for the Court's resolution is whether the COMELEC committed grave
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in finding the
petitioners in contempt of court and imposing the penalties of fine and
imprisonment.
Ruling of the Court
At the outset, the Court emphasizes that its determination in the pending petitions
shall be limited to the COMELEC resolutions on the finding of indirect contempt and
the penalties imposed therefor, being the issuances assailed via the three
consolidated petitions. While the Ombudsman's ruling in OMB-L-A-08-0530-H and
the COMELEC's disposition in SPA No. 13-252 (DC) are related to the finding of
contempt, the subject matters thereof were covered by separate petitions before
the Court,[41] and are beyond the cover of the Court's present review.
The Court grants the petitions.
Power of contempt
"The power to punish for contempt is inherent in all courts and is essential to the
preservation of order in judicial proceedings and to the enforcement of judgments,
orders, and mandates of the court, and consequently, to the due administration of
justice."[42] Contempt is defined as a disobedience to the court by acting in
opposition to its authority, justice and dignity. It signifies not only a willful disregard
or disobedience of the court's orders, but such conduct which tends to bring the
authority of the court and the administration of law into disrepute or in some
manner to impede the due administration of justice. It is a conduct that tends to
bring the authority and administration of the law into disrespect or to interfere with
or prejudice parties-litigant or their witnesses during litigation. [43] By jurisprudence,
the power to punish for contempt, however, should be used sparingly with caution,
restraint, judiciousness, deliberation, and due regard to the provisions of the law
and the constitutional rights of the individual. [44]
The COMELEC is similarly vested with the power to punish for contempt. Article VII,
Section 52(e) of The Omnibus Election Code expressly gives it the power to
"[p]unish contempts provided for in the Rules of Court in the same procedure and
with the same penalties provided therein. Any violation of any final and executory
decision, order or ruling of the Commission shall constitute contempt thereof." The
pertinent provision on indirect contempt in the Rules of Court referred to is Rule 71,
Section 3, which provides:
Sec. 3. Indirect contempt to be punished after charge or hearing. After a charge in
writing has been filed, and an opportunity given to the respondent to comment
thereon within such period as may be fixed by the court and to be heard by himself
or counsel, a person guilty of any of the following acts may be punished for indirect
contempt:
(a) Misbehavior of an officer of a court in the performance of his official duties or in
his official transactions;
(b) Disobedience of or resistance to a lawful writ, process, order or judgment of a
court, including the act of a person who, after being dispossessed or ejected from
any real property by the judgment or process of any court of competent
jurisdiction, enters or attempts or induces another to enter into or upon such real
property, for the purpose of executing acts of ownership or possession, or in any
manner disturbs the possession given to the person adjudged to be entitled
thereto;
(c) Any abuse of or any unlawful interference with the processes or proceedings of
a court not constituting direct contempt under section 1 of this Rule;
(d) Any improper conduct tending, directly or indirectly, to impede, obstruct, or
degrade the administration of justice;
(e) Assuming to be an attorney or an officer of a court, and acting as such without
authority;
(f) Failure to obey a subpoena duly served; and
(g) The rescue, or attempted rescue, of a person or property in the custody of an
officer by virtue of an order or process of a court held by him.
But nothing in this section shall be so construed as to prevent the court from
issuing process to bring the respondent into court, or from holding him in custody
pending such proceedings.
The foregoing provision is substantially reproduced in Section 2, Rule 29 of the
COMELEC Rules of Procedure defining indirect contempt which reads:
Sec. 2. Indirect Contempt. - After charge in writing has been filed with the
Commission or Division, as the case may be, and an opportunity given to the
respondent to be heard by himself or counsel, a person guilty of the following acts
may be punished for indirect contempt:
a. Misbehavior of the responsible officer of the Commission in the performance
of his official duties or in his official transactions;
b. Disobedience of or resistance to a lawful writ, process, order, judgment or
command of the Commission or any of its Divisions, or injunction or
restraining order granted by it;
c. Any abuse of or any unlawful interference with the process or proceedings of
the Commission or any of its Divisions not constituting direct contempt under
Section 1 of this Rules;
d. Any improper conduct tending, directly or indirectly, to impede, obstruct, or
degrade the administration of justice by the Commission or any of its
Divisions;
e. Assuming to be an attorney and acting as such without authority; and
f. Failure to obey a subpoena duly served.
Section 3, Rule 29 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure prescribes the imposable

penalties for indirect contempt committed against the COMELEC, to wit:
Sec. 3. Penalty for Indirect Contempt. - If adjudged guilt, the accused may be
punished by a fine not exceeding one thousand (PI,000.00) pesos or imprisonment
for not more than six (6) months, or both, at the discretion of the Commission or
Division.
The petitioners were charged, cited and punished for a supposed indirect contempt
committed against the COMELEC. As defined by jurisprudence, indirect contempt is
one committed out of or not in the presence of the court that tends to belittle,
degrade, obstruct or embarrass the court and justice, as distinguished from direct
contempt which is characterized by misbehavior committed in the presence of or so
near a court or judge as to interrupt the proceedings before the same. [45]
For the COMELEC en banc, the petitioners' contemptuous act pertained to their
alleged "violation of the final and executory resolution of the [COMELEC]." [46] Usec.
Panadero and RD Burdeos, in particular, dismissed Limbona from his post as
Municipal Mayor of Pantar on the basis of the Ombudsman's decision finding him
guilty in an administrative case. As the COMELEC already ruled that the
Ombudsman's decision failed to disqualify Limbona from the mayoralty post, the
dismissal of the latter and Tago's resulting assumption to office were blatant
disobedience of a legal order or resolution of the COMELEC. The contempt was then
premised on Section 2(b) of Rule 29 of the COMELEC Rules of
Procedure, i.e., disobedience of or resistance to a lawful writ, process, order,
judgment or command of the Commission or any of its Divisions, or injunction or
restraining order granted by it.
The petitioners are not guilty of
indirect contempt
Upon review, the Court finds that the actions of the petitioners do not constitute
indirect contempt.
In serving the dismissal order of Limbona and allowing Tago to assume the vacated
mayoralty post, the petitioners could not be said to have disobeyed the resolutions
of the COMELEC in the disqualification case, much less did so, in a manner that was
characterized with contempt against the COMELEC. Contrary to the COMELEC's
stance, the COMELEC's Resolution in SPA No. 13-252 (DC) and the Ombudsman's
Decision in OMB-L-A-08-0530-H involved two distinct issues, such that the
implementation of one agency's ruling would not necessarily result in a violation of
the other.
To be specific, SPA No. 13-252 (DC) was instituted to question the qualification of
Limbona as a candidate for the 2013 elections, an issue that was well within the
jurisdiction of the COMELEC. In order to properly resolve such issue, and given the
arguments that were raised to seek his disqualification, the COMELEC was called
upon to refer to Section 40 of the LGC, which reads:
Sec. 40. Disqualifications. - The following persons are disqualified from running
from any elective local position:
(a) Those sentenced by final judgment for an offense involving moral turpitude or
for an offense punishable by one (1) year or more of imprisonment, within two (2)
years after serving sentence;
(b) Those removed from office as a result of an administrative case;
(c) Those convicted by final judgment for violating the oath of allegiance to the
Republic;
(d) Those with dual citizenship;

(e) Fugitives from justice in criminal or nonpolitical cases here or abroad;
(f) Permanent residents in a foreign country or those who have acquired the right
to reside abroad and continue to avail of the same right after the effectivity of this
Code; and
(g) The insane or feeble-minded. (Emphasis ours)
Notwithstanding Section 40(b) of the LGC, the COMELEC decided in favor of
Limbona's qualification only for the reason that he was not removed from office
prior to 2013, but was able to complete his term despite the Ombudsman case that
was filed against him. The Court underscores the fact that the COMELEC's decision
to allow Limbona's candidacy was not a disregard of the Ombudsman's Decision in
OMB-L-A-08-0530-H. There was instead a clear recognition of the fact of conviction
in the administrative case, except that no removal as required by law had
transpired during Limbona's prior tenure as public official. Even as it declared
Limbona qualified to run for the 2013 elections, the COMELEC could not have set
aside the consequences attached to the Ombudsman's finding of guilt. Moreso, the
Ombudsman's decision against Limbona was neither nullified nor set aside by the
ruling of the COMELEC.
The actions of the DILG, in turn, were mere implementation of the Ombudsman's
decision, as records indicated the failure to previously effect the consequences
.attached to the finding of guilt. By acting on the Ombudsman's order to implement
its decision, the DILG neither argued nor declared Limbona to be disqualified from
the mayoralty. That Limbona was qualified to run for the 2013 elections, however,
did not mean that he could no longer be dismissed from the service as a result of
his administrative case. The DILG could still implement the Ombudsman's decision,
as it did so, with the service of the dismissal order upon Limbona, without
disobeying the COMELEC. The Ombudsman's decision even carried sanctions other
than dismissal from the public service, such as the accessory penalties of
cancellation of eligibility, forfeiture of retirement benefits and perpetual
disqualification from re-employment in the government service. While the
administrative case was pertinent to the disqualification issue, these penalties could
not have been rendered ineffective simply by the COMELEC's decision in the
disqualification case.
As COMELEC Commissioner Christian Robert S. Lim correctly supplied in his
Dissenting Opinion[47] from the majority's decision to cite the petitioners in
contempt, he explained that:
The ponencia failed to establish the metes and bounds of how the assailed act
constituted disobedience and defiance of the Decision in SPA No. 13-252 (DC), x
x x If it be asked what lawful writ, process, order, judgment or command
of the Commission was disobeyed or resisted by the [petitioners], the
answer is none whatever. A finding of contempt cannot be presumed by a mere
inference from surrounding circumstances. The disqualification in SPA Case No.
13-252 (DC) and the removal of [Limbona] as contained in the dismissal order of
the DILG, although intimately related, are two different subject matters which are
independent of each other. The purpose of a disqualification case is to prevent a
candidate from running, if elected, from serving, or to prosecute him or her for
violation of the election laws. In SPA Case No. 13-252 (DC), [Limbona] was
sought to be disqualified on account of the Ombudsman Decision which found merit
in the complaint for grave misconduct and sentenced him with the penalty of
dismissal from service with the accessory penalties x x x. The issue boils down to
whether [Limbona] was removed from office as a result of an administrative case,
thus, rendering him disqualified from running for any elective local position. On the
other hand, the purpose of an execution or implementation of a judgment is to put
the final judgment of the court into effect. In the case of OMB-L-A-08-0530-H,
the issue boils down to how the DILG will implement the penalty of dismissal from
service with the accessory penalties of cancellation of eligibility, forfeiture of
retirement benefits and perpetual disqualification for reemployment in the
government service, xxx.[48]
In Rivulet Agro-Industrial Corporation v. Parugao, et al.,[49] the Court emphasized:
To be considered contemptuous, an act must be clearly contrary to or prohibited by
the order of the court. Thus, a person cannot be punished for contempt for
disobedience of an order of the Court, unless the act which is forbidden or required
to be done is clearly and exactly defined, so that there can be no reasonable doubt
or uncertainty as to what specific act or thing is forbidden or required. [50] (Citation
omitted)
In any case, even granting that the issuances of the COMELEC should have barred
the DILG from the service of the dismissal order, the petitioners could not be
considered guilty of contempt. By jurisprudence, intent and good faith may be
crucial in contempt cases. As the Court held in Saint Louis University, Inc. v.
Olairez:[51]
In contempt, the intent goes to the gravamen of the offense. Thus, the good faith
or lack of it, of the alleged contemnor is considered. Where the act complained of is
ambiguous or does not clearly show on its face that it is contempt, and is one
which, if the party is acting in good faith, is within his rights, the presence or
absence of a contumacious intent is, in some instances, held to be determinative of
its character, x x x To constitute contempt, the act must be done willfully and for an
illegitimate or improper purpose.[52] (Citations omitted)
Contrary to the COMELEC's finding, the DILG did not blatantly disregard the
resolutions of the COMELEC. Records indicate that it did not simply ignore the
COMELEC issuances, notwithstanding the fact that it only obtained notice thereof
through Limbona's counsel and not directly from the COMELEC. Considering that
the implementation of the order to dismiss Limbona was upon the instance of the
Ombudsman, the DILG still took recourse by seeking clarification from the
Ombudsman, which nonetheless later reiterated the instruction to implement the
decision in the administrative case. These circumstances show good faith on the
part of the petitioners, and negate a supposed intent to plainly disobey the
COMELEC.
It was thus erroneous for the COMELEC to punish the DILG officials for contempt,
for the acts that they performed upon the Ombudsman's directive, especially since
the order upon them in the dispositive portion of the Ombudsman's decision was
patent that:
The Honorable Secretary, [DILG] with respect to respondents Mayor Norlainie
Mitmug Limbona (a.k.a. Lai) and [Limbona], x x x are hereby directed to
implement this DECISION immediately upon receipt thereof pursuant to
Section 7, Rule III of [Ombudsman Rules of Procedure] in relation to Memorandum
Circular No. 1, Series of 2006 dated 11 April 2006 and to promptly inform this
Office of the action taken hereon.[53] (Emphasis ours)
The DILG officials' disobedience to the said order would have similarly resulted in
the imposition of penalties upon them by the Ombudsman. They were bound by
prevailing rules affecting the implementation of the agency's decisions, particularly
Section 7, Rule III of the Ombudsman Rules of Procedure, which provides sanctions
for non-compliance, to wit:
Sec. 7. Finality and execution of decision. - x x x.
xxxx
A decision of the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative cases shall be
executed as a matter of course. The Office of the Ombudsman shall ensure that the
decision shall be strictly enforced and properly implemented. The refusal or
failure by any officer without just cause to comply with an order of the
Office of the Ombudsman to remove, suspend, demote, fine, or censure
shall be a ground for disciplinary action against said officer. (Emphasis ours)
Lastly, with the DILG being merely tasked to implement the Ombudsman's order,
Limbona's recourse to nullify the actions of the DILG officials or the instructions of
the Ombudsman to pursue the implementation of its decision, towards the end of
keeping his post as Municipal Mayor of Pantar, could not be allowed through a
petition for contempt. He had, in fact, filed with the OP a petition to revoke and/or
recall Usec. Panadero's memoranda that ordered the implementation of the
Ombudsman's decision, but this was still dismissed by the OP on the ground that
the petitioners were justified in their implementation of the Ombudsman's decision.
The OP said that to revoke Usec. Panadero's memoranda would be to encroach
upon the disciplining authority of the Ombudsman.[54]
The foregoing circumstances, taken collectively, lead the Court to rule that the
petitioners were not guilty of indirect contempt. The COMELEC committed grave
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in issuing the
Resolutions dated November 17, 2014 and January 5, 2015. There is grave abuse
of discretion when a court or quasi-judicial body acts in a capricious, whimsical,
arbitrary or despotic manner in the exercise of its judgment, as when the assailed
order is bereft of any factual and legal justification.55
WHEREFORE, the petitions are GRANTED. The Resolutions dated November 17,
2014 and January 5, 2015 of the Commission on Elections en banc in EM. No. 14005 are ANNULLED and SET ASIDE.
SO ORDERED.
Del Castillo, Perez, Mendoza, Leonen, Jardeleza, and Caguioa, JJ., concur.
NOTICE OF JUDGMENT
Sirs/Mesdames:
Very truly yours,

(SGD)
Clerk of Court
[1]
Rollo (G.R. No. 215548), pp. 3-43.
[2]
Rollo (G.R. No. 215726), pp. 3-37.
[3]
Rollo (G.R. No. 216158), pp. 3-20A.
[4]
Rollo (G.R. No. 215548), pp. 47-55.
[5]
Rollo (G.R. No. 215726), pp. 39-42.
[6]
Rollo (G.R. No. 215548), pp. 92-132.
[7]
Id. at 7.
[8]
Along with Mayor Norlainie Mitmug Limbona and Mapunud Buisan Gabriel.
[9]
Rollo (G.R. No. 215548), pp. 133-142.
[10]
Id. at 143-145.
[11]
Id. at 146-148.
[12]
Id. at 149-152.
[13]
G.R. No. 94115, August 21, 1992, 212 SCRA 768.
[14]
Id. at 773.
[15]
Rollo (G.R. No. 215548), p. 152.
[16]
Id. at 156-159.
[17]
Id. at 160.
[18]
Id.
[19]
Id. at 212-225.
[20]
Id. at 161-162.
[21]
Id. at 169-181.
[22]
Id. at 168.
[23]
Id. at 182.
[24]
Id.
[25]
Id. at 183-211.
[26]
Id. at 80-89.
[27]
Id. at 86-88.
[28]
Id. at 77-79.
[29]
Id. at 492.
[30]
Id. at 493.
[31]
Id. at 261-265.
[32]
Id. at 47-55.
[33]
Id. at 54.
[34]
Id.
[35]
Id. at 3-43.
[36]
Rollo (G.R. No. 215726), pp. 39-42.
[37]
Id. at 42.
[38]
Id. at 3-37.
[39]
Id. at 322-324.
[40]
Rollo (G.R. No. 216158), pp. 3-20A.
[41]
Rollo (G.R. No. 215548), pp. 144, 492-495.
Bank of the Philippine Islands v. Labor Arbiter Calanza, et al, 647 Phil. 507,
514(2010).
[42]
[43]
Roxas, et al. v. Judge Tipon, et al., 688 Phil. 372, 382 (2012).
[44]
Office of the Court Administrator v. Judge Lerma, 647 Phil. 216, 243 (2010).
[45]
Commissioner Rodriguez v. Judge Bonifacio, 398 Phil. 441, 466-467 (2000).
[46]
Rollo (G.R. No. 215548), p. 54.
[47]
Id. at 56-65.
[48]
Id. at 63-64.
[49]
701 Phil. 444(2013).
[50]
Id. at 452.
[51]
G.R. No. 162299, March 26, 2014, 720 SCRA 74.
[52]
Id. at 91-92.
[53]
Rollo (G.R. No. 215548), pp. 129-130.
[54]
Id. at 265.
[55]
Aquino v. Ng, 555 Phil. 253, 258 (2007).

G.R.
No.
194402
NEPTALI S. FRANCO, MELINDA L. OCAMPO, ARTEMIO P. MAGABO, REPRESENTED HEREIN BY SOLEDAD MAGABO,
BERNARDA C. LAVISORES, NICOMEDES B. DEYNATA, ALBERTO D. DOSAYLA, REPRESENTED HEREIN BY AILENE JOY
BILLONES DOSAYLA AND MARIETTA U. LARRACAS, PETITIONERS, VS. ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION, THE HON.
ZENAIDA G. CRUZ-DUCUT, IN HER CAPACITY AS CHAIRMAN OF THE ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION,
DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT, THE SECRETARY FLORENCIO B. ABAD AND RICALINDA N. ADRIATICO,
THE
DIRECTOR
OF
THE
BUDGET
AND
MANAGEMENT
BUREAU-A,
RESPONDENTS.
April 05, 2016
EN BANC
[ G.R. No. 194402, April 05, 2016 ]
NEPTALI S. FRANCO, MELINDA L. OCAMPO, ARTEMIO P.
MAGABO, REPRESENTED HEREIN BY SOLEDAD MAGABO,
BERNARDA C. LAVISORES, NICOMEDES B. DEYNATA,
ALBERTO D. DOSAYLA, REPRESENTED HEREIN BY AILENE
JOY BILLONES DOSAYLA AND MARIETTA U. LARRACAS,
PETITIONERS, VS. ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION, THE
HON. ZENAIDA G. CRUZ-DUCUT, IN HER CAPACITY AS
CHAIRMAN OF THE ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION,
DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT, THE
SECRETARY FLORENCIO B. ABAD AND RICALINDA N.
ADRIATICO, THE DIRECTOR OF THE BUDGET AND
MANAGEMENT BUREAU-A, RESPONDENTS.
DECISION
REYES, J.:
Before this Court on Petition for Review[1] is the Decision[2] dated May 13, 2010 of
the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 109733, an original action
formandamus under Rule 65 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, filed by retired
members of the defunct Energy Regulatory Board (ERB), seeking to compel the
Energy Regulatory Commission (ERC), Zenaida G. Cruz-Ducut (Ducut), in her
capacity as ERC Chairman, Department of Budget and Management (DBM), DBM

Secretary Florencio B. Abad, and DBM Bureau-A Director Ricalinda N. Adriatico
(Adriatico) to adjust and release their monthly retirement pensions based on the
salary levels now being received by the Chairman and Members of the ERC, created
by Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9136, otherwise known as the Electric Power Industry
Reform Act of 2001.
Antecedent Facts
Neptali Franco and Melinda Ocampo (Ocampo), former chairpersons of the ERB, and
Artemio Magabo, Bernarda Lavisores, Nicomedes Deynata, Alberto Dosayla and
Marietta Larracas, former members of the ERB (collectively referred to as the
petitioners), retired under Executive Order (E.O.) No. 172 which created the said
body on May 8, 1987. Their positions and respective dates of retirement from the
ERB are as follows:
Name
Neptali S. Franco
Melinda L. Ocampo
Artemio P. Magabo
Marietta U. Larracas
Nicomedes B. Deynata
Bernarda C. Lavisores
Alberto D. Dosayla
Position
Chairman
Chairperson
Member
Member
Member
Member
Member
Retirement Date
07/01/98
08/14/01
06/16/98
08/14/01
08/14/01
08/16/98
08/14/01[3]
Under Section 1 of E.O. No. 172, the Chairman and Members of ERB were entitled
to retirement benefits and privileges equal to those received by the Chairman and
Members of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC):
Sec. 1. Energy Regulatory Board. There is hereby created an independent Energy
Regulatory Board, hereinafter referred to as the Board, the nucleus of which shall
be the present Board of Energy. The Board shall be composed of a Chairman and
four (4) Members to be appointed by the President, with the consent of the
Commission on Appointments, x x x.
xxxx
The Chairman of the Board shall receive a compensation equal to that of a
Department Undersecretary while the Board Members shall each receive a
compensation equal to that of an official next in rank to a Department
Undersecretary.
The Chairman and the Members of the Board, upon completion of their
terms or upon becoming eligible for retirement under existing laws shall be
entitled to the same retirement benefits and privileges provided for the
Chairman and Members of the Commission on Elections. (Emphasis ours)
Also, Section 2-A of R.A. No. 1568,[4] as amended by R.A. No. 3595,[5] provides that
in case the salary of the Auditor General or the Chairman or any Member of the
COMELEC is increased or decreased, such increased or decreased salary shall, for
the purpose of the said Act, be deemed to be the salary or the retirement pension
which shall be received by the retired Auditor General or Chairman or any Member
of the COMELEC.
Subsequently, on June 8, 2001, R.A. No. 9136 was passed to reform and
restructure the electric power industry and privatize the National Power Corporation
(NPC). It abolished the ERB and created the ERC as an independent regulatory
body vested with quasi-judicial, quasi-legislative and administrative functions to
oversee the electric industry. In addition to ERB's traditional functions to regulate
electric rates and services, the ERC focuses on two primary responsibilities: (1) to
ensure consumer education and protection; and (2) to promote competitive
operations in the electricity market.
Section 39 of R.A. No. 9136 thereof provides for the retirement benefits of the
Chairman and Members of the ERC, to wit:
Sec. 39. Compensation and Other Emoluments for ERC Personnel. - x x x.
The Chairman and members of the Commission shall initially be entitled to the
same salaries, allowances and benefits as those of the Presiding Justice and
Associate Justices of the Supreme Court, respectively. The Chairman and the
members of the Commission shall, upon completion of their term or upon
becoming eligible for retirement under existing laws, be entitled to the
same retirement benefits and the privileges provided for the Presiding
Justice and Associate Justices of the Supreme Court, respectively.
(Emphasis ours)
The petitioners filed a petition for mandamus before the CA wherein they sought to
compel the ERC and the DBM to adjust their monthly pensions. The petitioners
argued-that, as retired members of the ERB, they are entitled to the retirement
benefits provided in Section 39 of R.A. No. 9136, in relation to Section 2-A of R.A.
No. 1568.[6]
To bolster their claim, they invoked the Decision dated August 29, 2007 of the CA
13th Division in CA-G.R. SP No. 89068, entitled "Edward C. Castaneda, Arnaldo P.
Baldonado and Welma T. Sicangco v. Hon. Eduardo R. Ermita, in his capacity as the
Executive Secretary of the Office of the President and the [ERC]."[7]
In CA-G.R. SP No. 89068, the petitioners therein, retired Members and

Commissioners of the ERB, requested an adjustment in their monthly pensions
under R.A. No. 9136. Their request, however, was denied on the ground that ERB
has been abolished and that it was a completely different entity from the ERC. On
appeal to the Office of the President (OP), the same was denied which prompted
the petitioners therein to file a petition for review with the CA. On August 29, 2007,
the CA 13thDivision ruled that the petitioners therein were entitled to adjustments in
their monthly pensions corresponding to the current levels of salaries and benefits
given to the ERC Chairman and Members. There being no appeal, the ruling became
final and executory on January 5, 2008.[8]
In a subsequent case also before the CA, CA-G.R. SP No. 89095, entitled "Retired
Chairmen of the [ERB, et al.] v. The [ERC] and the Department of Justice," a similar
request dated July 16, 2002 for adjustment in their monthly pensions was filed in
the ERC by retired ERB Chairmen Ponciano G.A. Mathay (Mathay) and Rex V.
Tantiongco (Tantiongco) and retired ERB Members Oscar E. Ala (Ala) and J. Mario
Laqui (Laqui). The ERC denied the request in a letter dated August 16, 2002 on the
ground that the retirement provisions under E,O. No. 172 were inconsistent with
those in R.A. No. 9136. After the ERC denied their motion for reconsideration, the
petitioners therein appealed to the OP. The Department of Justice (DOJ), to which
the OP endorsed the request, ruled against it, but on motion for reconsideration the
DOJ advised the petitioners therein to seek the opinion of the DBM. Instead of
heeding the DOJ's advice, the petitioners therein sought the OP's final ruling. In its
letter-decision dated February 18, 2005, the OP denied their request, viz:
We have carefully considered the legal arguments you presented in your letter,
together with all the documents attached therewith. After a thorough analysis of
the existing laws and jurisprudence on the matter, we concur with the legal opinion
of the former [DOJ] Simeon A. Datumanong in his 1stIndorsement dated 17 October
2003.
In this regard, we regret to inform you that we cannot accede to your request. [9]
Meanwhile, on April 16, 2008, herein petitioners together with Mathay, Tantiongco
and Ala wrote then ERC Chairman Rodolfo Albano, Jr. asking anew for the upgrading
of their monthly pensions. They contended that they were similarly situated with
the petitioners in CA-G.R. SP No. 89068.[10]
Without waiting for the ERC to resolve their request, Mathay, Tantiangco, Ala, and
the estate of Laqui filed a petition with the CA, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No." 89095,
[11]
assailing the OP letter-decision dated February 18, 2005. On May 9, 2008, the
CA 10th Division declared that the petitioners therein were entitled to the same
retirement benefits granted to the Chairman and Members of the COMELEC.

However, on motion for partial reconsideration, the CA on October 15, 2008
reversed its decision and declared them entitled to monthly pensions corresponding
to the current salary levels of the ERC Chairman and Members, citing the
expediency of avoiding conflicting decisions between the different divisions of the
appellate court.[12]
Acting on the letter-request dated April 16, 2008 of the petitioners, former
Congresswoman Ducut who took over as Chairman of the ERC referred the matter
to Adriatico, Bureau-A Director of the DBM. In her Opinion [13] dated June 29, 2009,
Adriatico denied their request for pension adjustment, stating that R.A. No. 9136
specifically refers only to the retirement benefits due to members of the ERC, and
the ruling in CA-G.R. SP No. 89068 cannot serve as a precedent since only
decisions of the Supreme Court (SC), interpreting the laws form part of the
country's legal system.
After the denial of their letter-request for pension adjustment, the petitioners filed
the petition for mandamus in the CA to compel the ERC and the DBM to adjust and
release their monthly pensions to keep up with the salary levels of the ERC
Chairman and Members. On May 13, 2010, the CA Special 2 nd Division dismissed
the petition for lack of legal basis.[14]
Hence, this petition interposing the following issues:
I.
WHETHER OR NOT THERE IS NO LAW GRANTING THE PETITIONERS THE RIGHT TO
RETIREMENT PENSIONS EQUIVALENT TO THE PRESENT SALARIES OF THE
CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE ERC.
II.
WHETHER OR NOT MANDAMUS IS THE APPROPRIATE REMEDY.[15]
Ruling of the Court
The petition is bereft of merit.

Mandamus does not lie since the
petitioners failed to invoke a law
specifically enjoining the performance
of the act demanded.
Central to the resolution of the present controversy is Section 29(1) of Article VI of

the 1987 Constitution which commands that "[n]o money shall be paid out of the
Treasury except in pursuance of an appropriation made by law." The burden of
proof thereof, rests upon the petitioners.
Moreover, Section 3, Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure provides:
Sec. 3. Petition for mandamus. - When any tribunal, corporation, board, officer or
person unlawfully neglects the performance of an act which the law specifically
enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or station, or unlawfully excludes
another from the use and enjoyment of a right or office to which such other is
entitled, and there is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary
course of law, the person aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition in the
proper court, alleging the facts with certainty and praying that judgment be
rendered commanding the respondent, immediately or at some other time to be
specified by the court, to do the act required to be done to protect the rights of the
petitioner, and to pay the damages sustained by the petitioner by reason of the
wrongful acts of the respondent.
Thus, the writ of mandamus shall only issue to command a tribunal, corporation,
board or person to do an act that is required to be done, when he or it, unlawfully
neglects the performance of an act which the law specifically enjoins as a duty
resulting from an office, trust or station, or unlawfully excludes another from the
use and enjoyment of a right or office, to which such other is entitled, there being
no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. The
remedy of mandamus, then, is available only to compel the performance of a
ministerial duty.[16] In contrast to a discretionary act, a ministerial act is one in
which an officer or tribunal performs in a given state of facts, in a prescribed
manner, in obedience to a mandate of legal authority, without regard to or the
exercise of his own judgment upon the propriety or impropriety of an act done. [17]
Clearly, for mandamus to issue, it is essential that the person petitioning for it has a
clear legal right to the claim sought. It will not issue to compel compliance with a
duty which is questionable or over which a substantial doubt exists. Unless the right
to the relief sought is unclouded, it will be denied.[18]
Section 1 of E.O. No. 172, the law under which the petitioners retired, specifically
provides that the "[t]he Chairman and the Members of the [ERB], upon completion
of their terms or upon becoming eligible for retirement under existing laws shall be
entitled to the same retirement benefits and privileges provided for the Chairman
and Members of the [COMELEC]." In contrast, Section 39 of R.A. No. 9136
provides:
Sec. 39. Compensation and Other Emoluments for ERC Personnel. xxx.
The Chairman and members of the Commission shall initially be entitled to the
same salaries, allowances and benefits as those of the Presiding Justice and
Associate Justices of the Supreme Court, respectively. The Chairman and the
members of the Commission shall, upon completion of their term or upon
becoming eligible for retirement under existing laws, be entitled to the
same retirement benefits and the privileges provided for the Presiding
Justice and Associate Justices of the Supreme Court, respectively.
Section 3, Rule 65 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, speaks of a law which specifically
enjoins an act to be performed as a duty by a tribunal, corporation, board, officer or
person. The petitioners' request requires an interpretation of Section 39 of R.A. No.
9136 as applicable to ERB retirees under E.O. No. 172; yet, nowhere does R.A. No.
9136 extend the benefits of the new law to them, much less impose a duty upon
the ERC and the DBM to adjust the retirement pensions of the petitioners to
conform to the retirement benefits of the Chief Justice and Associate Justices of the
SC.
R.A. No. 9136 has expressly abolished the ERB. Section 38 provides:
Sec. 38. Creation of the Energy Regulatory Commission. - There is hereby created
an independent, quasi-judicial regulatory body to be named the Energy Regulatory
Commission (ERC). For this purpose, the existing Energy Regulatory Board (ERB)
created under Executive Order No. 172, as amended, is hereby abolished.
xxxx
The ERC assumed the extant duties and functions of the ERB, but in addition, the
ERC also performs new and expanded functions intended to meet the specific
needs of a restructured electric power industry. In Kapisanan ng mga Kawani
ng ERB v. Commissioner Barin,[19] the Court compared the functions of the ERB and
the ERC and ruled that the overlap in their powers and functions did not mean that
there was no valid abolition of the ERB.[20]
Moreover, in National Land Titles and Deeds Registration Administration v. Civil
Service Commission,[21] the Court discussed:
[I]f the newly created office has substantially new, different or additional functions,
duties or powers, so that it may be said in fact to create an office different from the
one abolished, even though it embraces all or some of the duties of the old office it
will be considered as an abolition of one office and the creation of a new or different
one. The same is true if one office is abolished and its duties, for reasons of
economy are given to an existing officer or office.[22]
Incidentally, in Ocampo v. Commission on Audit,[23] where a petition was filed by
herein petitioner Ocampo, concerning whether she was twice entitled to retirement
benefits on account of having sat in the ERB twice, first as a regular Member, and
after her retirement, as Chairman; the Court held among others, that Ocampo was
entitled to the retirement benefits under R.A. No. 3595.
The petitioners, retired members of
the abolished ERB, cannot demand the
retirement benefits granted to members
of a new entity, the ERC.
The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), in its Comment in CA-G.R. SP No. 89068,
citing Freedom from Debt Coalition v. ERC,[24] agreed that this Court has recognized
the abolition of the ERB by R.A. No. 9136; that, there is no automatic adjustment in
the monthly pensions of the ERB retirees since there was no appropriation for such
disbursement; that while the powers of the ERB had been transferred to ERC, new
and expanded powers were also granted to the ERC consistent with the revamp and
restructuring of the entire system of regulation of the electric power industry. The
OSG concluded that concerning their retirement pensions, the petitioners could not
equate themselves to the. Commissioners of the ERC.[25]
In contrast, in its Comment in the instant petition citing Section 2-A of R.A. No.
1568, as amended by R.A. No. 3595, the OSG noted that "the new compensation
package under R.A. No. 9136 resulted in a great disparity between the retirement
benefits being received by officials who retired under E.O. No. 172 and those that
would be received upon retirement by the current Chairman and Members of the
ERC."[26] It now argues that the petitioners retired under E.O. No. 172, which
entitled them to an adjustment in their monthly pensions "in case there would be
an increase in the salaries and benefits being received by those presentlyholding
the positions they previously held;"[27] and that since R.A. No. 9136 did not
expressly repeal the provisions relating to the retirement benefits of the Chairman
and Members of the ERB, the benefits of R.A. No. 9136 should be extended to
them.[28] In CA-G.R. SP No. 89095, the appellate court said:
It must be stressed that, while the provision of R.A. No. 9136 abolishing the ERB
was declared as valid by the [SC], nonetheless, it did not pronounce that the
abolition had the effect of depriving and/or hindering retirees under the
already-abolished law from seeking the readjustment of their retirement
benefits.
Moreover, while the retirement benefits provided under E.O. No. 172 may appear to
be inconsistent with those provided under R.A. No. 9136, emphasis is laid that the
inconsistency relates only to what the retirement benefits shall consist of,
and not to the grant or readjustment of the same per se. In other words,
while the retirement benefits granted under R.A. No. 9136 are different from those
under E.O. No. 172, one undisputable fact remains -R.A. No. 9136 contains no
provision expressly stating that the abolition of the ERB carries with it the
abolition, diminution, or curtailment of the right to seek readjustment of
the retirement benefits granted under E.O. No. 172.[29] (Citation omitted and
emphasis in the original)
Yet, the same CA decision clearly ruled that "the [petitioners' retirement benefits
should be based on the salaries of the current COMELEC Chairman and
Members, and not on the salaries of the current ERC Chairman and
members,"[30] viz:
Given the above, it is manifestly clear that Section 80 of R.A. No. 9136 stating that,
[T]he applicability provisions of x x x [E.O, No.] 172, as amended, creating the
ERB; xxx shall continue to have full force and effect except insofar as they
are inconsistent with this Act x x x [It] should be construed to mean that, since
there is no express provision in RA. No. 9136 pertinent to the retirement
benefits granted to retirees under E.O. No. 172, it follows then that E.O.
No. 172 continues to be the controlling law on the matter. Specifically, the
controlling provision respecting the retirement benefits of Chairmen and Members
of the ERB is, therefore, Section 1(6) of E.O. No. 172, which states that x x x [t]he
Chairman and the Members of the Board, x x x shall be entitled to the same
retirement benefits and privileges provided for the Chairman and Members
of the [COMELEC]. Perforce, whether or not Section 2-A of R.A. No. 1568, as
amended, is applicable to the Petitioners may already be of no moment because
Section 1 (6) of E. O. No. 172 already clearly and literally states that they are
entitled to the same retirement benefits granted to the Chairman and Members of
the COMELEC.
All said, Our position that the Petitioners are entitled to have their retirement
benefits readjusted is bolstered by the final and executory decision, August 29,
2007, rendered in CA-GR SP No. 89068 by the Thirteenth Division of this Court over
which We take judicial notice of, as the same involved the same issue as the one
raised at bench. At this juncture, mention must also be made that, during the
pendency of the said case, the ERC issued a Resolution reversing its findings that
the Petitioners are not entitled to an automatic readjustment and maintaining that
it totally supports their cause, as the same is meritorious.
Stress, however, is laid that the Petitioners' retirement benefits should be based on
the salaries of the current COMELEC Chairman and Members, and not on the
salaries of the current ERC Chairman and members.
To explicate. Section 1(6) of E.O. No. 172 clearly states that x x x [t]he Chairman
and the Members of the Board, x x x shall be entitled to the same retirement
benefits and privileges provided for the Chairman and Members of the
[COMELEC]. Applying the horn-book doctrine that, where the words of the statute
are clear, plain, and free from ambiguity, it must he given its literal meaning and
applied without attempted interpretation, it is therefore beyond cavil that the
retirement benefits of retired ERB Chairmen and Members shall be based on and
the same as that granted to Chairman and Members of the COMELEC. In other
words, it is the increase in the benefits of the current Chairman and Members of the
COMELEC, not those of the ERC, which has the effect of rendering a corresponding
increase in the Petitioners' retirement benefits. [31] (Citations omitted and emphasis,
italics and underscoring in the original)
On motion for partial reconsideration, however, the CA reversed its decision and
declared the petitioners therein entitled to monthly pensions corresponding to the
current salary levels of the ERC Chairman and Members in order to avoid a conflict
with the decision of the CA 13th Division in CA-GR. SP No. 89068. [32]
The OSG further commented that the non-adjustment of the pension of the
petitioners violates the equal protection clause of the Constitution after the ERC
adjusted the pensions of the petitioners in CA-GR. SP No. 89068 and CA-GR. SP No.
89095.[33] It also argued that in view of the identity of issues in all the three CA
cases, the petitioners may invoke the doctrine of conclusiveness of judgment in the
first two cases.[34] Lastly, the OSG urged that retirement laws being remedial in
character must be liberally construed in favor of the retirees.[35]
The Court disagrees.
The Court has seen that the DBM and the ERC cannot be compelled
by mandamus to release public funds to the petitioners since the latter failed to
establish a clear ministerial duty by the said agencies to recognize their legal
entitlement thereto. According to the DBM, the petitioners have been receiving
retirement benefits on a level with the salaries of the COMELEC Chairman and
Members, pursuant to Section 1 of E.O. No. 172 in relation to Section 2-A of R.A.
No. 1568, as amended.
Clearly, nowhere does R.A. No. 9136 extend to the retired ERB Chairman and
Members the retirement benefits it grants to the ERC Chairman and Members.
Section 39 of R.A. No. 9136 specifically provides only for the retirement benefits of
the ERC Chairman and Members.

With regard to the legal significance of the first two CA decisions as precedents, the
DBM invoked Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Michel J. Lhuillier Pawnshop,
Inc.,[36] which held that courts are not bound by decisions of the CA since only the
SC is the final arbiter of any justiciable controversy.[37] Indeed, if the SC can
disregard even its own previous rulings to correct an earlier error, and thus prevent
a repeat of the misapplication of the law, then surely, this Court can also disregard
the aforesaid rulings of the CA to correct what is considered to be an erroneous
application of the law. Besides, pursuant to De Leon v. Hon. Judge Cruz,[38] the said
unappealed CA decisions may bind only the parties thereto.[39]
Significant changes between E.O.
No. 172 and R.A. No. 9136 clearly
express the legislative intent to
abolish the ERB and create an entirely
new entity, the ERC with vastly
expanded functions.
The jurisdiction, powers and functions of the ERB are enumerated in Section 3 of
E.O. No. 172, to wit:
Sec. 3. Jurisdiction, Powers and Functions of the Board. When warranted and only
when public necessity requires, the Board may regulate the business of importing,
exporting, re-exporting, shipping, transporting, processing, refining, marketing and
distributing energy resources. Energy resource means any substance or
phenomenon which by itself or in combination with others, or after processing or
refining or the application to it of technology, emanates, generates or causes the
emanation or generation of energy, such as but not limited to, petroleum or
petroleum products, coal, marsh gas, methane gas, geothermal and hydroelectric
sources of energy, uranium and other similar radioactive minerals, solar energy,
tidal power, as well as non-conventional existing and potential sources.
The Board shall, upon proper notice and hearing, exercise the following, among
other powers and functions:
(a) Fix and regulate the prices of petroleum products;
(b) Fix and regulate the rate schedule or prices of piped gas to be charged by duly
franchised gas companies which distribute gas by means of underground pipe
system;
(c) Fix and regulate the rates of pipeline concessionaries under the provisions of
Republic Act No. 387, as amended, otherwise known as the "Petroleum Act of
1949," as amended by Presidential Decree No. 1700;

(d) Regulate the capacities of new refineries or additional capacities of existing
refineries and license refineries that may be organized after the issuance of this
Executive Order, under such terms and conditions as are consistent with the
national interest;
(e) Whenever the Board has determined that there is a shortage of any petroleum
product, or when public interest so requires, it may take such steps as it may
consider necessary, including the temporary adjustment of the levels of prices of
petroleum products and the payment to the Oil Price Stabilization Fund created
under Presidential Decree No. 1956 by persons or entities engaged in the petroleum
industry of such amounts as may be determined by the Board, which will enable the
importer to recover its cost of importation.
In NPC v. CA,[40] this Court noted that "as may be gleaned from [Section 3 of E.O.
No. 172], the ERB is basically a price or rate-fixing agency." [41] But now the need for
a "framework for the restructuring of the electric power industry, including the
privatization of the assets of NPC, the transition to the desired competitive
structure, and the definition of the responsibilities of the various government
agencies and private entities"[42] demanded the abolition of the ERB, Section 38 of
R.A. No. 9136 provides for the creation of "an independent, quasi-judicial
regulatory body to be named the [ERC]," for which purpose, "the existing [ERB]
created under [E.O.] No. 172, as amended, is hereby abolished." The expanded
functions -of the ERC are intended to "promote competition, encourage market
development, ensure customer choice and penalize abuse of market power in the
restructured electricity industry."[43]
Section 43 of R.A. No. 9136 enumerates in 22 sub-paragraphs the vast new powers
and functions of the ERC, among which are to:
(a) enforce the implementing rules and regulations of R.A. No. 9136;
(b) promulgate and enforce a National Grid Code and a Distribution Code;
(c) enforce the rules and regulations governing the operations of the electricity spot
market and the activities of the spot market operator and other participants in the
spot market, for the purpose of ensuring a greater supply and rational pricing of
electricity;
(d) establish and enforce a methodology for setting transmission and distribution
wheeling rates and retail rates for the captive market of a distribution utility;
(e) review and approve any changes on the terms and conditions of service of the
National Transmission Corporation (TRANSCO) or any distribution utility;
(f) monitor and take remedial measures to penalize abuse of market power,
cartelization, and anti-competitive or discriminatory behavior by any electric power
industry participant;
(g) impose fines or penalties for any non-compliance with or breach of R.A. No.
9136, its Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) and the rules and regulations
which it promulgates or administers;
(h) monitor the activities of the generation and supply of the electric power industry
with the end in view of promoting free market competition and ensuring that the
allocation or pass through of bulk purchase cost by distributors is transparent, nondiscriminatory and that any existing subsidies shall be divided pro-rata among all
retail suppliers;
(i) act on applications for or modifications of certificates of public convenience
and/or necessity, licenses or permits of franchisee! electric utilities in accordance
with law and revoke, review and modify such certificates, licenses or permits in
appropriate cases, such as in cases of violations of the Grid Code, Distribution Code
and other rules and regulations issued by the ERC in accordance with law;
(j) act on applications for cost recovery and return on demand side management
projects;
(k) in the exercise of its investigative and quasi-judicial powers, act on any
complaint by or against any participant or player in the energy sector for violations
of any laws, rules and regulations governing the same, including the rules on crossownership, anti-competitive practices and other acts of abuse of market positions
by any participant or player in the energy sector, as may be provided by law, and
require any person or entity to submit any report or data relative to any
investigation or hearing conducted in accordance with R.A. No. 9136;
(l) inspect, on its own or through duly authorized representatives, the premises,
books of accounts and records of any person or entity at any time, in the exercise
of its quasi-judicial power for purposes of determining the existence of any anticompetitive behavior and/or market power abuse and any violation of rules and
regulations issued by the ERC;
(m) perform such other regulatory functions as are appropriate and necessary in
order to ensure the successful restructuring and modernization of the electric power
industry, such as, but not limited to, the rules and guidelines under which
generation companies, distribution utilities which are not publicly listed shall offer
and sell to the public a portion not less than 15% of their common shares of stocks;
and
(n) the ERC shall have the original and exclusive jurisdiction over all cases
contesting rates, fees, fines and penalties imposed by the ERC in the exercise of the
abovementioned powers, functions and responsibilities and over all cases involving
disputes between and among participants or players in the energy sector.
In addition, other related functions and powers are given to ERC, i.e.: (i) those
relating to ensuring competitive and open generation of electric power and
compliance with standards set forth in R.A. No. 9136, and health, safety and with
environmental clearances from other government agencies (Section 6); (ii) resolve
valuation, procedures, ownership participation and other issues relating to
subtransmission assets (Section 8, paragraph 5); (iii) ensure compliance by
distribution utilities with technical specifications prescribed in the Distribution Code
and the performance standards prescribed in the IRR (Section 23, paragraph 5);
(iv) de-monopolize public utilities by ensuring that holdings in a distribution utility
shall not exceed 25% of voting shares of stock (Section 28, paragraph 1); (v) issue
a license to suppliers of electricity, promulgate rules and regulations on
qualifications of electricity suppliers, including technical capability, financial
capability, and creditworthiness (Section 29); (vi) oversee the wholesale electricity
spot market (Section 30) and the retail competition and open access (Section 31);
(vii) verify reasonable amounts of the NPC stranded debt and contract cost recovery
(Section 32); (viii) determine the universal charge on all electricity end-users
(Section 34); (ix) reduce royalties, returns and tax rates for all indigenous sources
of energy (Section 35); (x) approve unbundling of business activities and rates of
electric power industry participants (Section 36); (xi) establish training programs
for staff to enhance ERC's technical competence in evaluation of technical
performance and monitoring of compliance with service and performance
standards, performance-based rate-setting reform, and environmental standards
(Section 40); (xii) handle consumer complaints and ensure the adequate promotion
of consumer interests (Section 41); (xiii) promulgate rules and regulations to
promote competition, encourage market development and customer choice and
discourage/penalize abuse of market power, cartelization and any anticompetitive or
discriminatory behavior, and motu proprio monitor and penalize market power
abuse or anticompetitive or discriminatory act or behavior (Section 45); (xiv)
ensure Power Sector Assets and Liabilities Management Corporation liquidates the
NPC stranded contract costs from proceeds of sales and other property contributed
to it (Section 51[e]); (xv) ensure reduction in rates of electric cooperatives due to
savings from removal of loan amortizations (Section 60); (xvi) require the
Department of Energy (DOE), ERC, National Electrification Administration,
TRANSCO, generation companies, distribution utilities, suppliers and other electric
power industry participants to submit pertinent industry reports and information

(Section 62, paragraph 3); and (xvii) review all power purchase and energy
conversion agreements between Philippine National Oil Company-Energy
Development Corporation and NPC to remove hidden costs or extraordinary markups in the cost of power or steam above their true costs (Section 69).
Section 38 thereof, thus, provides for enhanced qualifications and increased term of
office from four (4) to seven (7) years of the Chairman and Members of the ERC, as
follows:
Sec. 38. x x x.
The Commission shall be composed of a Chairman and four (4) members to be
appointed by the President of the Philippines. The Chairman and the members of
the Commission shall be natural-born citizens and residents of the Philippines,
persons of good moral character, at least thirty-five (35) years of age, and of
recognized competence in any of the following fields: energy, law, economics,
finance, commerce, or engineering, with at least three (3) years actual and
distinguished experience in their respective fields of expertise: Provided, That out of
the four (4) members of the Commission, at least one (1) shall be a member of the
Philippine Bar with at least ten (10) years experience in the active practice of law,
and one (1) shall be a certified public accountant with at least ten (10) years
experience in active practice.
xxxx
The Chairman of the Commission, who shall be a member of the Philippine Bar shall
act as the Chief Executive Officer of the Commission.
All members of the Commission shall have a term of seven (7) years xxx.
x x x x (Emphasis ours)
In contrast, in Section 1 of E.O. No. 172, the Chairman and the Members of the
ERB served for only four (4) years, and it did not specify that two members of the
ERB must be lawyers, and one must be an accountant:
Sec. 1. Energy Regulatory Board. There is hereby created an independent Energy
Regulatory Board, hereinafter referred to as the Board, the nucleus of which shall
be present Board of Energy. The Board shall be composed of a Chairman and four
(4) Members to be appointed by the President, with the consent of the Commission
on Appointments. The Chairman and the Board Members shall be natural-born
citizens and residents of the Philippines. In addition, the Chairman and the Board
Members shall be persons of good moral character, at least thirty-five (35) years of
age, and of recognized competence in the field of law, economics, finance, banking,
commerce, industry, agriculture, engineering, management or labor.
The term of office of the Chairman and the Board Members shall be four (4) years x
x x.
The Court noted in Freedom from Debt Coalition:[44]
To achieve its aforestated goal, the law has reconfigured the organization of the
regulatory body. It requires the Chairman and four (4) members of the ERC to be
equipped with "at least three (3) years of active and distinguished experience" in
the fields of energy, law, economics, finance, commerce or engineering, and at least
one of them with ten (10) years or more of experience in the active practice of law
and another one with similar experience as a certified public accountant. Their
terms of office were increased to seven (7) years from the four (4) [years] provided
in [E.O. No. 172] and their security of tenure assured. The Chairman and members
were given the same salaries, allowances, benefits and retirement pay as the Chief
Justice and Associate Justices of the [SC], a lot higher than the salary and benefits
accorded the Chairman and members of the ERB which were equivalent only to
those of a Department Undersecretary and the official next in rank, and those of
the Chairman and members of the [COMELEC], respectively.[45] (Citations omitted)
In Kapisanan ng mga Kawani ng ERB,[46] the Court traced the gradual narrowing of
regulation from that of public services in 1902, to the electricity industry and water
resources in 1972, to the electric power industry and oil industry in 1977, and to
the electric industry alone in 1998. It noted the expansion of the ERC's functions
and concerns, since while it retains the ERB's traditional rate and service regulation
functions, it now also has to promote competitive operations in the electricity
market, and its concerns now encompass both the consumers and the utility
investors. The Court recognized that the ERC labors under a new thrust, new policy,
legal structure and regulatory framework for the electric power industry. The Court,
in Freedom from Debt Coalition, said:
One of the landmark pieces of legislation enacted by Congress in recent years is the
[Electric Power Industry Reform Act of 2001]. It established a new policy, legal
structure and regulatory framework for the electric power industry.
The new thrust is to tap private capital for the expansion and improvement of the
industry as the large government debt and the highly capital-intensive character of
the industry itself have long been acknowledged as the critical constraints to the
program. To attract private investment, largely foreign, the jaded structure of the
industry had to be addressed. While the generation and transmission sectors were
centralized and monopolistic, the distribution side was fragmented with over 130
utilities, mostly small and uneconomic. The pervasive flaws have caused a low
utilization of existing generation capacity; extremely high and uncompetitive power
rates; poor quality of service to consumers; dismal to forgettable performance of
the government power sector; high system losses; and an inability to develop a
clear strategy for overcoming these shortcomings.
Thus, the [Electric Power Industry Reform Act of 2001] provides a framework for
the restructuring of the industry, including the privatization of the assets of the
[NPC], the transition to a competitive structure, and the delineation of the roles of
various government agencies and the private entities. The law ordains the division
of the industry into four (4) distinct sectors, namely: generation, transmission,
distribution and supply. Corollarily, the NPC generating plants have to privatized and
its transmission business spun off and privatized thereafter.
In tandem with the restructuring of the industry is the establishment of "a strong
and purely independent regulatory body." Thus, the law created the ERC in place of
the [ERB].
To achieve its aforestated goal, the law has reconfigured the organization of the
regulatory body, x x x.[47] (Citations omitted)
A quick review of significant legislative developments over several decades will help
explain the intent of Congress to abolish the ERB in view of the altered landscape of
economic regulation which saw the need both to deregulate the oil industry and to
restructure the electric power industry.
On November 7, 1936, Commonwealth Act No. 146, known as the Public Service
Law, created the Public Service Commission to exercise jurisdiction, supervision,
and control over all public services, including the electric power service.
On April 30, 1971, R.A. No. 6173, known as the Oil Industry Commission Act,
created the Oil Industry Commission (OIC) to regulate "the act and business of
importing, exporting, re-exporting, shipping, transporting, processing, refining,
storing, distributing, marketing, and selling crude oil, gasoline, kerosene, gas and
other refined petroleum products as well as the operations and activities of natural
and juridical persons, firms and entities engaged in the petroleum industry" [48] in a
manner consistent with the public interest.
On October 6, 1977, Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1206 created the DOE, [49] the
Board of Energy (BOE)[50] and the Bureau of Energy Utilization[51] (BEU) to take over
all the powers and functions of the OIC. Among the powers of the BOE were: (a) to
regulate the prices of piped gas charged by gas companies; (b) regulate the power
rates charged by electric companies, except electric cooperatives and the NPC; and
(c) perform related powers and functions such as licensing and regulation of
refineries, reviewing- the importation costs of oil and providing remedies for
unreasonable shipping costs, and taking measures to insure that gains in the prices
of petroleum redound to the public interest.
On May 8, 1987, E.O. No. 172 created the ERB to assume the powers and functions
of the BOE under R.A. No. 6173, as amended by P.D. No. 1206, and the regulatory
and adjudicatory powers and functions exercised by the BEU.[52] The rationale of
E.O. No. 172 was "to achieve a more coherent and effective policy formulation,
coordination, implementation and monitoring within the energy sector" by
consolidating and entrusting in one body all the regulatory and adjudicatory
functions covering the energy sector. The BOE assumed the powers and functions of
the Board of Power and Waterworks over the electric power industry.[53]
On December 9, 1992, R.A. No. 7638 transferred to the ERB the power to fix the
rates of the NPC and the rural electric cooperatives, while the non-pricing functions
of the ERB with respect to the petroleum industry were transferred to the DOE,
including regulating the capacities of new refineries.[54]
On February 10, 1998, R.A. No. 8479, known as the Downstream Oil Industry
Deregulation Act of 1998, was enacted to liberalize and deregulate the downstream
oil industry by promoting and encouraging the entry of new participants in the said
industry and prohibiting government interference with any market aspect of the oil
industry, including pricing, import and export processes and facilities and the
establishment of retailers and refineries.
On June 8, 2001, R.A. No. 9136 was enacted for the purpose of reforming and
restructuring the electric power industry, and is considered one of the landmark
laws passed by Congress in recent years.
Lastly, the clear policy of the
Constitution is that no elective or
appointive public officer or employee
shall receive additional, double or
indirect compensation not specifically
authorized by law.
Section 8 of Article IX(B) of the 1987 Constitution provides:
Section 8. No elective or appointive public officer or employee shall receive
additional, double, or indirect compensation, unless specifically authorized by law,
nor accept without the consent of the Congress, any present, emolument, office, or
title of any kind from any foreign government.

Pensions or gratuities shall not be considered as additional, double, or indirect
compensation.
Section 8, Article XVI of the 1987 Constitution also provides that "[t]he State shall,
from time to time, review to upgrade the pensions and other benefits due to
retirees of both the government and private sectors." R.A. No. 9257, known as the
Expanded Senior Citizens' Act of 2003, also provides that "retirement benefits of
retirees from both the government and private sector shall be regularly reviewed to
ensure their continuing responsiveness and sustainability, and to the extent
practicable and feasible, shall be upgraded to be at par with the current scale
enjoyed by those in actual service."[55] In Santiago v. Commission on Audit,[56] the
Court also held that "[Retirement laws should be interpreted liberally in favor of the
retiree because their intention is to provide for his sustenance, and hopefully even
comfort, when he no longer has the stamina to continue earning his livelihood." [57]
Be that as it may, the above-cited provisions are not self-executing, and the rule
remains that all pensions or gratuities must be paid only pursuant to an
appropriation made by law, which is the very issue now before the Court. Indeed, it
had been held that in the absence of express statutory provisions to the contrary,
gratuity laws must be construed against the grant of additional or double
compensation,[58] a rule which is a constitutional curb on the spending power of the
government.[59]
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
Del Castillo, Perez, Mendoza, Jardeleza, and Caguioa, JJ., concur.
Leonen, J., see separate concurring opinion.
NOTICE OF JUDGMENT
Sirs/Mesdames:

Very truly yours,
(SGD)
Clerk of Court
[1]
Rollo, pp. 3-32.
Penned by Associate Justice Portia Alino-Hormachuelos, with Associate Justices

Japar B. Dimaampao and Danton Q. Bueser concurring; id. at 34-44.
[2]
[3]
Id. at 35-36.
AN ACT TO PROVIDE LIFE PENSION TO THE AUDITOR GENERAL AND THE

CHAIRMAN OR ANY MEMBER OF THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS. Approved on
June 16 1956.
[4]
AN ACT TO AMEND REPUBLIC ACT NUMBERED FIFTEEN HUNDRED SIXTY-EIGHT

(RE: GRANT OF LIFE PENSION TO THE AUDITOR-GENERAL AND THE CHAIRMAN
AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS). Approved on June 22, 1963.
[5]
[6]
Rollo, pp. 35-37.
[7]
Id. at 37.
[8]
Id. at 93-94.
CA Decision in Retired Chairmen of the ERB, et al, v. The ERC and the DOJ, CAG.R. SP No 89095, May 9, 2008, p. 5.
[9]
[10]
Rollo, pp. 49-50.
[11]
Id. at 95.
[12]
Id. at 11-12, 95.
[13]
Id. at 52-53.
[14]
Id. at 34-44.
[15]
Id. at 13.
Torregoza v. Civil Service Commission, G.R. No. 101526, July 3, 1992, 211
SCRA 230, 234, citing Marcelo v. Tantuico, Jr., 226 Phil. 360, 366 (1986).
[16]
Henares, Jr. v. Land Transportation Franchising Regulatory Board, 535 Phil. 835,
841 (2006).
[17]
[18]
Araos, et al. v. Hon. Regala, et al., 627 Phil. 13, 20 (2010).
[19]
553 Phil. 1 (2007).
[20]
Id. at 21.
[21]
G.R. No. 84301, April 7, 1993, 221 SCRA 145.
[22]
Id. at 150.
[23]
710 Phil. 706(2013).
[24]
G.R. No, 161113, June 15, 2004, 432 SCRA 157.
CA Decision in Castaeda, et al. v. Ermita, CA-G.R. SP No. 89068, August 29

2007 pp 6-7.
[25]
[26]
Rollo, p, 93.
[27]
Id. at 97.
[28]
Id. at 97-98.
CA Decision in Retired Chairmen of the ERB, et al. v. The ERC and the DOJ, CAG.R. SP No. 89095, May 9, 2008, p. 12.
[29]
[30]
Id. at 14.
[31]
Id. at 12-14.
[32]
Rollo. pp. 125-126.
[33]
Id. at 99.
[34]
Id. at 100-103.
[35]
Id. at 103-104.
[36]
453 Phil. 1043 (2003).
[37]
Id. at 1059.
[38]
154 Phil. 270(1974).
[39]
Id. at 277.
[40]
345 Phil. 9 (1997).
[41]
Id. at 30.
[42]
R.A. No. 9136, Section 3.
[43]
[44]
Supra note 24.
[45]
Id. at 172.
[46]
Supra note 19.
[47]
Freedom from Debt Coalition v. ERC, supra note 24, at 171-172.
[48]
[49]
P.D, No. 1206, Section 2.
[50]
P.D. No. 1206, Section 9.
[51]
P.D. No. 1206, Section 7.
[52]
E.O. No. 172, Sections
[53]
P.D. No. 1206, Section 11(e).
[54]
[55]
R.A. No. 9257, Section 2. amending R.A. No. 7432, Section 4(k).
[56]
276 Phil. 127(1991).
[57]
Id. at 136.
[58]
Nunal v. Commission on Audit, 251 Phil. 339, 344 (1989).
[59]
Herrera, et al. v. NPC, et al, 623 Phil. 383, 398 (2009).
CONCURRING OPINION
LEONEN, J.:
Petitioners, who are retired members of the defunct Energy Regulatory Board, filed
for mandamus "to compel . . . public respondents to adjust and release their
monthly retirement pensions based on the salary levels ... of the Energy Regulatory
Commission, created [under] Republic Act No. 9136[.]" [1] Specifically, Section 39 of
Republic Act No. 9136, otherwise known as the Electric Power Industry Reform Act
of 2001 (EPIRA), provides:
Sec. 39. Compensation and Other Emoluments for ERC Personnel. - The
compensation and other emoluments for the Chairman and members of the
Commission and the ERC personnel shall be exempted from the coverage of
Republic Act No. 6758, otherwise known as the "Salary Standardization Act." For
this purpose, the schedule of compensation of the ERC personnel, except for the
initial salaries and compensation of the Chairman and members of the Commission,
shall be submitted for approval by the President of the Philippines. The new
schedule of compensation shall be implemented within six (6) months from the
effectivity of this Act and may be upgraded by the President of the Philippines as
the need arises: Provided, That in no case shall the rate be upgraded more than
once a year.
The Chairman and members of the Commission shall initially be entitled to
the same salaries, allowances and benefits as those of the Presiding
Justice and Associate Justices of the Supreme Court, respectively. The
Chairman and the members of the Commission shall, upon completion of
their term or upon becoming eligible for retirement under existing laws, be
entitled to the same retirement benefits and the privileges provided for the
Presiding Justice and Associate Justices of the Supreme Court,

respectively. (Emphasis supplied)
I concur in denying the Petition.
As discussed in the ponencia, petitioners retired under Executive Order No. 172,
which created the now defunct[2] Energy Regulatory Board in 1987.[3] Section 1
provides, in part, that "[t]he Chairman and the Members of the Board, upon
completion of their terms or upon becoming eligible for retirement under existing
laws shall be entitled to the same retirement benefits and privileges provided for
the Chairman and Members of the Commission on Elections."[4]
Republic Act No. 1568,[5] as amended,[6] provides for the life pension of the
Chairman and Members of the Commission on Elections. Section 2-A provides:
Sec. 2-A. In case the salary of the Auditor General or the Chairman or any Member
of the Commission on Elections is increased or decreased, such increased or
decreased salary shall, for the purpose of this Act, be deemed to be the salary or
the retirement pension which shall be received by the retired Auditor General or
Chairman or "any Member of the Commission on Elections: Provided That any
benefits that have already accrued prior to such increase or decrease shall not be
affected thereby.
The Department of Budget and Management noted that petitioners have been
receiving retirement benefits on the same level as the salaries of the Chairman and
Members of the Commission on Elections.[8]
Still, petitioners insist that their retirement benefits should be based on those of the
Energy Regulatory Commission, which, in turn, is pegged on the retirement benefits
and privileges of Supreme Court Justices. [9]
Nowhere in the EPIRA were the retirement benefits of the Energy Regulatory
Commission extended to the now defunct Energy Regulatory Board. [10] These are
two different entities. The Board was abolished while the Commission was given
expanded functions aligned with the restructuring of the electric power industry.
[11]
These two also differ as regards the Chairman and Members' required
qualifications and terms of office.[12] The ponencia found that petitioners failed to
establish a clear ministerial duty on the part of public respondents to adjust their
pension and release public funds.[13]
In any event, the mirroring made in Section 39 on retirement benefits and
privileges granted to Supreme Court Justices is of doubtful validity. It affects the
autonomy and independence of the judiciary. Mirroring the compensation of other
offices in other departments weighs heavily on any adjustment for judicial

compensation.
Retirement laws aim to ensure the welfare and security of those who have devoted
their prime years in employment and would have limited opportunities for gainful
employment as they approach their twilight years. [14] "In government, lucrative
retirement benefits act as incentive to encourage competent [and able]
individuals"[15] to join public employment, to remain in service, and to render
efficient work.[16]
Congress enacted a special law providing for benefits and privileges specifically for
retiring Justices and Judges in order to preserve and guarantee the judiciary's
independence.[17] Survivorship benefits strengthen the judiciary's independence by
giving Justices peace of mind in knowing that, even beyond their death, their
families will be provided for.[18] This reason also supports the grant of longevity pay
for Justices and Judges who comply with the requirements of the law.[19]
Republic Act No. 910[20] was passed in 1953 to provide for the retirement of
Supreme Court and Court of Appeals Justices, and was later amended to also cover
Justices of the Sandiganbayan and Court of Tax Appeals, Judges of the Regional
Trial Courts, Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, Municipal Circuit Trial
Courts, Shari'a District Courts, Shari'a Circuit Courts, and other courts hereafter
established.[21] Republic Act No. 9946[22] was passed on January 13, 2010 amending
Republic Act No. 910 by granting members of the judiciary additional retirement,
survivorship, and other benefits.
Our Constitution reflects the fundamental principle of separation of powers. [23] The
distinct spheres of power and functions that divide the three branches of
government safeguard against influences and inappropriate interferences among
one another, both in courtesy and caution, while maintaining
"interdependence"[25]through checks and balances. Angara v. Electoral
Commission [26] discussed the judiciary's role as the only constitutional body with
authority to determine proper allocation of powers among governmental bodies:
The separation of powers is a fundamental principle in our system of government. It
obtains not through express provision but by actual division in our Constitution.
Each department of the government has exclusive cognizance of matters within its
jurisdiction, and is supreme within its own sphere. But it does not follow from the
fact that the three powers are to be kept separate and distinct that the Constitution
intended them to be absolutely unrestrained and independent of each other. The
Constitution has provided for an elaborate system of checks and balances to secure
coordination in the workings of the various departments of the government.
....
But in the main, the Constitution has blocked out with deft strokes and in bold lines,
allotment of power to the executive, the legislative and the judicial departments of
the government. The overlapping and interlacing of functions and duties between
the several departments, however, sometimes makes it hard to say just where the
one leaves off and the other begins. In times of social disquietude or political
excitement, the great, landmarks of the Constitution are apt to be forgotten or
marred, if not entirely obliterated. In cases of conflict, the judicial department
is the only constitutional organ which can be called upon to determine the
proper allocation of powers between the several departments and among
the integral or constituent units thereof.[27] (Emphasis supplied)
Preserving the judiciary's independence is both imperative and central in fulfilling
this Court's constitutional mandate as final arbiter in upholding the rule of law.
Thus, the principle of separation of powers gives the branches of government
supreme authority in their respective spheres of vested powers and functions.
[28]
Thus, the Constitution provides for fiscal autonomy of the judiciary.[29] Thus,
special laws provide for competitive retirement benefits and privileges for Justices
and Judges.[30]
The Energy Regulatory Commission is "an independent quasi-judicial regulatory
body"[31] created by law. It does not primarily exercise judicial power or settle actual
controversies between adversarial parties. Its scope of authority is limited to a
specific industry. Its key functions relate to the restructured electric power industry
under the EPIRA.[32] Yet, for any adjustment in the compensation schedules for the
judiciary, the EPIRA unconstitutionally requires" that similar adjustments be
automatically considered for the Energy Regulatory Commission. This violates the
independence of the judiciary and its fiscal autonomy.
ACCORDINGLY, I vote to DENY the Petition.
[1]
Ponencia, p. 2.
[2]
Section 38. Creation of the Energy Regulatory Commission. - There is hereby

created an independent, quasi-judicial regulatory body to be named the Energy
Regulatory Commission (ERC). For this purpose, the existing Energy Regulatory
Board (ERB) created under Executive Order No. 172, as amended, is
hereby abolished. (Emphasis supplied)
[3]
Ponencia, p. 2.
[4]
Exec. Order No. 172 (1987), sec. 1.
Rep. Act No. 1568 (1956), An Act to Provide Life Pension to the Auditor General
and The Chairman or any Member of the Commission on Elections.
[5]
Rep. Act No. 3595 (1963), An Act to Amend Republic Act Numbered Fifteen
Hundred Sixty-Eight (Re-grant of Life Pension to the Auditor-General and the
Chairman and Members of the Commission on Elections).
[6]
[7]
Rep. Act No. 3595 (1963), sec, 2-A.
[8]
Ponencia, p. 12.
[9]
Rep. Act No. 9136 (2001).
[10]
Ponencia, p. 12.
[11]
Id. at 13-16.
[12]
Id. at 16-18.
[13]
Id. at 12.
Re: Application for Survivorship Pension Benefits Under Republic Act No. 9946 of
Mrs. Pacita A. Gruba, Surviving Spouse of the late Manuel K. Gruba, former CTA
Associate Judge, A.M. No. 14155- Ret, November 19, 2013
file=/jurisprudence/2013/november2013/14155-Ret.pdf 4 [Per J. Leonen, En Banc].
[14]
[15]
Id.
Id., citing Profeta v. Drilon, G.R. No. 104139, December 22, 1992, 216 SCRA
777, 782-783 [Per J. Padilla, En Banc].
[16]
Id. at 4-5, citing Bengzon v. Drilon, G.R. No. 103254, April 15, 1992, 208 SCRA
133, 153 [Per J. Gutierrez, Jr., En BancJ.
[17]
[18]
Id. at 5.
[19]
Batas Blg. 129, sec. 42 provides:
SEC. 42. Longevity Pay. - A monthly longevity pay equivalent to five percent (5%)
of the monthly basic pay shall be paid to the Justices and Judges of the courts
herein created to each five years of continuous, efficient, and meritorious service
rendered in the judiciary: Provided, That in no case shall the total salary of each
Justice or Judge concerned, after this longevity pay is added, exceed the salary of
the Justice or Judge next in rank.
See also Re: Letter of Court of Appeals Justice Vicente S.E. Veloso for Entitlement
to Longevity Pay for His Services as Commission Member HI of the National Labor
Relations Commission, A.M. Nos. 12-8-07-CA, June 16, 2015
file=/jurisprudence/2015/june2015/12-8-07-CA.pdf [Per J.Brion, En Banc]. Chief
Justice Sereno, Associate Justices Villarama, Jr., Mendoza, Reyes, and PerlasBernabe concurred. Senior Associate Justice Carpio, Associate Justices Velasco,
Bersamin, Del Castillo, and Perez joined the Concurring and Dissenting Opinion of
Associate Justice Leonardo-De Castro. Associate Justice Velasco wrote a Separate
Opinion. Associate Justices Peralta and Leonen were on official leave. Associate
Jardeleza took no part.
Rep. Act No. 910 (1953), An Act to Provide for the Retirement of Justices of the
Supreme Court and of the Court of Appeals, for the Enforcement of the Provisions
Hereof by the Government Service Insurance System, and to Repeal
Commonwealth Act Numbered Five Hundred and Thirty-Six.
[20]
[21]
Rep. Act No. 9946 (2001), sec. 1.
Rep. Act No. 9946 (2010), An Act Granting Additional Retirement, Survivorship,
and Other Benefits to Members of the Judiciary, Amending for the Purpose Republic
Act No. 910, as amended, Providing Funds Therefor and For Other Purposes.
[22]
[23]
CONST., art. VI, sec. (1) provides:
SECTION 1. The legislative power shall be vested in the Congress of the

Philippines....
CONST., art. VII, sec (1) provides:
SECTION 1. The executive power shall be vested in the President of the Philippines.
CONST., art. VIII sec (1) provides:
SECTION 1. The judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such
lower courts as may be established by law.
See J. Leonen, Concurring Opinion in Belgica v. Ochoa, G.R. Nos. 208566,

November 19, 2013, 710 SCRA 1, 290 [Per J. Perlas-Bemabe, En Banc]. See also J.
Velasco, Dissenting Opinion in Province of North Cotabato v. Government of the
Republic of the Philippines, 589 Phil. 387, 707 (2008) [Per J. Carpio Morales, En
Banc].
[24]
[25]
See Planas v. Gil, 67 Phil. 62, 74 (1939) [Per J. Laurel, En Banc].
[26]
63 Phil. 139 (1936) [Per J. Laurel, En Banc].
[27]
Id. at 156-157.
[28]
Id. at 156.
[29]
CONST., art, VIII, sec. 3.
[30]
See Rep. Act No. 9946 (2010).
[31]
Rep. Act No. 9136 (2001), sec. 38.
[32]
Rep. Act No. 9136 (2001), sec. 43.

G.R.
No.
195611
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE REGISTER OF DEEDS, PETITIONER, VS. HEIRS OF DIEGO LIM,
NAMELY, PRUDENCIA D. LIM, ANGELINA D. LIM, SIXTA D. LIM BAJA, ERNESTO D. LIM, MIGUEL D. LIM, JOSEFAD.LIM,
CASIMIRO D. LIM, BUENAVENTURA D. LIM, AND ENGRACIA D. LIM UY, (THE LAST FIVE BEING DECEASED, BUT
REPRESENTED BY PRUDENCIA D. LIM), HEIRS OF JEORGE* JOSEFAT,** EPIFANIO ROMAMBAN, SANTIAGO PARONG,
ANTONIO P. CACHO, JESSMAG, INC., ROSITA LAGUERTA, EMILIO JOSE, HEIRS OF NESTOR P. TRINIDAD, ANTONIO
DIAZ, ANTONIO CHUA, GUILLERMO J. JOSE, DANIEL MA. JOSE, LOURDES JOSE, JUNA MA. JOSE, WILFREDO V.
GARCIA, JESUS BILBAO, JOSECONCEPCION,JR., FRANCISCO ACHACOSO, DENNIS B. PABLIZO, *** ROMEO A. CRUZ,
JOSE DE LA ROSA, VICTORIOSO DIAZ CARPIO, ROSARIO CARPIO SANTOS, MARIETA CARPIO BACAY, MARIETA PALMA,
SPOUSES ROLANDO AND OFELIA HUANG, PELAGIO M. ACHACOSO, AND MELBA M. MANDOCDOC, RESPONDENTS.
April 04, 2016
SECOND DIVISION
[ G.R. No. 195611, April 04, 2016 ]
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE
REGISTER OF DEEDS, PETITIONER, VS. HEIRS OF DIEGO LIM,
NAMELY, PRUDENCIA D. LIM, ANGELINA D. LIM, SIXTA D.
LIM BAJA, ERNESTO D. LIM, MIGUEL D. LIM, JOSEFAD.LIM,
CASIMIRO D. LIM, BUENAVENTURA D. LIM, AND ENGRACIA
D. LIM UY, (THE LAST FIVE BEING DECEASED, BUT
REPRESENTED BY PRUDENCIA D. LIM), HEIRS OF
JEORGE* JOSEFAT,** EPIFANIO ROMAMBAN, SANTIAGO
PARONG, ANTONIO P. CACHO, JESSMAG, INC., ROSITA
LAGUERTA, EMILIO JOSE, HEIRS OF NESTOR P. TRINIDAD,
ANTONIO DIAZ, ANTONIO CHUA, GUILLERMO J. JOSE,
DANIEL MA. JOSE, LOURDES JOSE, JUNA MA. JOSE,
WILFREDO V. GARCIA, JESUS BILBAO, JOSECONCEPCION,JR.,
FRANCISCO ACHACOSO, DENNIS B. PABLIZO,*** ROMEO A.
CRUZ, JOSE DE LA ROSA, VICTORIOSO DIAZ CARPIO,
ROSARIO CARPIO SANTOS, MARIETA CARPIO BACAY,
MARIETA PALMA, SPOUSES ROLANDO AND OFELIA HUANG,
PELAGIO M. ACHACOSO, AND MELBA M. MANDOCDOC,
RESPONDENTS.
DECISION
DEL CASTILLO, J.:
This Petition for Review on Certiorari[1] seeks to set aside the September 27, 2010
Decision[2] of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 85329 affirming the April
18, 2005 Decision[3] of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Iba, Zambales, Branch 70
in Civil Case No. RTC-666-I, as well as the CA's February 11, 2011
Resolution[4]denying petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration.[5]

Factual Antecedents
Lot 42 consisting of 17,181,376 square meters, more or less - or 1,718.1376
hectares, is situated in Iba, Zambales.
On December 8, 1924, the Director of Lands filed with the then Court of First
Instance of Zambales (CFI) a petition for cadastral hearing to settle and adjudicate
Lot 42, pursuant to Section 1855 of the Revised Administrative Code. [6]
The case was docketed as Cadastral Case No. 121. The Director of Lands claimed
that Lot 42 was-part of the public domain. Herein respondents Epifanio Romamban
(Romamban) and Santiago Parong (Parong) opposed the petition, claiming
ownership of Lot 42-E, which is a portion of Lot 42. Romamban claimed that he
owned by acquisitive prescription, 29 hectares of Lot 42-E; on the other hand,
Parong claimed eight hectares of Lot 42-E, which he allegedly purchased from
Romamban.
Apart from Romamban and Parong's claims over Lot 42-E, it appears that Diego Lim
(Lim) and Jorge Josefat (Josefat) had their own: in October 1968, Lim sent a letter
to the CFI informing the latter that he was a claimant over a portion of Lot 42-E,
having occupied the same and filed previously a free patent application therefor.
Josefat likewise had a pending homestead application over 20 hectares of Lot 42-E.
On November 20, 1969, the CFI of Zambales, Branch 11 rendered judgment in
Cadastral Case No. 121 adjudicating in favor of Romamban and Parong, Lot 42-E.
[7]
The herein petitioner Republic of the Philippines took issue before the CA via an
appeal docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 11483.
Meanwhile, in 1970, Romamban was able to secure in his name Original Certificate
of Title No. (OCT) 0-6511, covering the 29 hectares of land awarded to him. Parong
was likewise able to obtain in his name Transfer Certificates of Title Nos. (TCT) T20204, T-20205, and T-20206 over his 8-hectare award. Later on, Romamban and
Parong sold or transferred portions of their respective awards and, as a result,
several derivative titles were issued in favor of Romamban, Parong, and the other
respondents herein, namely Jessmag, Inc., Emilio Jose, Nestor P. Trinidad, Antonio
Diaz, Wilfredo V. Garcia, Francisco Achacoso, Jesus Bilbao, Victorioso Diaz Carpio,
Jose Concepcion, Jr., Marieta Palma, Marieta Carpio Bacay, Spouses Rolando and
Ofelia Huang, Pelagio M. Achacoso, Jose De La Rosa, Dennis B. Pablizo, Romeo A.
Cruz, Antonio P. Cacho, Rosario Carpio Santos, Rosita Laguerta, Antonio Chua,
Guillermo J. Jose, Daniel Ma. Jose, Lourdes Jose, Juna Ma. Jose, and Melba M.
Mandocdoc.
On January 12, 1989,[8] the CA issued a Decision[9] in CA-G.R. CV No. 11483, ruling
in favor of the Republic, thus We find [the Republic's] averment to be impressed with merit. The instant case is a
cadastral proceeding under the Public Land Laws. The burden of proving that the
land is a registrable private land rests upon [Romamban and Parong] in view of the
basic presumption that lands of whatever classification belong to the State, x x x.
Subject Lot No. 42-E is, therefore, presumed to be public land. To overcome the
presumption, it is incumbent upon [Romamban and Parong] to show by clear and
convincing evidence that they have been in uninterrupted possession of the same in
the concept of an owner for a period of at least thirty (30) years, x x x. However, as
has been earlier discussed, since [Romamban and Parong] have already lost their
standing in court,[10] the evidence adduced by them in the trial court cannot be
admitted to support their claim. This court is thus constrained to rule that the
presumption that Lot No. 42-E is a public land has not been overcome. Withal,
claimant Diego Lim's Application for Free Patent: (Exh. "1") and Claimant Jorge
Josefat's Homestead Application (Exh. "9") which are pending with the Bureau of
Lands are competent evidence that subject Lot No. 42-E is indeed part of the public
domain, x x x. Necessarily, therefore, the lower court committed reversible error
when it awarded subject Lot No. 42-E to [Romamban and Parong].
IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the decision of the court a quo dated November
20, 1969 is hereby REVERSED and its Order dated April 14, 1970 SET ASIDE. It is
hereby further declared that subject Lot No. 42-E is deemed and considered part
and parcel of the public domain without prejudice to the right of claimant Diego Lim
and claimant Jorge Josefat to pursue their respective applications for free patent
and homestead patent, respectively. With costs.
SO ORDERED.[11]
The above Decision became final and executory on February 3, 1989. [12]
Civil Case No. 666-I
On January 3, 1990, Lim and Josefat filed a Complaint [13] for accion publiciana and
cancellation of deeds of absolute sale and titles against Romamban, Parong, and
their co-respondents herein. The case was docketed as Civil Case No. 666-I and
assigned to Branch 70 of the RTC, Iba, Zambales. Lim and Josefat asserted that
they were the actual occupants of Lot 42-E, and have filed with the government
applications to acquire the same; that Romamban and Parong surreptitiously
subdivided Lot 42-E and sold the lots to their corespondents; that these corespondents purchased or obtained these lots and occupied them knowing that CAG.R. CV No. 11483 was still pending; and that by virtue of the resultant Decision in
CA-G.R. CV No. 11483, Lim and Josefat are therefore entitled to the subject land.
Thus, they prayed that Romamban, Parong, and the other respondents be ordered
to vacate Lot 42-E and pay damages and that the deeds of sale and titles issued in
their favor be nullified and cancelled.
Romamban, Parong, and the other defendants in Civil Case No. 666-I filed their
respective answers and motions to dismiss, arguing among others that they have
obtained Torrens titles over the property; that they are innocent purchasers in good
faith thereof; and that Lim and Josefat's rights are inchoate, as they are mere
applicants and not grantees of the property. In a September 10, 1991 Oder,[14] the
RTC denied the motions to dismiss but declared that Lim and Josefat lacked
personality to seek cancellation of the issued titles.
On April 28, 1992, petitioner filed a Motion for Intervention, attaching thereto a
Complaint in Intervention,[15] arguing that Romamban's OCT 0-6511 and all the
other derivative titles of the defendants in Civil Case No. 666-I were null and void
since, by virtue of the final and executory January 12, 1989 Decision of the CA in
CA-G.R. CV No. 11483, Lot 42-E did not cease to be inalienable public land.
Petitioner's motion for intervention was granted and its complaint in intervention
was admitted. However, in a February 19, 1998 Order of the trial court, the said
complaint in intervention was later dismissed for failure to prosecute. [16]
After trial, the RTC rendered a Decision[17] dated April 18, 2005 in Civil Case No.
RTC 666-1 declaring as follows:
The main issue in this case is whether or not [sic] the plaintiffs can still recover the
[sic] possession of the lots from the defendants in this case which is also for the
nullification of their titles. The issues of possession and ownership are inextricably
intertwined with each other and should be resolved together.
It is worthy to note that despite the decision of the Court of Appeals setting aside
the decision of the then Court of First Instance at Iba, Zambales which awarded Lot
42-E of the Iba Cadastre to Epifanio Romamban and Santiago Y. Parong, no action
was filed by the government for the reversion of such lot to the public domain. It is
a hornbook doctrine that it is only the State through the Solicitor General that can
file an action for reversion x x x which up to the present time is [sic] not yet
initiated by the government office concerned. Although the Republic of the
Philippines, through the Solicitor General had intervened in this proceeding, it did
not pursue its case against the present possessors the defendants, as in fact its
complaint in intervention was dismissed on February 19, 1998 x x x for failure x x x
to appear in the hearing of this case and for lack of interest to prosecute. Under the
factual milieu of this case, the plaintiffs have therefore no legal personality to file
the action to revert Lot 42-E of the Iba Cadastre to the public domain which legally
pertains to the State through the Office of the Solicitor General.
While the present action is not directly one for reversion but for recovery of
possession (accion publiciana), still this Court finds plaintiffs' [18] evidence insufficient
to overturn the defendants'[19] evidence as to proof of ownership and possession.
Witness and plaintiff Prudencia Lim has not even shown any tax declaration either
in her name or that of her deceased brother, Diego Lim and so were not paying
taxes on the property. The non-existence of a tax declaration of the subject land in
the names of the plaintiffs is also confirmed by witnesses Rodrigo A. Aramay and
Arturo Buenaventura. The defendants however have certificates of title in their
names transferred from the previous owners. The titles of the defendants until now,
have not been invalidated. Such titles as a proof of ownership should therefore be
given superior weight and the defendants as the holders thereof should be
considered as the owners of the property in controversy until their titles are
nullified or modified in an appropriate ordinary action x x x. The defendants were
buyers in good faith and they relied on the titles of the vendors, Epifanio
Romamban and Santiago Y. Parong which do not show any encumbrance or
annotation of an adverse claim or the pendency of an, appeal. The decision of the
Court of Appeals in the case of Director of Lands vs. Epifanio Romamban and
Santiago Y. Parong (CA-G.R. CV No. 11483 promulgated on January 12, 1989)
which declared Lot 42-E, Iba Cadastre to be part and parcel of the public domain,
was not annotated in the titles of Epifanio Romamban and Santiago Y. Parong, who
were the vendors of the lots now owned and possessed by the defendants. It is a
settled doctrinal rule that one who deals with property under the Torrens system
need not go beyond the same, but only has to rely on the title x x x. As a
consequence of such indubitable proof of ownership, the defendants being the
actual possessors, have the right to be respected in their possession (Art. 539, Civil
Code of the Philippines).
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered:
1) Declaring the defendants and their respective transferees to be the absolute
owners and lawful possessors of the lots described in their respective certificates of
title;
2) Dismissing the plaintiffs' complaint for lack of legal basis;
3) Dismissing the defendants' counterclaim for lack of factual basis there being no
evidence submitted by them during the trial; and
4) Dismissing the cross-claims of some of the defendants for being now moot and
academic in view of this depision.
SO ORDERED.[20]

Petitioner filed an appeal before the CA, which was docketed as CA-G.R. CV No.
85329. The Lim and Josefat heirs likewise appealed. In seeking reversal of the
RTC's April 18, 2005 Decision, petitioner essentially argued that the final and
executory January 12, 1989 Decision of the CA in CA-G.R. CV No. 11483 is
conclusive as to the nature and classification of Lot 42-E, which is that it is land
belonging to the State which may not be disposed or alienated in favor of the
respondents; that such a finding constitutes res judicata and respondents are
bound thereby; and that since the issue of ownership has thus been settled in favor
of the State, the RTC may not rule otherwise and declare the property as private
land.
On September 27, 2010, the CA rendered the assailed Decision affirming the RTC's
April 18, 2005 Decision, pronouncing thus:
The main issue to be resolved in the case at bar is whether the lower court erred in
dismissing the complaint for accion publiciana with cancellation of deeds of absolute
sale and transfer certificates of title.
We rule in the negative.
In the case at bar, it is undisputed that the parcel of land subject of the instant
controversy had been subdivided into smaller lots, and then later on, sold to
various entities and third parties by Epifanio Romamban and Santiago Parong. As
argued by herein defendants-appellees,[21] to whom the subdivided property had
been separately sold, there was no circumstance or presence of anything appearing
on the face of the certificates of title of the afore-named vendors which excites or
arouses suspicion which should then prompt the former to look beyond the said
certificates and investigate the title.
The real purpose of the Torrens system of registration is to quiet title to land and to
put a stop to any question of legality of the title except claims which have been
recorded in the certificate of title at the time of registration or which may arise
subsequent thereto. Every registered owner and every subsequent purchaser for
value in good faith holds the title to the property free from all encumbrances except
those noted in the certificate. Hence, a purchaser is not required to explore
further what the Torrens title on its face indicates in quest for any hidden
defect or inchoate right that may subsequently defeat his right thereto.
Where innocent third persons, relying on the correctness of the certificate of title
thus issued, acquire rights over the property the court cannot disregard such rights
and order the total cancellation of the certificate. The effect of such an outright
cancellation would be to impair public confidence in the certificate of title, for
everyone dealing with property registered under the Torrens system would have to
inquire in every instance whether the title has been regularly or irregularly issued.
This is contrary to the evident purpose of the law. x x x. Even if a decree in a
registration proceeding is infected with nullity, still an innocent purchaser for value
relying on a Torrens title issued in pursuance thereof is protected.
In Republic of the Philippines vs. Democrito T. Mendoza, et al. citing Republic vs.
Agunoy, Sr. et al., the Supreme Court emphatically explained that contested areas
and titles which had already passed on to third parties who acquired the same in
good faith and for value must be respected and protected, to wit:
Finally, it should be borne in mind that the contested areas and titles thereto had
already passed on to third parties who acquired the same from the Mendozas in
good faith-and for value. When the Mendozas' sales patents were registered, they
were brought under the operation of Presidential Decree No. [1529], otherwise
known as the Land Registration Decree.
According to Section 103 of the Land Registration Decree, whenever public [land] is
by the Government alienated, granted, or conveyed to any person, the same shall
be brought under the operation of the said Decree and shall be deemed to [sic]
registered lands to -all intents and purposes under the Decree. x x x.
In Republic v. Agunoy, Sr., et al., We refused to revert the land in question
to the public domain despite the fact that the free patent thereto was
secured by fraud since the same land already passed on to purchasers in
good faith and for value There can be no debate at all on petitioner's submission that no amount of legal
technicality may serve as a solid foundation for the enjoyment of the fruits of fraud.
It is thus understandable why petitioner chants the dogma of fraus et jus nunquam
cohabitant.
Significantly, however, in the cases cited by petitioner Republic, as well as in those
other cases where the doctrine of fraus et jus nunquam cohabitant was applied
against a patent and the title procured thru fraud or misrepresentation, we note
that the land covered thereby is either apart of the forest zone which is definitely
non-disposable, as in Animas, or that said patent and title are still in the name of
the person who committed the fraud or misrepresentation, as in Acot, Animas,
Republic vs. CA and Del Mundo and Director of Lands vs. Abanilla, et al. and, in
either instance, there were yet no innocent third parties standing in the way.
The foregoing pronouncement which declares that, "even if the original grantee of a
patent and title has obtained the same through fraud, reversion will no longer
prosper if such will affect the titles of innocent purchasers for value," was reiterated
in Rabaja Ranch Development Corp. vs. AFP Retirement and Separation Benefits
System, and We quote the pertinent provisions, thus:
In Estate of the Late Jesus S. Yujuico v. Republic, citing Republic v. Court of
Appeals, this Court stressed the fact that it was never proven that private
respondent St. Jude was a party to the fraud that led to the increase in the area of
the property after it was subdivided. In the same case, citing Republic v. Umali, we
held that, in a reversion case, even if the original grantee of a patent and
title has obtained the same through fraud, reversion will no longer prosper
as the land had become private land and the fraudulent acquisition cannot
affect the titles of innocent purchasers for value.
This conclusion rests very firmly on Section 32 of P.D. No. 1529, which
states:
SEC. 32. Review of decree of registration; Innocent purchaser for value. The decree of registration shall not be reopened or revised by reason of absence,
minority, or other disability of any person adversely affected thereby, nor by any
proceeding in any court for reversing judgment, subject, however, to the right of
any person, including the government and the branches thereof, deprived of land or
of any estate or interest therein by such adjudication or confirmation of title
obtained by actual fraud, to file in the proper Court of First Instance a petition for
reopening and review of the decree of registration not later than one year from and
after the date of the entry of such decree of registration, but in no case Shall such
petition be entertained by the court where an innocent purchaser for value has
acquired the land or an interest therein whose rights may be prejudiced. Whenever
the phrase "innocent purchaser for value" or an equivalent phrase occurs in this
Decree, it shall be deemed to include an innocent lessee, mortgagee, or other
encumbrancer for value.
Upon the expiration of said period of one year, the decree of registration and the
certificate of title issued shall become incontrovertible. Any person aggrieved by
such decree of registration in any case may pursue his remedy by action for
damages against the applicant or any other person responsible for the fraud.
Settled is the rule that no valid TCT can issue from a void TCT, unless an innocent
purchaser for value had intervened. An innocent purchaser for value is one who
buys the property of another, without notice that some other person has a right to
or interest in the property, for which a full and. fair price is paid by the buyer at the
time of the purchase or before receipt of any notice of the claims or interest of
some other person in the property. The protection given to innocent
purchasers for value is necessary to uphold a certificate of title's efficacy
and conclusiveness, which the Torrens system ensures.
Thus, notwithstanding a final judgment declaring that the property in question

forms part of the public domain, a reversion of the said property to the public
domain will no longer be allowed at this stage in view of the protection given to
innocent purchasers for value which is necessary to uphold a certificate of title's
efficacy and conclusiveness.
Moreover, herein plaintiffs-appellants have no legal standing to bring this instant
action. Section 2, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court requires that every action must be
prosecuted and defended in the name of the real party-in-intefest. The real partyin-interest is the party who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment or
the party entitled to the avails of the suit.
"Interest," within the meaning of the rule, means material interest, an interest in
the issue and to be affected by the decree, as distinguished from mere interest in
the question involved, or a mere incidental interest. Cases construing the real
party-in-interest provision can be more easily understood if it is borne in mind that
the true meaning of real party-in-interest may be summarized as follows: An action
shall be prosecuted in the name of the party who, by the substantive law, has the
right sought to be enforced. To qualify a person to be a real party in interest in
whose name an action must be prosecuted, he must appear to be the present real
owner of the right sought to be enforced.
In the instant case, herein plaintiffs-appellants had in fact admitted that the
application for free patent filed by Diego Lim and Jorge Josefat had not been acted
upon when a controversy involving the parcel of land subject of the instant case
arose. The mere filing of an application for a free patent does not vest ownership
upon the applicant.
It is a well-settled rule that the approval of a sales application merely authorized
the applicant to take possession of the land so that he could comply with the
requirements prescribed by law before a final patent eould be issued in his favor.
Meanwhile, the government still remained the owner thereof, as in fact the
application could still be canceled and the land awarded to another applicant should
it be shown that the legal requirements had not been complied with. What divests
the government of title to the land is the issuance of the sales patent and its
subsequent registration with the Register of Deeds. It is the registration and
issuance of the certificate of title that segregate public lands from the mass of
public domain and convert it into private property. Hence, the lower court did not
err in dismissing the complaint below for accion publiciana with cancellation of
deeds of absolute sale and transfer certificates of title.
As to the allegation that the decision of the trial court is not valid for its failure to
issue the mandatory pre-trial order, We find the same to be devoid of merit. The
appellants, in having voluntarily participated in the proceedings below in spite of

the alleged absence of a pre-trial order, are now precluded to [sic] challenge the
decision through this appeal applying the equitable principle of estoppel.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant appeal is denied. Accordingly, the
Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Iba, Zambales dated April 18, 2005 is hereby
AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.[22] (Emphases in the original)
Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration,[23] which the CA denied, in its
subsequent February 11, 2011 Resolution. Hence, the present Petition.
Issues
In a June 9, 2014 Resolution,[24] this Court resolved to give due course to the
Petition, which contains the following assignment of errors:
THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED ON A QUESTION OF LAW WHEN IT:
(A) CONSIDERED RESPONDENTS CACHO ET AL. ENTITLED TO THE PROTECTION
GIVEN TO INNOCENT PURCHASERS FOR VALUE.
(B) DISREGARDED THE FINAL AND EXECUTORY DECISION OF THE COURT OF
APPEALS [IN] CA-G.R. CV NO. 11483, WHICH DECLARED THE SUBJECT LOTS PART
OF THE PUBLIC DOMAIN.[25]
Petitioner's Arguments
In its Petition and Consolidated Reply[26] seeking reversal of the assailed CA
Decision and the dismissal of Civil Case No. 666-I, petitioner argues that with the
promulgation of the CA's January 12, 1989 Decision in CA-G.R. CV No. 11483 and
its consequent finality, Lot 42-E should be considered public land which could not
have been validly acquired by the respondents; that respondents are bound by said
CA judgment, and any title obtained by them is necessarily null and void; and that
the CA erred in declaring respondents Antonio P. Cacho, et al., as innocent
purchasers for value, and in stating that petitioner had lost the right to seek
reversion.
Respondents' Arguments
In their Comment,[27] the Lim and Josefat heirs adopt the position of the petitioner
and pray for the reversal of the assailed CA Decision, arguing that with the
pronouncement in CA-G.R. CV No. 11483 that Lot 42-E formed part of the public
domain, their co-respondents could not own the portions covered by their
respective titles; that the registration of these portions in their name cannot
operate to convey title; that Romamban and Parong acted in bad faith in registering
Lot 42-E in spite of the pendency of CA-G.R. G.R. No. 11483; and that they possess
the required legal standing as real parties, in interest to participate in these
proceedings, as their rights as claimants were recognized by the pronouncement in
CA-G.R. CV No. 11483.
In their respective Comments,[28] the other respondents reiterate the soundness of
the CA's dispositions, and contend that they are innocent purchasers for value; that
they are unaware of any defect in their respective titles or that of their
predecessors'; that they may not be bound by the January 12, 1989 Decision in CAG.R. CV No. 11483 since they were not parties in said case; and that their titles
have become indefeasible pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 1529.
Our Ruling
The Court denies the Petition.
In resolving the instant case, the procedural issues must first be tackled before the
substantive ones.[29] Though the CA was correct in ruling against petitioner, it erred
in addressing the substantive issues before tackling the essential procedural
question involved - that is, whether petitioner could appeal the RTC's Decision in
Civil Case No. 666-I despite the fact that its attempt at intervention was rebuffed.
With the consequent denial of its intervention and dismissal of its complaint-inintervention in Civil Case No. 666-I, petitioner should have appealed such denial.
"[A]n order denying a motion for intervention is appealable. Where the lower
court's denial of a motion for intervention amounts to a final order, an appeal is the
proper remedy x x x."[30] Having failed to take and prosecute such appeal, petitioner
acquired no right to participate in the proceedings in Civil Case No. 666-I, even
question the judgment of the RTC consequently rendered in said case. "A
prospective intervenor's right to appeal applies only to the denial of his
intervention. Not being a party to the case, a person whose intervention the court
denied has no standing to question the decision of the court[, but] only the trial
court's orders denying his intervention x x x, not the decision itself." [31]
Since petitioner had no right to appeal the RTC's April 18, 2005 Decision, it was not
entitled to a resolution of the substantive issues it raised - particularly who, by law,
is properly entitled to Lot 42-E. Be that as it may, petitioner is not left without a
remedy. It can still file a reversion case against Romamban and Parong with respect
to the portions of Lot 42-E still registered in their names.
After all, petitioner's right to reversion cannot be barred by prescription. [32] As to
the other portions which have already been transferred to the other respondents
who are innocent purchasers for value, the government may file an action for
damages against Romamban and Parong or any other person responsible for the
fraud.
With respect to the Lim and Josefat heirs, they are precluded from seeking a
reversal of the herein assailed judgment. As mere respondents in the present
Petition, this Court cannot grant the affirmative relief they seek as they did not
themselves file a petition questioning the appellate court's decision. "It is a
fundamental principle that a party who does not appeal, or file a petition
for certiorari, is not entitled to any affirmative relief. An appellee who is not an
appellant may assign errors in his brief where his purpose is to maintain the
judgment, but he cannot seek modification or reversal of the judgment or claim
affirmative relief unless he has also appealed."[33] "As a general rule, a party who
has not appealed cannot obtain from the appellate court any affirmative relief other
than the ones granted in the appealed decision. The reason for this rule is that
since parties did not appeal from the decision or resolution, they are presumed to
be satisfied with the adjudication."[34] These pronouncements are especially
significant considering that the CA ruled that the Lim and Josefat heirs have no
legal standing to maintain and prosecute Civil Case No. 666-I; indeed, their
Comment should have been stricken off the record as a necessary consequence of
the appellate court's pronouncement, which they failed to question and is now
binding as to them.
WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED. The September 27, 2010 Decision and
February 11, 2011 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 85329
areAFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
Brion (Acting Chairperson),**** Peralta, Mendoza, and Leonen, JJ., concur.
Or Jorge.
**
Or Josafat.
***
Or Tablizo.
****
[1]
Per Raffle dated March 21, 2016.
Rollo, pp. 10-36.
Id. at 37-56; penned by Associate Justice Franchito N. Diamante and concurred

in by Associate Justices Josefina Guevara-Salonga and Mariflor P. Punzalan Castillo.
[2]
[3]
Id. at 96-108; penned by Judge Clodualdo M. Monta.
[4]
Id. at 66-69.
[5]
Id. at 57-65.
Sec. 1855. Institution of Registration Proceedings. - When the lands have been
surveyed and plotted, the Director of Lands, represented by the Solicitor-General,
shall institute registration proceedings, by petition against the holders, claimants,
possessors or occupants of such lands or any part thereof, stating in substance that
the public interest requires that the title to such lands be settled and adjudicated.
[6]
The petition shall contain a description of the lands and shall be accompanied by a
plan thereof, and may contain such other data as may serve to furnish full notice to
the occupants of the lands and to all persons who may claim any right or interest
therein.
See September 10,1991 Order in Civil Case No. RTC-666-1, records, vol. II, pp.
327-330 at 327-328.
[7]
[8]
See Entry of Judgment, rollo, p. 78.
Id. at 71 -77; penned by Associate Justice Hector C. Full and concurred in by

Associate Justices Nathaniel M. Pao, Jr. and Asaali S. Isnani.
[9]
[10]
An order of general default was issued against Romamban and Parong.
[11]
Rollo, pp. 76-77.
[12]
Id. at 78.
[13]
Records, Vol. I, pp. 1-7.
[14]
Records, Vol. II, pp. 327-330.
[15]
Id. at 383-390.
[16]
Id. at 702; rollo, p. 20.
[17]
Rollo, pp. 96-108.
[18]
Heirs of Diego Lim and Heirs of Jeorge Josefat.
[19]
Romamban and Parong and their co-respondents.
[20]
Id. at 104-108.
[21]
Romamban, Parong and their co-respondents.
[22]
Id. at 47-55.
[23]
Id. at 57-65.
[24]
Id. at 254-255.
[25]
Id. at 22.
[26]
Id. at 240-249.
[27]
Id. at 191-203.
[28]
Id. at 183-189, 207-209, 217-229.
Land Bank of the Philippines v. Atlanta Industries, Inc., G.R. No. 193796, July 2,
2014, 729 SCRA 12, 27.
[29]
Foster-Gallego v. Spouses Galang, 479 Phil. 148, 161 (2004), citing Saw v.
Court of Appeals, 273 Phil. 108 (1991).
[30]
[31]
Id. at 162.
Republic v. Mina, G.R. No. L-60685, June 29, 1982, citing Republic v. Animas,
56 SCRA 499.
[32]
Corinthian Gardens Association, Inc. v. Spouses Tanjangco, 578 Phil. 712, 723
(2008), citing Alauya, Jr. v. Commission on Elections, 443 Phil. 893, 907 (2003) and
Acebedo Optical Company, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 385 Phil. 956, 976-977 (2000).
[33]
Salazar v. Philippine Duplicators, Inc. and/or Fontanilla, 539 Phil. 346, 355
(2006), citing Filflex Industrial & Manufacturing Corp. v. National Labor Relations
Commission, 349 Phil. 913, 924-925 (1998).
[34]

G.R.
No.
195054
ATTY. CORAZON CHAVEZ, PETITIONER, VS. RENATO GARCIA AND THE OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, RESPONDENTS.
April 04, 2016
SECOND DIVISION
[ G.R. No. 195054, April 04, 2016 ]
ATTY. CORAZON CHAVEZ, PETITIONER, VS. RENATO GARCIA
AND THE OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, RESPONDENTS.
DECISION
BRION, J.:
Before the Court is a petition for review on certiorari[1] assailing the July 13,
2010[2] and January 5, 2011[3] resolutions of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R.
SP No. 114497.
ANTECEDENTS
Petitioner Atty. Corazon Chavez (Atty. Chavez) was the former Register of Deeds of
San Juan City.[4]
On March 23, 2007, respondent Renato Garcia (Garcia) filed with the Office of the
Ombudsman (Ombudsman) a complaint[5] against Atty. Chavez for alleged
irregularities in the cancellation of Transfer Certificates of Title (TCTs) Nos. 11844-R
and 11845-R registered in the name of his parents-in-law, Esperanza Corpus and
the late Honorato P. Corpus (Spouses Corpus).[6]
Garcia claimed that on July 26, 2005, Atty. Chavez issued TCT Nos. 12172-R and
12173-R[7] in the name of Hector P. Corpus (Hector), son of the Spouses Corpus.
Atty. Chavez issued the new TCTs based on purported deeds of sale executed by the
Spouses Corpus and Hector on January 8 and 9, 2002. [8]
On November 16, 2006, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of San Juan, in a case filed
by Garcia's wife and mother-in-law against Hector and Atty. Chavez, voided the
deeds of sale for being spurious. The RTC also directed Atty. Chavez to cancel the
TCTs issued in favor of Hector and reinstate and issue a new owner's duplicate copy
of the TCTs registered in the name of the Spouses Corpus. [9]
Garcia also alleged that the sales were not reported to the Bureau of Internal
Revenue (BIR) and that the capital gains tax and documentary stamp tax were not
paid. Consequently, the Certificate Authorizing Registration (CAR) of the sales with
the Registry of Deeds could not have been issued.[10] To prove this allegation, Garcia
submitted certifications[11] issued by the BIR that no sale between the Spouses
Corpus and Hector was reported to their office.
In sum, Garcia claimed that the issuance of the new TCTs without the requisite
payment of taxes was not only contrary to law but also prejudicial to the State. [12]
In defense,[13] Atty. Chavez claimed that she was not in a position to determine the
authenticity and due execution of the deeds of sale; that she could only rely on the
declaration that they were subscribed and sworn to in the presence of a Notary
Public; and that the deeds of sale are public documents presumed to be regularly
and duly executed.[14]
Contrary to Garcia's allegation, Atty. Chavez maintained that her office issued the
new TCTs after all the supporting documents have been submitted, namely: the
CAR, the BIR Tax Payment Deposit Slip and the Capital Gains Tax Return.
[15]
Consequently, her office had to cancel the old TCTs and issue the new ones in
Hector's name.[16]
Lastly, Atty. Chavez posited that since the BIR had no records of the transactions,
the CAR submitted to her office might have been falsified. Assuming it was falsified,
she argued that she could not be held liable because as a Register of Deeds, it is
not her duty to determine its intrinsic validity, due execution and authenticity. Only
the courts can conduct a foil-blown hearing to decide on such litigious matters. [17]
THE OMBUDSMAN'S FINDINGS[18]
On September 30, 2008, the Ombudsman found substantial evidence to hold Atty.
Chavez administratively liable for Grave Misconduct.[19] The Ombudsman held that
the issuance of the TCTs without payment of taxes is contrary to the provisions of
the National Internal Revenue Code.[20]
To support its finding that Atty. Chavez issued the new TCTs without the supporting
documents, the Ombudsman gave weight to: (1) the BIR certifications that the
taxes on the alleged sales were not paid[21] and (2) the RTC
decision declaring the deeds of sale null and void.[22] The Ombudsman held
that these pieces of evidence proved that Atty. Chavez committed wrongdoing.
While acknowledging that Atty. Chavez submitted as evidence the supporting
documents (to prove her claim that she issued the new TCTs only after these
documents were submitted), the Ombudsman gave more credence to the BIR
certifications and the RTC decision.[23]
From these established facts, the Ombudsman concluded that: (1) Atty. Chavez had
been remiss in her duties, and thus, should be liable for Grave Misconduct; (2) the
government suffered injury equal to the amount of unpaid taxes: Php60,000.00 for
capital gains tax and Php15,000.00 for documentary stamp tax; [24] and (3) that
Atty. Chavez gave unwarranted benefits to Hector when she issued the new TCTs
despite the non-payment of taxes.[25]
In finding Atty. Chavez liable for Grave Misconduct, the Ombudsman stressed that
the quantum of proof that must be satisfied in administrative proceedings is
merelysubstantial evidence, which is the amount of relevant evidence a
reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. [26] In this case,
the evidence presented satisfied the quantum of proof necessary to hold Atty.
Chavez liable for Grave Misconduct. Thus,
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, respondent ATTY. CORAZON C. CHAVEZ,
Register of Deeds of San Juan City, is liable for Grave Misconduct and is thus
imposed the penalty of DISMISSAL from the sendee, including all the accessory
penalties of cancellation of eligibility, forfeiture of leave credits and retirement
benefits, and disqualification from reemployment in the government service.
Atty. Chavez moved[27] but failed to obtain a reconsideration of the Ombudsman's
ruling.[28] Hence, she filed a petition for review[29] with the CA.
The CA dismissed the petition for failure to: (1) state the address of the parties;
and (2) attach the affidavit of service and supporting documents. The CA also
denied the motion for reconsideration filed by Atty. Chavez. [30] Hence, she came to
the Court for relief through the present petition.
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT
The Court initially denied the petition because it failed to show any reversible error
in the assailed CA resolutions. Atty. Chavez's counsel likewise did not indicate his
MCLE compliance.[31]
Atty. Chavez moved for reconsideration on the grounds that: (1) she is battling a
stage 3 cancer, and thus, for humanitarian reasons, she asked that her case be at
least given due course and resolved on the merits; (2) her case has merits; (3);
the defective filing in the CA was fully explained and (4) her counsel has an
updated MCLE compliance.[32]
On these bases, the Court granted the motion for reconsideration, reinstated the
petition, and required the respondents to file their comments. [33]
THE PETITION
Atty. Chavez assails the Ombudsman's findings on the following grounds:
First, assuming she erred in relying on the supporting documents submitted by
Hector, her error does not constitute grave misconduct. She argues that in grave
misconduct, there must be corruption and manifest intent to violate the law or
flagrant disregard of established rule. Corruption consists of the act of an official
who, contrary to duty, unlawfully and wrongfully uses his station to procure some
benefit for himself or for another person.[34]
Atty. Chavez points out that the element of corruption was not proven. She insists
that while she may have committed a mistake in assuming that the supporting
documents were genuine, such mistake was due to inadvertence and may not in
any manner be construed as grave misconduct or gross negligence of duty.[35]
Second, Atty. Chavez maintains that she had the right to rely on the authenticity
and due execution of the documents submitted to her office. She underscores that
it is beyond the duty of the Register of Deeds to look into the intrinsic validity of the
CAR or the deeds of sale.[36]
She cites ample jurisprudence to support her claim that the Register of Deeds can
only determine the registrability of the document based on its face and that she has
no authority to inquire into the intrinsic validity of the documents based on
proof aliunde.
She claims that her office receives hundreds of document daily, thus, it would be
illogical and burdensome to require her to investigate the due execution and
authenticity of all documents submitted to her office. This would result in a
logistical nightmare. Thus, the Registry of Deeds could rely on the due execution
and authenticity of the documents after they have been signed and subscribed to
before a Notary Public.[37]
Finally, Atty. Chavez submits that her dismissal from the service is too harsh a
penalty assuming she committed lapses in her duties. She points out that she had
been in public service for twenty-six (26) years and that she had served the
government with honesty and integrity. She prays that the Court consider this fact
in imposing the appropriate penalty, if any.[38]
RESPONDENTS' COMMENT
Garcia refutes Atty. Chavez's good faith reliance on the authenticity and due
execution of the supporting documents. He claims that the supporting documents
were clearly fraudulent. He also questions how these documents came into Atty.
Chavez's possession, and posits that such possession gives rise to the presumption
that she forged them or participated in their falsification. [39]
Garcia contends that the fact alone that new TCTs were issued without the requisite
payment of taxes already constitutes grave misconduct although no evidence was
adduced to prove Atty. Chavez received remuneration or benefit from the
transaction.[40] Thus, Garcia insists that Atty. Garcia's dismissal from the service was
commensurate to her grave misconduct.
Garcia also refutes Atty. Chavez's claim that she had served the government with
honesty and integrity for twenty-six (26) years. He discloses that the Ombudsman
had previously charged Atty. Chavez with plunder in an alleged Php95 Million tax
scam against the government.[41] On this note, the Court takes judicial notice of the
administrative charge that arose from this separate case where the Ombudsman
also found Atty. Chavez liable for grave misconduct and dismissed her from the
service.[42]
The Ombudsman, on the other hand, maintains that Atty. Chavez committed grave
misconduct when she relied on the documents submitted by Hector despite the
absence of receipts evidencing payment of taxes. [43]
The Ombudsman reiterates that the BIR issued certifications showing that no taxes
on the purported sales had ever been paid; the failure to collect the tax prejudiced
the government in the form of uncollected taxes. Thus, Atty. Chavez committed
corruption, an element of grave misconduct, for unlawfully and wrongfully using her
station or character to procure benefit for herself or another person, contrary to her
duties and the right of the government. [44]
The Ombudsman further contends that there was substantial evidence to prove that
Atty. Chavez is liable for grave misconduct, namely: (1) Garcia's complaintaffidavit; (2) the BIR certifications proving the nonpayment of taxes; (3) and the
RTC decision voiding the fictitious sales. The Ombudsman notes that its
investigating officer thoroughly examined these pieces of evidence and deemed
them sufficient to substantiate Garcia's allegations. [45]
In support of this contention, the Ombudsman invokes Section 27 of Republic Act
No. 6770 or The Ombudsman Act of 1989, which provides that findings of fact by
the Ombudsman when supported by substantial evidence are conclusive. [46]
Finally, the Ombudsman notes that grave misconduct is classified as a grave
offense, and thus, carries with it the penalty of dismissal from the service. [47]
ISSUES
The case confronts the Court with the issues of whether Arty. Chavez committed
grave misconduct; and whether the penalty of dismissal from the service was
proper.
OUR RULING
It is well-settled that findings of fact and conclusions by the Ombudsman are
conclusive when supported by substantial evidence. Their factual findings are
generally accorded great weight and respect, if not finality by the courts, by reason
of their special knowledge and expertise over matters falling under their
jurisdiction.[48]
In cases filed before administrative or quasi-judicial bodies, a fact may be deemed
established if it is supported by substantial evidence.[49]
Substantial evidence is defined as such amount of relevant evidence which a
reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. It is more than
a mere scintilla of evidence. The standard of substantial evidence is satisfied when
there is a reasonable ground to believe, based on the evidence submitted, that the
respondent is responsible for the misconduct complained of. It need not be
overwhelming or preponderant, as is required in an ordinary civil case, or evidence
beyond reasonable doubt, as is required in criminal cases, but the evidence must be
enough for a reasonable mind to support a conclusion. [50]
To reiterate, the Ombudsman relied on two established facts to conclude that Atty.
Chavez committed grave misconduct: (1) the RTC decision finding the deeds of sale
fictitious and (2) the BIR certifications that the taxes on the purported sales were
not paid.
Are these pieces of evidence substantial to hold Atty. Chavez liable for
grave misconduct?
We rule in the affirmative.
Misconduct is a transgression of some established and definite rule of action, more
particularly, unlawful behavior or gross negligence by a public officer.[51]
The misconduct is considered to be grave if it involves additional elements such as
corruption or willful intent to violate the law or to disregard established rules, which
must be proven by substantial evidence; otherwise, the misconduct is only simple.
Corruption, as an element of grave misconduct, consists in the act of an official or
fiduciary person who unlawfully and wrongfully uses his station or character to
procure some benefit for himself or for another person, contrary to duty and the
rights of others. In other words, in grave misconduct, the elements of corruption,
clear intent to violate the law, or flagrant disregard of an established rule must be
evident.[52]
We agree that Atty. Chavez could not have known that the notarized deeds of sale
were spurious and that it was not her duty to examine their authenticity, validity
and due execution.
A Register of Deeds is not tasked with the evaluation of the intrinsic validity or
genuineness of the deeds submitted to her office, especially if they appear regular
on their face.[53] Otherwise, she would be inundated with paperwork and greatly
hampered in the performance of her official functions.
There is nothing on records that would show that Atty. Chavez should have known
that the deeds of sale were not genuine, nor did Garcia make such allegation. The
Ombudsman also did not rule that the deeds were invalid on their face. The
Ombudsman held only that the RTC voided them for being fictitious.
Notably, the RTC found them to be spurious only after holding trial and weighing
the evidence adduced by the complainants. There is therefore basis to assume that
the deeds of sale appeared genuine, valid and duly executed. Thus, Atty. Chavez
cannot be faulted for assuming that the deeds were not fictitious, granting she had
no prior knowledge that the deeds were indeed falsified.
Be that as it may, the uncontroverted facts in this case, taken as a whole, compel
the Court to sustain the ruling of the Ombudsman. These established facts
juxtaposed with the degree of proof required in an administrative case justify the
finding of grave misconduct and the dismissal of Atty. Chavez from the service.
Stated in concrete terms, we hold that Atty. Chavez committed grave misconduct
when she issued the new TCTs without proof of payment of taxes. We find that the
following circumstances negate Atty. Chavez's claim of innocence:
First, Atty. Chavez chose to not participate and defend her office in the RTC.
We stress that the case filed in the RTC was not only against Hector, the alleged
guilty party in falsifying the deeds of sale, but also against Atty. Chavez, in her
official capacity as the Register of Deeds. The case was for the declaration of nullity
of the deeds of sale and cancellation of the TCTs issued by Atty. Chavez in favor of
Hector.[54]
Despite twice asking for extension to file an answer, Atty. Chavez did not file any
responsive pleading. Upon motion, the RTC declared her in default. The RTC then
decided the case based on the evidence of the complainants (Garcia's wife and
mother-in-law). These included, among others, the BIR certifications that the taxes
on the sales were not paid (and thus, the CAR and the tax returns could not have
been issued). The BIR employees also testified to confirm the facts in their
certifications.
Interestingly, the RTC also found that the complainants, through a representative,
sent a letter-request to Atty, Chavez asking for certified copies of the documents
relevant to the issuance of the TCTs. Despite being told to follow-up several times,
the representative was not provided with the requested documents. [55]
Clearly, even prior to the filing of the complaint with the Ombudsman, there was
already an indication that Atty. Chavez could not produce the supporting documents
that would have justified the issuance of TCTs.
Second, Atty. Chavez filed her counter-affidavit with the Ombudsman only after
several extensions of time.
These circumstances tend to refute her claim that she received all the supporting
documents before she issued the new TCTs, as well as her claim that she cannot be
faulted if the supporting documents turned out to be spurious.
We elaborate on this point in our discussion below.
The Ombudsman ordered Atty. Chavez to file her counter-affidavit on June 9, 2007.
She moved for extensions on July 20, 2007; October 22, 2007; May 16, June 2,
andJune 5, 2008 (five motions for extension in total).
She finally filed her counter-affidavit on August 15, 2008, more than a year
after she was first ordered to do so.[56] Atty. Chavez reasoned that she had to
"prioritize the pending workloads in her office before retrieving relevant
documents and investigating what really transpired in relation to the x x x
complaint."[57]
Atty. Chavez attached to her belatedly-filed counter-affidavit the alleged CAR and
supporting documents supposedly proving that the taxes had been paid.
In this regard, we find relevant that the RTC decided the nullity/cancellation case on
November 16, 2006. Thus, as early as November 16, 2006, Atty. Chavez had been
informed that her office was accused of and had been found issuing TCTs despite
the absence of proof of payment of taxes.
And yet, it took her almost two years to submit as evidence the purported
supporting documents that would have justified the cancellation of the Spouses
Corpus TCTs and the issuance of the new TCTs in favor of Hector.
We underscore that Atty. Chavez had not explained nor attempted to explain
anywhere in her pleadings filed before the Court or with the Ombudsman the
reason for the delay. She does not claim that these documents were missing or
destroyed or stolen. The Court does not understand why it took her a long time to
submit them as evidence to protect the integrity of her office and defend her own
reputation.
In fact, she admitted that she only had to "retrieve the relevant documents" but
failed to do so at the earliest opportunity because she was busy with her official
duties.[58]
We are tar from convinced by the merit of this explanation.
The more tenable explanation is that the alleged CAR, BIR Deposit Payment Slip
and Capital Gains Tax Return (the supporting documents) were non-existent at
the time of the issuance of the new TCTs. We recall the sequence of events leading
to the "appearance" of the supporting documents:
Atty. Chavez issued the new TCTs to Hector on July 26, 2005.[59]
On October 4, 2005, the BIR certified that the capital gains tax and
documentary tax had not been paid on the sales.
This means that the alleged supporting documents could not have been
issued by the BIR. Consequently, Hector could not have submitted any
document to Atty. Chavez's office unless falsified versions of the supporting
documents were filed.
On November 16, 2006, the RTC cancelled the TCTs for having been issued
without proof, of payment of taxes.
This supports the conclusion that the BIR could not have issued and Hector
could not have submitted the alleged supporting documents to Atty. Chavez's
officeunless falsified versions were submitted.
On March 23, 2007, Garcia filed his complaint with the Ombudsman
alleging that Atty. Chavez issued the TCTs without the required proof of
payment of taxes.
Again, if this allegation is true, it means that Hector could not have
submitted the supporting documents to Atty. Chavez's office unless he or
someone else falsified them.
On August 15, 2008, Atty. Chavez filed her counter-affidavit attaching the
alleged supporting documents.
On September 30, 2008, the Ombudsman found that Atty. Chavez issued
the TCTs in Hector's name without the required payment of taxes.
To our mind, the above sequence of events renders it clear that on July 26,
2005, Atty. Chavez should have received some sort of supporting
documents, fake or otherwise.
Also, as early as October 4, 2005 (date of BIR certification) or March 23,
2007 (date of Garcia's complaint), Atty. Chavez had or should have been alerted to
thepossibility that her office received falsified supporting documents. However, she
made no attempt to explain what she did upon learning of this distinct possibility.
We find Atty. Chavez's silence on this particular point rather revealing. The
supporting documents surfaced only when she belatedly filed her counter-affidavit
onAugust 15, 2008. She offers no explanation on where the supporting
documents were between October 4, 2005 and August 15, 2008. This inevitably
leads us to conclude, as did the Ombudsman, that she did not at all receive any
supporting document on July 26, 2005, falsified or otherwise.
The Court is also not convinced that she was too busy with official duties that it
took her almost three years to "retrieve the relevant documents." The more
believable conclusion, as found by the Ombudsman though not expressly stated in
these terms, is that not only were the deeds of sale fictitious, the alleged
supporting documents, namely: the CAR, the BIR Tax Payment Deposit Slip and the
Capital Gains Tax Return were nonexistent when Atty. Chavez issued the TCTs in
favor of Hector.
We thus rule that the above findings are more than sufficient to qualify
as substantial evidence, and that there are sufficient "reasonable grounds to
believe, based on the evidence submitted, that the respondent is responsible for
the misconduct complained of."[60]
For all these reasons, we sustain the findings of the Ombudsman holding Atty.
Chavez liable for grave misconduct and dismissing her from the service.
A final note: While Atty. Chavez had been previously found administratively liable
for grave misconduct in a separate case (the Ombudsman found in that case that
Atty. Chavez registered a deed despite the non-submission of the CAR when she
was still the Register of Deeds of Las Pias), we clarify that such fact has no
bearing in the present case. Our conclusion here is arrived at based solely on the
facts found by the Ombudsman and the issues submitted by the parties.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, we DENY the petition and AFFIRM the July
13, 2010 and January 5, 2013 resolutions of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No.
114497.
SO ORDERED.
Rollo, pp. 9-33. The petition is filed under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, with
prayer for temporary restraining order.
[1]
[2]
Id. at 222.
Id. at 242. Associate Justice Mario L. Guaria III penned the assailed resolutions
with the concurrence of Associate Justice Apolinario D. Bruselas, Jr. and Associate
Justice Rodil V. Zalameda.
[3]
[4]
Id. at 10.
[5]
Docketed as OMB-C-C-07-0161 -D and OMB-C-A-07-0180-D.
[6]
Rollo, p. 63.
[7]
Id. at 65-68.
[8]
Id. at 69-72.
[9]
Id. at 73-76
[10]
Id. at 63.
Id. at 77-78. The certifications were issued by Adelfa L. Mateo, Chief, Collection
Section of the BIR - Revenue District Office (No. 42) and Melinda B. Ramos,
Revenue Officer III of the same office.
[11]
[12]
Id. at 64.
[13]
Id. at 81-85.
[14]
Id. at 82.
[15]
Id. at 86-92.
[16]
Id. at 82.
[17]
Id. at 83-84.
[18]
Id. at 176-191.
[19]
Id. at 183-190.
[20]
See Sections 24 (D), 58 (E), and 196 of the National Internal Revenue Code.
[21]
Rollo, p. 186.
[22]
Id. at 73-76.
[23]
Id. at 181-182.
[24]
Id. at 187-188.
[25]
Id. at 188.
[26]
Id. at 189.
[27]
Id. at 196-209.
[28]
Id. at 216-220.
[29]
Id. at 222.
[30]
Id. at 242-243.
[31]
Id. at 244-245.
[32]
Id. at 246-261.
[33]
Id. at 493.
[34]
Id. at 16.
[35]
Id. at 17.
[36]
Id. at 19.
[37]
Id. at 23-26.
[38]
Id. at 26-29.
[39]
Id. at 503-504.
[40]
Id. at 504.
[41]
Id. at 504-505.
See Ombudsman v. De Villa, G.R. No. 208341, June 17, 2015. It is unclear
whether Atty. Chavez questioned the Ombudsman's finding on this separate case.
[42]
[43]
Rollo, pp. 523-526.
[44]
Id. at 525.
[45]
Id. at 526-527.
[46]
Id. at 527.
[47]
Id. at _.
Ombudsman v. Mallari, G.R. No. 183161, December 03, 2014, citing Miro v.
Mendoza Vda. de Erederos, G.R. Nos. 172532 172544-45, November 20, 2013, 710
SCRA 371, 383.
[48]
[49]
Section 5, Rule 133, RULES OF COURT.
[50]
Ibid.
[51]
Bureau of Internal Revenue v. Organo, 468 Phil. 111, 118 (2004).
[52]
Supra note 48.
Section 10 of the Presidential Decree No. 1529 (Amending and Codifying the
Laws Relative to Registration of Property and for Other Purposes) provides:
Section 10. General functions of Registers of Deeds. xxxx
[53]
It shall be the duty of the Register of Deeds to immediately register an instrument

presented for registration dealing with real or personal property which complies
with all the requisites for registration. He shall see to it that said instrument bears
the proper documentary and science stamps and that the same are properly
cancelled. xxx
[54]
Rollo, p. 73.
[55]
Id. at 75.
[56]
Id. at 179-181.
[57]
Id. at 79.
[58]
Ibid.
[59]
Id. at 65-68.
[60]
Supra note 48.

G.R.
No.
198774
TEOFILO ALOLINO, PETITIONER, VS. FORTUNATO FLORES AND ANASTACIA MARIE FLORES, RESPONDENTS.
April 04, 2016
SECOND DIVISION
[ G.R. No. 198774, April 04, 2016 ]
TEOFILO ALOLINO, PETITIONER, VS. FORTUNATO FLORES
AND ANASTACIA MARIE FLORES, RESPONDENTS.
DECISION
BRION, J.:
This is a petition for review on certiorari filed from the July 8, 2011 decision of the
Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 94524.[1] The CA reversed the Regional
Trial Court's (RTC) decision[2] in Civil Case No. 69320[3] and dismissed petitioner
Teofilo Alolino's complaint against the respondents for the removal of their illegally
constructed structure.
Antecedents
Alolino is the registered owner of two (2) contiguous parcels of land situated at No.
47 Gen. Luna Street, Barangay Tuktukan, Taguig, covered by Transfer Certificate of
Title (TCT) Nos. 784 and 976. TCT No. 784 was issued on August 30, 1976 covering
an area of 26 square meters; while TCT No. 976 was issued on August 29, 1977,
with an area of 95 square meters.
Alolino initially constructed a bungalow-type house on the property. In 1980, he
added a second floor to the structure. He also extended his two-storey house up to
the edge of his property. There are terraces on both floors. There are also six (6)
windows on the perimeter wall: three (3) on the ground floor and another three (3)
on the second floor.
In 1994, the respondent spouses Fortunato and Anastacia (Marie) Flores
constructed their house/sari sari store on the vacant municipal/barrio road
immediately adjoining the rear perimeter wall of Alolino's house. Since they were
constructing on a municipal road, the respondents could not secure a building
permit. The structure is only about two (2) to three (3) inches away from the back
of Alolino's house, covering five windows and the exit door. The respondents'
construction deprived Alolino of the light and ventilation he had previously enjoyed
and prevented his ingress and egress to the municipal road through the rear door of
his house.
Alolino demanded that the respondent spouses remove their structure but the latter
refused. Thus, he complained about the illegal construction to the Building Official
of the Municipality of Taguig. He also filed a complaint with the Barangay of
Tuktukan.
Acting on Alolino's complaint, the Building Official issued a Notice of Illegal
Construction against the respondents on February 15, 1995, directing them to
immediately stop further construction.[4]
Sometime in 2001 or 2002, the respondents began constructing a second floor to
their structure, again without securing a building permit. This floor was to serve as
residence for their daughter, Maria Teresa Sison. The construction prompted Alolino
to file another complaint with the Building Official of Taguig.
The building official issued a second Notice of Illegal Construction against the
respondents on May 6, 2002, directing the respondents to desist from their illegal
construction.[5]
On May 17, 2002, the Office of the Barangay Council of Tuktukan issued a
certification that no settlement was reached between the parties relative to Alolino's
1994 complaint.[6]
The respondents did not comply with the directive from the building official. This
prompted Alolino to send them a letter dated January 23, 2003, demanding the
removal of their illegally constructed structure.
Despite receipt of the demand letter, the respondents refused to comply. Thus, on
February 14, 2003, Alolino filed a complaint against the respondents with the RTC
praying for: (1) the removal of the encroaching structure; (2) the enforcement of
his right to easement of light and view; and (3) the payment of damages. Alolino
claimed that the respondents' encroaching structure deprived him of his light and
view and obstructed the air ventilation inside his house. The complaint was
docketed as Civil Case No. 69320.
In their answer,[7] the respondent spouses denied that Alolino had a cause of action
against them. They alleged that they had occupied their lot where they constructed
their house in 1955, long before the plaintiff purchased his lot in the 70s. They
further alleged that plaintiff only has himself to blame because he constructed his
house up to the very boundary of his lot without observing the required setback.
Finally, they emphasized that the wall of their house facing Alolino's does not
violate the latter's alleged easement of light and view because it has no window.
The respondents also admitted to them that they did not secure a building permit
because the property was constructed on a municipal/barrio road. They claimed,
however, that on March 1, 2004, the Sangguniang Bayan of Taguig (the
Sanggunian) reclassified the property as a residential lot from its prior classification
as abarrio/municipal road.[8]
During the trial, both parties moved for an ocular inspection of the premises.
Consequently, on November 19, 2007, the RTC ordered the branch clerk of court,
the deputy sheriff, and the stenographer to conduct the inspection. The ocular
inspection was conducted on December 6, 2007.
In their report dated January 30, 2008,[9] the inspection team confirmed that the
respondents' property blocked the entry of light and air to Alolino's house.
On April 20, 2009, the RTC rendered a judgment ordering the respondents to
remove their illegal structure obstructing Alolino's right to light and view.
The RTC found that Alolino had already previously acquired an easement of light
and view and that the respondents subsequently blocked this easement with their
construction. It held that the respondents' illegal construction was a private
nuisance with respect to Alolino because it prevented him from using the back
portion of his property and obstructed his free passage to the barrio/municipal
road. The court farther held that the respondents' house was a public nuisance,
having been illegally constructed on a barrio road - a government property without a building permit.
The respondents appealed the decision to the CA and was docketed as CA-G.R. CV
No. 94524.
On July 8, 2011, the CA reversed the RTC decision and dismissed the complaint for
lack of merit.
The CA held (1) that Alolino had not acquired an easement of light and view
because he never gave a formal prohibition against the respondents pursuant to
Article 668[10] of the Civil Code; (2) that Alolino was also at fault, having built his
fyouse up to the edge of the property line in violation of the National Building Code;
[11]
(3) that Alolino had not acquired an easement of right of way to the barrio Road;
and (4) that the respondents' house was not a public nuisance because it did not
endanger the safety of its immediate surroundings.
The CA concluded that the Government had already abandoned the barrio road
pursuant to the 2004 Sanggunian resolution. It further held that the respondents'
property could not be demolished, citing Section 28 of the Urban Development and
Housing Act.[12]
Alolino moved for reconsideration on July 28, 2011.
On September 28, 2011, the CA denied the motion for reconsideration and
maintained that Alolino had not acquired an easement of light and view.
Thus, on November 15, 2011, Alolino filed the present petition for review
on certiorari.
The Petition
Alolino insists (1) that he acquired an easement of light and view by virtue of a title
because the respondents constructed their house on a barrio road; (2) that the
provision of Sec. 708 of the National Building Code and Article 670 of the Civil Code
prescribing the setbacks is inapplicable because the property is adjacent to
a barrioroad; (3) that he has a right of way over the lot occupied by the
respondents because it is a barrio road; and (4) that the respondents' house/sari
sari store is a nuisance per se.
In its comment, the respondent counters (1) that Alolino has not acquired an
easement of light and view or an easement of right of way, by either prescription or
title; (2) that Alolino is at fault for constructing his house up to the edge of his
property line without observing the setbacks required in Article 670 of the Civil
Code and Section 702 of the National Building Code; and (3) that their house/sari
sari store is not a nuisance because it is not a serious threat to public safety and
the Sanggunian has already reclassified the lot as residential.
Our Ruling
We find the petition meritorious.

There is no dispute that respondents built their house/sari sari store on government
property. Properties of Local Government Units (LGUs) are classified as either
property for public use or patrimonial property.[13] Article 424 of the Civil Code
distinguishes between the two classifications:
Article 424. Property for public use, in the provinces, cities, and municipalities,
consist of the provincial roads, city streets, municipal streets, the squares,
fountains, public waters, promenades, and public works for public service paid for
by said provinces, cities, or municipalities.
All other property possessed by any of them is patrimonial and shall be governed by
this Code, without prejudice to the provisions of special laws. [14](emphasis supplied)
From the foregoing, the barrio road adjacent to Alolino's house is property of public
dominion devoted to public use.
We find no merit in the respondents' contention that the Local Government of
Taguig had already withdrawn the subject barrio road from public use and
reclassified it as a residential lot. The Local Government Code [15] (LGC) authorizes
an LGU to withdraw a local road from public use under the folio wing conditions:
Section 21. Closure and Opening of Roads. -
(a) A local government unit may, pursuant to an ordinance, permanently or temporarily

close or open any local road, alley, park, or square falling within its jurisdiction;
Provided, however, That in case of permanent closure, such ordinance must be approved
by at least two-thirds (2/3) of all the members of the Sanggunian, and when necessary, an
adequate substitute for the. public facility that is subject to closure is provided.
(b) No such way or place or any part thereof shall be permanently closed without making
provisions for the maintenance of public safety therein. A property thus permanently
withdrawn from public use may be used or conveyed for any purpose for which other
real property belonging to the local government unit concerned may be lawfully used
or conveyed. x x x
To convert a barrio road into patrimonial property, the law requires the LGU to
enact an ordinance, approved by at least two-thirds (2/3) of the Sanggunian
members, permanently closing the road.
In this case, the Sanggunian did not enact an ordinance but merely passed a
resolution. The difference between an ordinance and a resolution is settled in
jurisprudence: an ordinance is a law but a resolution is only a declaration of
sentiment or opinion of the legislative body.[16]
Properties of the local government that are devoted to public service are deemed
public and are under the absolute control of Congress. [17] Hence, LGUs cannot
control or regulate the use of these properties unless specifically authorized by
Congress, as is the case with Section 21 of the LGC.[18] In exercising this authority,
the LGU must comply with the conditions and observe the limitations prescribed by
Congress. The Sanggunian's failure to comply with Section 21 renders ineffective its
reclassification of the barrio road.
As a barrio road, the subject lot's purpose is to serve the benefit of the collective
citizenry. It is outside the commerce of man and as a consequence: (1) it is not
alienable or disposable;[19] (2) it is not subject to registration under Presidential
Decree No. 1529 and cannot be the subject of a Torrens title; [20] (3) it is not
susceptible to prescription;[21] (4) it cannot be leased, sold, or otherwise be the
object of a contract;[22] (5) it is not subject to attachment and execution;[23] and (6)
it cannot be burdened by any voluntary easements.[24]
An easement is an encumbrance imposed upon an immovable for the benefit of
another immovable belonging to a different owner or for the benefit of a
community, or of one or more persons to whom the encumbered estate does not
belong.[25] Continuous and apparent easements may be acquired by virtue of a
title or by prescription of ten years.[26] Meanwhile, continuous but non-apparent
easements and discontinuous ones can only be acquired by virtue of a title.
[27]
Used in this sense, title refers to a juridical justification for the acquisition of a
right. It may refer to a law, a will, a donation, or a contract.
We must distinguish between the respondents' house and the land it is built on. The
land itself is public property devoted to public use. It is not susceptible to
prescription and cannot be burdened with voluntary easements. On the other hand,
the respondents' house is private property, albeit illegally constructed on public
property. It can be the object of prescription and can be burdened with voluntary
easements. Nevertheless, it is indisputable that the respondents have not
voluntarily burdened their property with an easement in favor of Alolino.
An easement of a right of way is discontinuous and cannot be acquired through
prescription.[28] On the other hand, an easement of light and view can be acquired
through prescription counting from the time when the owner of the dominant estate
formally prohibits the adjoining lot owner from blocking the view of a window
located within the dominant estate.[29]
Notably, Alolino had not made (and could not have made) a formal prohibition upon
the respondents prior to their construction in 1994; Alolino could not have acquired
an easement of light and view through prescription. Thus, only easements created
by law can burden the respondents' property.
The provisions on legal easements are found in Book II, Title VII, Chapter 2 of the
Civil Code whose specific coverage we list and recite below for clarity and
convenience.
Section 3 (Articles 649-657) governs legal easements of right of way. Article
649 creates a legal easement in favor of an owner or any person entitled to use
any immovable, which is landlocked by other immovables pertaining to other
persons without an adequate access to a public highway. Article 652 creates a
legal easement in favor of an isolated piece of land acquired by sale, exchange,
partition, or donation when it is surrounded by other estates of the vendor,
exchanger, co-owner, or donor. Article 653 grants the same right of way. in favor
of the vendor, exchanger, co-owner, or donor when his property is the one that
becomes isolated.Article 656 grants the owner of an estate, after payment of
indemnity, a right of way to carry materials through the estate of another when it.is
indispensable for the construction or repair of a building in his estate. Finally, Article
657 governs right of way easements for the passage of livestock.
None of these provisions are applicable to Alolino's property with respect to
the barrio road where the respondents' house stands on.
On the other hand, Section 5 of Book II, Title VII, Chapter 2 of the Civil Code
(Articles 667-673) governs legal easements of light and view. These seven
provisions are:
SECTION 5
Easement of Light and View
Article 667. No part-owner may, without the consent of the others, open through
the party wall any window or aperture of any kind.
Article 668. The period of prescription for the acquisition of an easement of light
and view shall be counted: (1) From the time of the opening of the window, if it is
through a party wall; or (2) From the time of the formal prohibition ipon the
proprietor of the adjoining land or tenement, if the window is through a wall on the
dominant estate.
Article 669. When the distances in article 670 are not observed, the owner of a
wall which is not party wall, adjoining a tenement or piece of land belonging to
another, c^n make in it openings to admit light at the height of the ceiling joints or
immediately under the ceiling, and of the size of thirty centimeters square, and, in
every case, with an iron grating imbedded in|the wall and with a wire screen.
Nevertheless, the owner of the tenement or property adjoining the wall in which the
openings are made can close them should he acquire part-ownership thereof, if
there be no stipulation to the contrary.

He can also obstruct them by constructing a building on his land or by raising a wall
thereon contiguous to that having such openings, unless an easement of light has
been acquired.
Article 670. No windows, apertures, balconies, or other similar projections which
afford a direct view upon or towards an adjoining land or tenement can be made,
without leaving a distance of two meters between the wall in which they are made
and such contiguous property.
Neither can side or oblique views upon or towards such conterminous property be
had, unless there be a distance of sixty centimeters.
The nonobservance of these distances does not give rise to prescription.
Article 671. The distance referred to in the preceding article shall be measured in
cases of direct views from the outer line of the wall when the openings do not
project, from the outer line of the latter when they do, and, in cases of oblique
view, from the dividing line between the two properties.
Article 672. The provisions of article 670 are not applicable to buildings separated
by a public way or alley, which is not less than three meters wide, subject to special
regulations and local ordinances.
Article 673. Whenever by any title a right has been acquired to have direct views,
balconies or belvederes overlooking an adjoining property, the owner of the servient
estate cannot build thereon at less than a distance of three meters to be measured
in the manner provided in article 671. Any stipulation permitting distances less than
those prescribed in article 670 is void.
However, none of these provisions actually create a legal easement of light and
view which can only be acquired through prescription or a by virtue of
a voluntary title.
From the foregoing, we agree with the respondents that Alolino does not have an
easement of light and view or an easement of right of way over the respondents'
property or the barrio road it stands on. This does not mean, however, that the
respondents are entitled to continue occupying the barrio road and blocking the
rear of Alolino's house. Every building is subject to the easement which prohibits
the proprietor or possessor from committing nuisance. [30] Under Article 694 of the
Civil Code, the respondents' house is evidently a nuisance:
Art. 694. A nuisance is any act, omission, establishment, business, condition of
property, or anything else which:
(1) Injures or endangers the health or safety of others; or

(2) Annoys or offends the senses; or
(3) Shocks, defies or disregards decency or morality; or
(4) Obstructs or interferes with the free passage of any public highway or
street, or any body of water; or
(5) Hinders or impairs the use of property, (emphasis supplied)
A barrio road is designated for the use of the general public who are entitled to free
and unobstructed passage thereon. Permanent obstructions on these roads, such as
the respondents' illegally constructed house, are injurious to public welfare and
convenience. The occupation and use of private individuals of public places devoted
to public use constitute public and private nuisances and nuisance per se.[31]
The CA clearly erred when it invoked Section 28 of the Urban Development and
Housing Act as a ground to.deny the demolition of respondents' illegal structure.
The invoked provision reads:
Sec. 28. Eviction and Demolition. - Eviction or demolition as a practice shall be
discouraged. Eviction or demolition, however, may be allowed under the following
situations:
(a) When persons or entities occupy danger -areas such as esteros, railroad tracks, garbage
dumps, riverbanks, shorelines, waterways, andother public places such as sidewalks,
roads, parks, and playgrounds;
xxxx
(c) When there is a court order for eviction and demolition. x x x (emphasis supplied)
The invoked provision itself allows the demolition of illegal structures on public
roads and sidewalks because these nuisances are injurious to public welfare.
Evidently, the respondents have no right to maintain their occupation and
permanent obstruction of the barrio road. The interests of the few do not outweigh
the greater interest of public health, public safety, good order, and general welfare.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The decision of the Court of Appeals
in CA-G.R. CV No. 94524 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE and the decision of the
Regional Trial Court, Pasig City, Branch 153 in Civil Case No.
69320 is REINSTATED.
The respondents, and all persons claiming rights under them, are ORDERED to
remove and demolish their illegal structure. The respondents are also ORDERED to
pay the petitioner the sum of One Hundred Thousand Pesos (P100,000.00) as
attorney's fees. Costs against the respondents.
SO ORDERED.
Rollo, pp. 277-286. Penned by Associate Justice Manuel M. Barrios and concurred
in by Associate Justices Mario L. Guaria III and Japar B. Dimaampao.
[1]
[2]
Id. at 225-232. RTC of Pasig City, Branch 153.
[3]
Id. Penned by Judge Briccio C. Ygaa.
[4]
Id. at 123.
[5]
Id. at 124.
[6]
Id. at 110, 122.
[7]
Id. at 127-130.
[8]
Pursuant to Sangguniang Bayan Resolution No. 15, Series of 2004; id. at 182.
[9]
Id. at 96-106.
Art. 668. The period of prescription for the acquisition of an easement of light
and view shall be counted:
[10]
(1) From the time of the opening of the window, if it is through a party wall; or
(2) From the time of the formal prohibition upon the proprietor of the
adjoining land or tenement, if the window is through a wall on the
dominant estate.
[11]
Section 708. Minimum Requirements for Group A Dwellings -
(a) Dwelling Location and Lot Occupancy.

The dwelling shall occupy not more than ninety percent of a corner lot and eighty
percent of an inside lot, and subject to the provisions on Easement on Light and
View of the Civil Code of the Philippines, shall be at least 2 meters from the
property line.
An Act to Provide for a Comprehensive and Continuing Urban Development and
Housing Program. Establish the Mechanism for its Implementation, and for Other
Purposes [URBAN DEVELOPMENT AND HOUSING ACT], Republic Act No. 7279,
Section 28 (1992).
[12]
[13]
Art. 423, CIVIL CODE.
[14]
An Act Providing for a Local Government Code of 1991 [LOCAL GOVERNMENT

CODE], Republic Act No. 7160 (1991).
[15]
[16]
Municipality of Paraaque v. V.M. Realty Corporation, 354 Phil. 684, 693 (1998).
[17]
Macasiano v. Diokno, G.R. No. 97764, 10 August 1992, 212 SCRA 464, 469.
[18]
Id.
Roman Catholic Bishop of Kalibo v. Municipality of Buruanga, 520 Phil. 753, 799
(2006).
[19]
[20]
Bishop of Calbayog v. Director of Lands, 150-A Phil. 806, 813 (1972).
[21]
Arts. 1108, 1113 CIVIL CODE:
Art. 1113. All things which are within the commerce of men [man] are susceptible
of [to] prescription, unless otherwise provided. Property of the State or any of
its subdivisions not patrimonial in character shall not be the object of
prescription. (emphasis supplied)
[22]
Arts. 1347, 1409, CIVIL CODE.
Id. see also Villarico v. Sarmiento-Del Mundo, 484 Phil. 724, 729 (2004) citing
TOLENTINO II, Civil Code (1992 ed.), 31-32.
[23]
[24]
Id. Villarico v. Sarmiento-Del Mundo, Supra note 23.
[25]
Arts. 613, 614, CIVIL CODE.
[26]
[27]
Art. 622, CIVIL CODE; Ronquillo v. Roco, 103 Phil. 84, S9 (1958); reiterated
in Costabella Corporation v. Court of Appeals, 271 Phil. 350, 357 (1991).
[28]
[29]
[30]
Art. 682, Civil Code.
Stitchon v. Aquino, 98 Phil. 458, 464-466 (1956); Dacanay v. Asistio, G.R. No.
93654, 6 May 1992, 208 SCRA 404, 408 citing PADILLA, Civil Code Annotated, Vol.
II, p. 59, 6th Ed.
[31]

G.R.
No.
184348
TAN PO CHU, PETITIONER, VS. COURT OF APPEALS, FELIX T. CHINGKOE, ROSITA L. CHINGKOE, AND RODRIGO
GARCIA,
RESPONDENTS.
April 04, 2016
SECOND DIVISION
[ G.R. No. 184348, April 04, 2016 ]
TAN PO CHU, PETITIONER, VS. COURT OF APPEALS, FELIX T.
CHINGKOE, ROSITA L. CHINGKOE, AND RODRIGO GARCIA,
RESPONDENTS.
DECISION
BRION, J.:
This is a petition for certiorari filed by Tan Po Chu from the January 16, 2008 and
July 16, 2008 resolutions of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 101727.
[1]
The CA dismissed outright Tan's petition for annulment of the Regional Trial
Court's (RTC) decision in LRC CASE No. 2005-771-MK[2] on the grounds that the
petition suffered from procedural infirmities and lacked substantial merit.
Antecedents
Fiber Technology Corporation (FiberTech) was a Philippine corporation with
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Registration No. 0000142818. It was
also the registered owner of a parcel of land in Marikina (subject lot) covered by
Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 157923 entered on November 28, 1988. The
SEC allegedly revoked FiberTech's registration on September 29, 2003. [3]
On April 4, 2005, respondent Felix Chingkoe executed an affidavit of loss of TCT No.
157923 allegedly on behalf of FiberTech.[4]
On June 2, 2005, FiberTech - supposedly represented by respondent Rodrigo Garcia
pursant to a December 2, 2004 Board Resolution [5] - filed a petition for the
reissuance/replacement of its owner's duplicate of TCT No. 157923. The petition
was based on the affidavit of loss that Felix executed. The petition alleged: (1) that
Felix and his wife Rosita acquired 3 00% ownership of FiberTech in 2004 pursuant
to an award by the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC); (2) that Felix was
elected Corporate Secretary soon after; (3) that Felix asked the former directors
and officers of FiberTech to turn over the owner's duplicate of TCT No. 157923, but
the latter denied knowledge or possession thereof; and (4) that after conducting an
exhaustive search, the subject title was nowhere,to be found. [6]
The petition was raffled to the RTC, Marikina City, Branch 193 and docketed as LRC
Case No. 2005-771-MK.
On July 23, 2006, the RTC granted the petition. It declared the owner's duplicate
copy of TCT No. 157923 as lost and ordered its reissuance. [7]
On December 21, 2007, Tan Po Chu - mother of Fibertech's incorporators Faustino
and respondent Felix Chingkoe - filed a petition before the CA for annulment of
judgment against the RTC's decision.[8] The petition was docketed as CA-G.R. SP
No. 101727 with Tan Po Chu and FiberTech as petitioners.
Tan alleged: (1) that the missing owner's duplicate of TCT was in her custody as the
responsible officer of FiberTech; (2) that Felix was aware of this fact; (3) that Felix
committed perjury when he executed the Affidavit of Loss; (4) that Felix and Rosita
had not acquired 100% ownership of FiberTech; (5) that Rosita and Rodrigo Garcia
were not even stockholders of record in Fibertech; and (6) that the respondents
had no authority to file the petition for reissuance of the owner's duplicate copy on
behalf of FiberTech.[9]
Citing New Durawood Co. v. Court of Appeals[10] and Serra Serra v. Court of
Appeals,[11] Tan further argued that if an owner's duplicate TCT has not been lost,
but is in fact possessed by another person, then the reconstituted title is void and
the court that rendered the decision never acquired jurisdiction.
However, the CA dismissed Tan's petition outright on January 16, 2008 on the
grounds that the petition suffered from procedural infirmities and lacked substantial
merit.[12]
The CA observed that: (1) the verification and certification of non-forum shopping
were executed alone by Tan Po Chu without showing that she had the authority to
sign for and on behalf of the corporation; (2) Tan's actual address was not indicated
in the petition as required by Rule 46, Section 3; and (3) the attached copy of the
owner's duplicate TCT No. 157923 was not a certified true copy.
The CA also brushed aside Tan's substantive argument. It held that the RTC
acquired jurisdiction over the case after complying with the notice and hearing
requirements under Section 109 of Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1529 or the
Property Registration Decree.[13]
Tan moved for reconsideration. However, on July 16, 2008, the CA denied the
motion, insisting that Tan's assertion that the RTC lacked jurisdiction was without
merit.[14]
On September 19, 2008, Tan filed the present petition for certiorari.
The Petition
Tan argues that the CA committed grave abuse of discretion in ruling that her
allegation of the RTC's lack of jurisdiction was not meritorious. She maintains that
the respondents misled the RTC because: (1) Felix and Rosita never became 100%
owners of FiberTech; and (2) they knew that the "missing" owner's duplicate was in
her possession. Pursuant to the cases of New Durawood, Serra Serra, Strait Times
v. CA,[15] and Demetriou v. CA,[16] the RTC never acquired jurisdiction to reconstitute
the owner's duplicate TCT.

The respondents counter that the CA did not commit grave abuse of discretion in
dismissing the petition. Further, assuming the CA decided in a manner contrary to
prevailing jurisprudence, then it only committed an error of law and not an error of
jurisdiction. They conclude that Tan's resort to a special civil action of certiorari was
unwarranted because the correct remedy would have been to appeal the dismissal
of her petition.
Our Ruling
At the outset, we observe that Tan resorted to the wrong remedy by filing a petition
for certiorari under Rule 65. The. Rules of Court explicitly authorizes the CA to
dismiss outright a petition for annulment of judgment if the court finds no
substantial merit in the petition.
Section 5. Action by the court. - Should the court find no substantial merit in the
petition, the same may be dismissed outright with specific reasons for such
dismissal.
Should prima facie merit be found in the petition, the same shall be given due
course and summons shall be served on the respondent. [17]
Accordingly, outright dismissal of Tan's petition is within the jurisdiction of the CA
and its correctness may be reviewed through an appeal by certiorari under Rule 45.
Certiorari is an extraordinary remedy of last resort for when another remedy is
present, certiorari is not available.[18] It is a limited form of review confined to
errors of jurisdiction. An error of jurisdiction is one where the officer or tribunal
acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.[19] On the other hand, an error of
judgment is one which the court may commit in the exercise of its jurisdiction.
[20]
They only involve errors in the court or tribunal's appreciation of the facts and of
the law.[21] Errors of jurisdiction are reviewable on certiorari; errors of judgment,
only by appeal.[22]
Ordinarily, this Court would have dismissed the petition outright for being an
improper remedy. As a general rule, certiorari will not lie as a substitute for an
appeal. However, an exception to this rule is where public welfare and the
advancement of public policy so dictates.[23]
This Court cannot ignore the implications if the petitioner's allegations - that she
has the original owner's duplicate TCT of the subject lot and that the SEC revoked
FiberTech's registration in 2003 - are true. There will currently exist two owner's
duplicate TCTs over the same property possessed by two contending factions in an
intra-corporate dispute of a defunct corporation. This anomalous situation can

potentially bring considerable hann to the general public and to the integrity of our
Torrens system. This Court, therefore, cannot simply leave the parties as they were.
The CA committed a grave error when it brushed aside Tan's argument that the RTC
rendered its decision without jurisdiction. It ruled that the replacement of a lost
duplicate certificate is a proceeding in rem, directed against the whole world;
therefore, the RTC acquired jurisdiction when it complied with the notice and
hearing requirements under Section 109ofP.D. 1529.
The CA completely missed the point because Tan did not assail the RTC's
jurisdiction by alleging noncompliance with the requirements of notice and hearing;
she questioned the RTC's jurisdiction over the res by claiming that the allegedly lost
owner's duplicate was, in fact, not lost but was in her custody. Therefore, the RTC's
compliance with Section 109 of P.D. 1529 was irrelevant.
We have consistently held that when the owner's duplicate certificate of title has
not been lost, but is in fact in the possession of another person, then the
reconstituted certificate is void because the court failed to acquire jurisdiction over
the subject matter - the allegedly lost owner's duplicate. [24] The correct remedy for
the registered owner against an uncooperative possessor is to compel the surrender
of the owner's duplicate title through an action for replevin.
A judgment void for want of jurisdiction is no judgment at all. [25] It has been held to
be a lawless thing, which can be treated as an outlaw and . slain at sight, or
ignored wherever and whenever it exhibits its ugly head.[26] It may be attacked at
any time.
If Tan's allegation were true, then the RTC's judgment would be void and the CA
would have been duty-bound to strike it down. The CA could have nipped this
anomalous situation in the bud before it could cause any harm to innocent third
persons. However, the CA opted to turn its back on this duty and dismiss the case
outright based on rigid technicalities and on irrelevant considerations regardless of
the implications to the general public.
Moreover, the CA's dismissal based on technical grounds was erroneous. The CA
raised the following procedural infirmities:
...(1) the verification and certification of non-forum shopping was executed alone
by affiant Tan Po Chu without any showing that [s]he had the authority to sign for
and in behalf of petitioner corporation pursuant to Sec. 5(1), Rule 7 and Sec. 4(3),
Rule 47 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure considering that [s]he is one of
the incorporators and stockholders of her co-petitioner corporation; (2) The actual
address of petitioner Tan Po Chu is not indicated in the petition as required by Sec.
3 (1), Rule 46 of the same Rule; (3) The copy of the owner's duplicate of TCT No.
157923 is not certified as a true copy of the original owner's duplicate by the proper
government agency as alleged by the petitioners.[27]
First, we note that Tan alleged that FiberTech's corporate existence had already
ceased when the SEC revoked its corporate registration on September 29, 2003,
and that she was a trustee of the corporation for the purpose of its dissolution.
[28]
We note further that the petition for annulment was filed in the names
of both FiberTech and Tan Po Chu.
While FiberTech may no longer have judicial personality to initiate the suit or
authorize Tan Po Chu to file the case, Tan Po Chu remained a real party-in-interest
as the lawful possessor of the allegedly lost owner's duplicate TCT. The respondents
could not legally oust her of this possession by reconstituting the owner's duplicate
instead of filing an action for replevin. Therefore, the verification and certification of
non-forum shopping remained valid with respect to Tan Po Chu even though it
might have been defective with respect to FiberTech.
Second, we also note that Tan Po Chu submitted her address in her motion for
reconsideration to cure the defect in the petition.[29] Her motion for reconsideration
substantially complies with Rule 46, Section 3 of the Rules of Court.
Finally, a petition for annulment of judgment only requires the inclusion of a clearly
legible duplicate original or certified true copy of the judgment, order, resolution, or
ruling subject thereof.[30] It does not require the petitioner to annex certified true
copies or duplicate originals of his evidence to the petition because these may be
presented during the evidentiary hearings of the case. To our mind, none of the
procedural infirmities warranted the CA's outright dismissal of the case.
Grave abuse of discretion is the capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment
equivalent to an evasion of positive duty, or a virtual refusal to act at all in
contemplation of the law.[31] It is present when power is exercised in a despotic
manner by reason, for instance, of passion and hostility.[32] The use of wrong or
irrelevant considerations in deciding an issue is also sufficient to taint a decision
maker's action with grave abuse of discretion.[33]
By dismissing Tan's petition for annulment of judgment solely based on a
technicality and on an irrelevant consideration, the CA acted with grave abuse of
discretion. The outright dismissal was also made at the expense of the substantial
justice and of the general public who have a right to rely on the integrity of our
Torrens system. This amounted to an evasion of its positive duty to uphold the
integrity of our Torrens system and to a virtual refusal of its duty to determine and
strike down decisions rendered without jurisdiction.
Courts are routinely expected to balance competing state values and interests.
When the interest of strictly enforcing rules of procedure comes in conflict with the
interests of rendering substantial justice and protecting the general welfare, the
scales of justice tilt substantially in favor of the latter. The rules of procedure should
not be applied in a very rigid technical sense so as to override substantial justice. [34]
Ultimately, this Court finds that the interests of dispensing justice and of protecting
both the general public and the integrity of our Torrens system will best be served
by requiring the CA to proceed with the case to determine the truth of Tan's factual
allegations.
WHEREFORE, we hereby GRANT the petition. The January 16, 2008 and the July
16, 2008 resolutions of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No.
101727 areANNULLED and SET ASIDE. The Court of Appeals is
further DIRECTED to PROCEED hearing the case.
SO ORDERED.
Both penned by Associate Justice Marlene Gonzales-Sison and concurred in by

Associate Justices Juan Q. Enriquez, Jr. and Vicente S.E. Veloso.
[1]
[2]
RTC, Marikina City, Branch 193 through Judge Alice G. Gutierrez.
[3]
Rollo, p. 4.
[4]
Id. at 31.
[5]
Id. at 38.
[6]
Id. at 33.
[7]
Id. at 65.
[8]
Id. at 46.
[9]
Id. at 50-52.
[10]
324 Phil. 109 (1996).
[11]
272-A Phil. 467 (1991).
[12]
Rollo, p. 18.
[13]
Id. at 20.
[14]
Id. at 25.
[15]
356 Phil. 217 (1998).
[16]
G.R. No. 115595, November 14, 1994. 238 SCRA 158, 162.
[17]
Rule 47, Section 5 of the RULES OF COURT.
Enriquez v. Rivera, 179 Phil. 482, 486 (1979); Rule 65, Section 1 of the RULES
OF COURT.
[18]
[19]
Villareal v. Aliga, G.R. No. 166995, 13 January 2014, 713 SCRA 52.
[20]
Fernando v. Vasquez, G.R. No. L-26417, 30 January 1970, 31 SCRA 288, 292.
[21]
Villareal, supra note 19.
[22]
Id. Fernando at 293.
People v. Zuluela, G.R. No. L-4017, 89 Phil. 756, 757 (1951); Fernando v.
Vasquez, supra note 20 at 294; Enriquez v. Rivera, supra note 18.
[23]
Camitan v. Fidelity Investment, Corp., 574 Phil. 672, 685 (2008); Feliciano v.
Zaldivar, 534 Phil. 280, 293-294 (2006); Macabalo-Bravo v. Macabalo, 508 Phil. 61,
74 (2005); Heirs ofPanganiban v. Dayrit, 502 Phil. 612, 621 (2005); Rexlon Realty
Group, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 429 Phil. 31, 44 (2002); Reyes, Jr. v. Court of
Appeals, 385 Phil. 623, 630 (2000); New Durawood, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 324
Phil 109, 119-120 (1996); Demetriou v. Court of Appeals, supra note 16, at 162.
[24]
[25]
Uy v. Chua, 616 Phil. 768, 782 (2009).
Banco Espaol-Filipino v. Palanca, 37 Phil. 921, 949 (1918); Trinidad v. Hon.

Yatco, 111 Phil. 466, 470 (1961).
[26]
[27]
Rollo, p. 19.
[28]
Id. at 63, 36.
[29]
Id. at 88.
[30]
Rule 46, Section 3 in relation to Rule 46, Section 2 of the RULES OF COURT.
Commission on Internal Revenue v. Court of Appeals, 327 Phil. 1, 41

(1996); Salma v. Hon. Miro, 541 Phil. 685, 686 (2007); Ligeralde v. Patalinghug,
632 Phil. 326, 330 (2010).
[31]
[32]
Id.
Varias v. COMELEC, 626 Phil. 292, 314 (2010); Land Bank of the Philippines v.
Yatco Agricultural Enterprises, G.R. No. 172551, 15 January 2014, 713 SCRA 370,
383; Gonzales v. Solid Cement Corporation, 697 Phil. 619, 639 (2012).
[33]
[34]
Reyes. Jr. v. Court of Appeals, supra note 24, at 629.

G.R.
No.
198222
GOLDEN CANE FURNITURE MANUFACTURING CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. STEELPRO PHILIPPINES, INC., SOCIAL
SECURITY SYSTEM, AIR LIQUIDE PHILIPPINES, INC., CLARK DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, PHILIPPINE NATIONAL
BANK,
BUREAU
OF
INTERNAL
REVENUE,
UP-TOWN
INDUSTRIES
SALES,
INC.,
RESPONDENTS.
April 04, 2016
SECOND DIVISION
[ G.R. No. 198222, April 04, 2016 ]
GOLDEN CANE FURNITURE MANUFACTURING CORPORATION,
PETITIONER, VS. STEELPRO PHILIPPINES, INC., SOCIAL
SECURITY SYSTEM, AIR LIQUIDE PHILIPPINES, INC., CLARK

DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, PHILIPPINE NATIONAL
BANK, BUREAU OF INTERNAL REVENUE, UP-TOWN
INDUSTRIES SALES, INC., RESPONDENTS.
DECISION
BRION, J.:
This is a petition for review on certiorari[1] filed by Golden Cane Furniture
Manufacturing Corporation (Golden Cane) from the November 27, 2009 and August
16, 2011 resolutions of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 111530.
[2]
The CA dismissed Golden Cane's petition for certiorari from the Regional Trial
Court's (RTC) May 11, 2009[3] and August 27, 2009[4] orders in Comm. Case No.
058.[5]
The CA dismissed the petition for certiorari for being the wrong remedy to challenge
the RTC's dismissal of Golden Cane's petition for corporate rehabilitation.
Antecedents
On November 3, 2008, Golden Cane filed a Petition for Corporate Rehabilitation with
the RTC of San Fernando, Pampanga. The petition was raffled to Branch 42 and
docketed as Comm. Case No. 058.[6]
On November 11, the RTC issued a Stay Order and set the initial hearing on
January 7, 2009.[7]
On May 11, 2009, the RTC denied due course to the petition because of: (1) litis
pendentia and forum shopping due to the pendency of a separate Petition for
Suspension of Payments involving the same parties filed by Golden Cane in 2007;
(2) the consistent failure of the rehabilitation receiver to fulfill her duties; (3) the
receiver's failure to file her bond on time; and (4) the receiver's failure to submit
Golden Cane's interim financial statements. The RTC dismissed the petition and
lifted the Stay Order.[8]
On June 25, 2009, Golden Cane moved for reconsideration of the dismissal. [9]
The RTC denied the motion for reconsideration on August 27, 2009. [10] Golden Cane
received a copy of the denial on October 2, 2009. [11]
On November 23, 2009, Golden Cane elevated the case to the CA via a petition
for certiorari. The petition was docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 111530.[12]

On November 27, 2009, the CA dismissed the petition outright for being the wrong
mode of appeal.[13] The CA held that the correct remedy is a petition for review
under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court pursuant to A.M. No. 04-9-07-SC.[14]
Golden Cane moved to reconsider the dismissal but the CA denied the motion on
August 16, 2011.[15] Hence, on September 28, 2011, Golden Cane filed the present
petition for review on certiorari.
Golden Cane argues: (1) that A.M. No. 08-10-SC, or the 2008 Rules of Procedure
on Corporate Rehabilitation (the 2008 Rules) took effect on January 16, 2009, and
superseded A.M. No. 04-9-07-SC; (2) that under Rule 8 of the 2008 Rules, an order
denying due course to the petition for rehabilitation rendered before the approval or
disapproval of the rehabilitation plan is not appealable to the CA under Rule 43; (3)
that the remedy against such an order is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of
the Rules of Court.
The Issue
The lone issue is whether the correct remedy to challenge the outright dismissal of
Golden Cane's petition for rehabilitation is a petition for review under Rule 43 or a
petition for certiorari under Rule 65, both of the Rules of Court.
Our Ruling
We affirm the CA's ruling.
A corporate rehabilitation case is a special proceeding in rem wherein the petitioner
seeks to establish the status of a party or a particular fact, i.e., the inability of the
corporate debtor to pay its debts when they fall due.[16] It is summary and nonadversarial in nature.[17] Its end goal is to secure the approval of a rehabilitation
plan to facilitate the successful recovery of the corporate debtor.[18] It does not seek
relief from an injury caused by another party.[19]
Jurisdiction over corporate rehabilitation cases originally fell within the jurisdiction
of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) which had absolute jurisdiction,
control, and supervision over all Philippine corporations.[20] With the enactment of
the Securities Regulation Code in 2000, this jurisdiction was transferred to the
Regional Trial Courts.[21]
Consequently, this Court enacted A.M. No. 00-8-10-SC or the Interim Rules of
Procedure on Corporate Rehabilitation (Interim Rules) which took effect on
December 15, 2000. Under the Interim Rules, a motion for reconsideration was a
prohibited pleading.[22] Orders issued by the rehabilitation court were also
immediately executory unless restrained by the appellate court. [23]
The Interim Rules, however, did not specifically indicate the mode of appeal that
governed corporate rehabilitation cases. Thus, in 2004, the Court enacted A.M. No.
04-9-07-SC to clarify the proper mode of appeal from decisions and final orders of
Rehabilitation Courts:
Whereas, there is a need to clarify the proper mode of appeal in these cases in
order to prevent cluttering the dockets of the courts with appeals and/or petitions
for certiorari;
Wherefore, the Court Resolves:
1. All decisions and final orders in cases falling under the Interim Rules of
Corporate Rehabilitation and the Interim Rules of Procedure Governing IntraCorporate Controversies under Republic Act No. 8799 shall be appealable to the
Court of Appeals through a petition for review under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court.
[24]
In 2008, this Court enacted the Rules of Procedure on Corporate

Rehabilitation[25] (2008 Rules). The 2008 Rules included motions for reconsideration
as a relief from any order of the court prior to the approval of the rehabilitation
plan.
RULE 8
PROCEDURAL REMEDIES
Section 1. Motion for Reconsideration. - A party may file a motion for
reconsideration of any order issued by the court prior to the approval of the
rehabilitation plan. No relief can be extended to the party aggrieved by the
court's order on the motion through a special civil action for certiorari
under Rule 65 of the rules of Court. Such order can only be elevated to the
Court of Appeals as an assigned error in the petition for review of the decision or
order approving or disapproving the rehabilitation plan.
An order issued after the approval of the rehabilitation plan can be reviewed
only through a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.
Section 2. Review of Decision or Order on Rehabilitation Plan. - An order
approving or disapproving a rehabilitation plan can only be reviewed
through a petition for review to the Court of Appeals under Rule 43 of the
Rules of Court within fifteen (15) days from notice of the decision or order.
[26]
[emphasis supplied]
Notably, the 2008 Rules also allowed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the
Rules of Court as a recourse, but only against an order issued after the approval of
the rehabilitation plan. Lastly, the 2008 Rules adopted the mode of appeal
prescribed in A.M. No. 04-9-07-SC against an order approving or disapproving the
rehabilitation plan.
In 2010, Congress enacted the Financial Rehabilitation and Insolvency Act (FRIA)
[27]
which updated the existing laws on corporate rehabilitation. The Court
promulgated A.M. No. 12-12-11-SC, or the Financial Rehabilitation Rules of
Procedure (2013 Rules) on August 27, 2013.[28]
The 2013 Rules adopted the same remedies as the 2008 Rules against interlocutory
orders of the rehabilitation court. However, the 2013 Rules eliminated the remedy
of appeal from the rehabilitation court's approval or disapproval of the rehabilitation
plan:
RULE 6
PROCEDURAL REMEDIES
Section 1. Motion for Reconsideration. - A party may file a motion for
reconsideration of any order issued by the court prior to the approval of the
Rehabilitation Plan. No relief can be extended to the party aggrieved by the
court's order on the motion through a special civil action
forcertiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.
An order issued after the approval of the Rehabilitation Plan can be reviewed only
through a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.
Section 2. Review of Decision or Order on Rehabilitation Plan. - An order approving
or disapproving a rehabilitation plan can only be reviewed through a petition
for certiorari to the Court of Appeals under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court within
fifteen (15) days from notice of the decision or order.[29]
Under the 2013 Rules, the Rehabilitation Court's final order approving or
disapproving a rehabilitation plan is no longer subject to appeal; it can only be
reviewed through a petition for certiorari. The 2013 Rules narrowed the scope of
appellate review from errors of law and fact under Rule 43, [30] to errors of
jurisdiction or abuse of discretion under Rule 65. [31] It effectively lends more
credence to the factual findings and the judgment of rehabilitation courts.
Golden Cane's petition for corporate rehabilitation falls under the regime of
the Interim Rules.
Golden Cane filed its petition for rehabilitation on November 3, 2008 under the
regime of the Interim Rules. The initial hearing was also held on January 7, 2009,
before the effectivity of the 2008 Rules. [32] The transitory provision of the 2008
Rules states:
Rule 9
Final Provisions
Sec. 2. Transitory Provision. - Unless the court orders otherwise to prevent
manifest injustice, any pending petition for rehabilitation that has not undergone
the initial hearing prescribed under the Interim Rules of Procedure for Corporate
Rehabilitation at the time of the effectivity of these Rules Shall be governed by
these rules.
Accordingly, the Interim Rules - not the 2008 Rules - apply to Golden Cane's
petition for corporate rehabilitation.
The dismissal of the petition for rehabilitation, even if due to technical grounds or
due to its insufficiency, amounts to a failure of rehabilitation. [33] It is a final order
because it finally disposes of the case, leaving nothing else to be done. Pursuant
to A.M. No. 04-9-07-SC, the correct remedy against all decisions and final orders
of the rehabilitation courts in proceedings governed by the Interim Rules is a
petition for review to the CA under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court. A petition
for certiorariunder Rule 65 of the Rules of Court is evidently the wrong mode of
appeal.
Even if Golden Cane's petition were under the regime of the 2008 Rules, the correct
remedy would still have been a petition for review to the Court of Appeals under
Rule 43.[34] The outright dismissal of the petition can be seen as equivalent to the
disapproval of the rehabilitation plan. Ultimately, the result is the failure of
rehabilitation.
The result would have been different if Golden Cane's petition had been filed under
the regime of the 2013 Rules. The 2013 Rules eliminated appeals from the
dismissal of the petition or the approval/disapproval of the rehabilitation plan and
specifically indicated certiorari as the correct remedy.
All things considered, we find no reversible error in the resolution of the CA. It
correctly dismissed Golden Cane's petition for certiorari for being the wrong mode
of appeal.
WHEREFORE, we DENY the petition. Costs against the petitioner.
SO ORDERED.
[1]
Rollo, p. 10.
Id. at 41, 44. Both penned by Associate Justice Ramon M. Bato, Jr. and concurred
in by Associate Justices Noel G. Tijam and Antonio L. Villamor.
[2]
[3]
Id. at 92.
[4]
Id. at 146.
RTC, San Fernando City, Pampanga, Branch 42, through Judge Maria Amifaith S.
Fider-Reyes.
[5]
[6]
Rollo, p. 46.
[7]
Id. at 62.
[8]
Id. at 92.
[9]
Id. at 107.
[10]
Id. at 146.
[11]
Id. at 159.
[12]
Id. at 156.
[13]
Id. at 41.
Re: Mode of Appeal in Cases Formerly Cognizable by the Securities and

Exchange Commission, promulgated 14 September 2004.
[14]
[15]
Rollo, p. 44.
A.M. No. 00-8-10-SC, Re: Transfer of Cases from the Securities and Exchange
Commission to the Regional Trial Courts (September 4, 2001).
[16]
See Interim Rules, Rule 3, Section 1; 2008 Rules, Rule 3, Section 1; and A.M.
No. 12-12-11-SC, 2013 Financial Rehabilitation Rules of Procedure, Rule 1, Section
4, (August 27, 2013).
[17]
[18]
Supra note 16.
[19]
Id.
[20]
Presidential Decree No. 902-A, Sections 3 and 5(b).
[21]
Republic Act No. 8799, Section 5.2.
[22]
Interim Rules, Rule 3, Section 1.
[23]
Interim Rules, Rule 3, Section 5:
Sec. 5. Executory Nature of Orders. - Any order issued by the court under these
Rules is immediately executory. A petition for review or an appeal therefrom shall
not stay the execution of the order unless restrained or enjoined by the appellate
court. The review of any order or decision of the court or an appeal therefrom shall
be in accordance with the Rules of Court: Provided, however, that reliefs ordered by
the trial or appellate courts shall take into account the need for resolution of
proceedings in a just, equitable, and speedy manner.
[24]
A.M. No. 04-9-07-SC (September 14, 2004).
[25]
A.M. No. 00-8-10-SC (December 2, 2008).
[26]
2008 Rules, Rule 8, Sec. 1 and 2.
[27]
Republic Act No. 10142.
[28]
A.M. No. 12-12-11-SC (August 27, 2013).
[29]
2013 Rules, Rule 6, Section 1 and 2.
[30]
[31]
[32]
2008 Rules, Rule 9, Section 3.
[33]
FRIA, Section 74.
[34]
2008 Rules, Rule 8, Section 2.

G.R.
No.
205414
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. EDUARDO DELA CRUZ Y GUMABAT @ "EDDIE", APPELLANT.
April 04, 2016
THIRD DIVISION
[ G.R. No. 205414, April 04, 2016 ]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. EDUARDO DELA
CRUZ Y GUMABAT @ "EDDIE", APPELLANT.
DECISION
PERALTA, J.:
For the Court's consideration is the Decision[1] dated March 19, 2012 of the Court of
Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR HC No. 04587 affirming the Decision [2] dated August 2,
2010 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 2, in Criminal Case No. 09271907, finding appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 5,
Article II of Republic Act (RA) No. 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive
Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
In an information filed on November 5, 2009, appellant Eduardo dela Cruz y
Gumabat was charged with illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Section 5 of
Article II of RA No. 9165, the accusatory portion of which reads:
That on or about October 23, 2009, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said
accused, not having been authorized by law to sell, trade, deliver or give away to
another any dangerous drug, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and knowingly
sell or offer for sale to poseur-buyer, one (1) Blister pack with label "Valium"
containing Ten (10) round blue tablets weighing ONE POINT SEVEN TWO ZERO
(1.720) grams which after a qualitative examination, gave positive result to the test
of diazepam, a dangerous drug.
Contrary to law.[3]
Upon arraignment, appellant pleaded not guilty to the crime charged. Consequently,
trial on the merits ensued.[4]
The factual antecedents, as narrated by the witnesses of the prosecution, namely,
PO1 Jaycee John Galotera, who acted as the poseur-buyer; PO1 Roderick Magpale,
who was the investigator-on-duty at the Special Operation and Task Unit; and PO3
Ryan Sulayao, who acted as the perimeter back-up, are as follows:
At around 7:30 p.m. on October 22, 2009, a confidential informant arrived at the
Jose Abad Santos Police Station, Manila Police District and informed PO1 Ronnie
Tan, PO3 Ryan Sulayao and PO3 Eric Guzman about the illegal drug activities being
conducted by appellant along Solis Street, Tondo, Manila. Said informant claimed to
have gained access to appellant. Consequently, the police officers immediately
informed their station commander, P/Supt. Remigio Sedanto, who tasked the unit to
conduct a buy-bust operation, to be led by P/Inspector Jeffrey Dallo, with PO1
Galotera acting as poseur-buyer, and the rest of the team to serve as back-up.
P/InspectorDallo gave PO1 Galotera three (3) pieces of One Hundred Peso
(P100.00) bills to be utilized as buy-bust money, which PO1 Galotera marked with
his initials "JJG." The team also agreed that PO1 Galotera's removal of his ball cap
constitutes the signal indicating that the transaction has been consummated and
that the appellant may be arrested. After a thorough briefing and coordination with
the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA), the team left the station and
proceeded to the target area at around 12:20 a.m. [5]
PO1 Galotera and the confidential informant went straight to the destination aboard
a motorcycle, while PO1 Tan, PO3 Sulayao, and PO3 Guzman, aboard a separate
motorcycle, positioned themselves about ten (10) meters away from PO1 Galotera
and the informant. PO1 Galotera and the informant then walked along an alley on
Solis Street towards Villanueva Street and saw two (2) men standing at a dark
portion thereof. As they approached said men, the confidential informant whispered
to PO1 Galotera that the person on the right was appellant. Thereafter, appellant
asked the informant what he needed.[6] In reply, the informant told appellant that
he and his companion, PO1 Galotera, needed "Valium," which contains Diazepam, a
dangerous drug. Appellant then asked how much Valium they need, to which PO1
Galotera answered, "hang banig lang." PO1 Galotera then handed the marked
money in the amount of Three Hundred Pesos (P300.00) to appellant, who placed
the same in his front left pocket. Thereafter, appellant pulled out one blister pack
containing ten (10) pieces of round, blue tablets from his right pocket and handed
the same to PO1 Galotera. Believing that what he received was Valium based on its
appearance, PO1 Galotera executed the pre-arranged signal. Upon seeing the
signal, PO3 Guzman proceeded to assist PO1 Galotera, who immediately grabbed
appellant. Appellant's companion, who tried to escape, was also subdued by PO3
Guzman. PO1 Galotera then apprised appellant of the nature of his arrest and read
him his constitutional rights. He also marked the seized tablets with the initials
"EDG" corresponding to appellant's name.
Afterwards, he turned over the appellant and the seized evidence to PO1 Roderick
Magpale, an investigator of the Anti-Illegal Special Operation Task Unit at the Police
Station. PO1 Magpale then took pictures of appellant and the seized evidence,
prepared the Booking and Information Sheet, and forwarded the seized tablets to
the forensic laboratory for examination. Accordingly, Forensic Chemist Erickson L.
Calabocal, conducted a chemistry examination and in his Chemistry Report No. D787-09, found that the ten (10) round, blue tablets seized from appellant tested
positive for Diazepam, a dangerous drug.[7] During trial, however, Calabocal's
testimony was dispensed with after the parties stipulated on the existence and due
execution of Chemistry Report No. D-787-09.[8]
Against the foregoing charges, appellant testified on his own version of facts, and
further presented the testimonies of his mother, Leonora dela Cruz, and one
Roberto Balatbat.[9]
Appellant testified that he was a jeepney driver by profession and a resident at
Solis Street, Tondo, Manila. At around 3:00 p.m. on October 23, 2009, he went to
see his friend, Nicanor Guevarra, to convince him to place a bet on the "karera." He
found him at the tricycle terminal at Solis Street corner Callejon Villanueva,
playingcara y cruz and joined him. Suddenly, the policemen arrived. They tried to
run but were eventually arrested. Appellant requested that he be brought to
the barangayhall, but the policemen brought him directly to the police station. He
thought that he was only being accused of illegal gambling for playing cara y cruz.
It turned out, however, that he was being charged with illegal sale of dangerous
drugs.[10]
After appellant, the defense presented appellant's mother who denied that her son
was into selling dangerous drugs. According to her, at around 3:00 p.m. on October
23, 2009, appellant asked her permission to leave the house to place a bet.
However, she later learned from her granddaughter that her son had been arrested.
Next was Roberto Balatbat, a tricycle driver residing at Solis Street, Tondo, Manila,
who testified that on that day, he was at the tricycle terminal on Solis Street
playing cara y cruz. When the four (4) police officers arrived, he quickly ran away
leaving behind appellant and Guevarra, who were arrested. He denied that any sale
of dangerous drugs transpired at the time and place of appellant's arrest. [11]
In its Decision dated August 2, 2010, the RTC gave credence to the testimonies of
the police officers as they were given in a clear and convincing manner showing
that the officers were at the place of the incident to accomplish exactly what they
had set out to do, which was to conduct a legitimate buy-bust operation on
appellant.[12]It found that unless the members of the buy-bust team were inspired
by any ill motive to testify falsely against appellant, their testimonies deserve full
faith and credit, particularly in light of the presumption that they have performed
their duties regularly. Indeed, the positive identification of appellant by the
prosecution witnesses prevails over appellant's denial, which is inherently a weak
defense.[13] The trial court, therefore, disposed of the case as follows:
WHEREFORE, from the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered, finding the
accused, Eduardo dela Cruz y Gumabat @ Eddie, GUILTY, beyond reasonable doubt
of the crime charged. He is hereby sentenced to life imprisonment and to pay a fine
of P500,000.00 without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency and to pay
the costs.
The specimen is forfeited in favor of the government and the Branch Clerk of Court,
accompanied by the Branch Sheriff, is directed to turn over with dispatch and upon
receipt the said specimen to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) for
proper disposal in accordance with the law and rules.
SO ORDERED.[14]
Appellant appealed his conviction arguing that his warrantless arrest was unlawful
for he was not, in fact, caught selling dangerous drugs but was merely committing
the offense of illegal gambling. Thus, the ten (10) tablets of Valium allegedly seized
from him is inadmissible as evidence.[15] Appellant also argued that there was no
showing that he was informed of the reason for his arrest, of his constitutional right
to remain silent and to be assisted by a counsel of his choice. [16] Appellant further
faulted the prosecution for not only failing to present the buy-bust money as
evidence in court[17] but also failing to show proof that the confiscated Valium was
subjected to a qualitative examination.[18] He noted that the chemist who
supposedly conducted the laboratory examination on the drug did not know the
source from which it came.[19]
On March 19, 2012, the CA sustained appellant's conviction. At the outset, it noted
that it was only in appellant's appeal that appellant raised for the first time the
issue of the irregularity of his arrest. At no time before or during his arraignment
did he object to the same. As such, jurisprudence dictates that he should be
estopped from assailing said irregularity, for issues not raised in the lower courts
cannot be raised for the first time on appeal without offending the basic rules of fair
play.[20]Even assuming that the police officers failed to inform appellant of his rights
under custodial investigation, the appellate court held that such would not
necessarily result in appellant's acquittal because his conviction was based not on
any extrajudicial confession but on the testimony of PO1 Galotera who clearly and
convincingly narrated the material details of the buy-bust operation that led to
appellant's arrest.[21]
On appellant's main contention that the police officers should have obtained a
judicial warrant to validly effect his arrest, the appellate court held that the instant
case falls within one of the settled exceptions: an arrest made after an entrapment
operation. This is because such warrantless arrest is considered valid under Section
5(a),[22] Rule 113 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure. The CA explained that
buy-bust operations, such as the one conducted herein, is a form of entrapment
where means are resorted to for the purpose of capturing lawbreakers in the
execution of their own, criminal plan. In upholding the validity of the operation, the
"objective test" demands that the details of the purported transaction be clearly
shown, beginning from the initial contact between the poseur-buyer and the pusher,
the offer to purchase, the promise or payment of the consideration, until the
consummation of the sale by the delivery of the illegal drug subject of the sale.
[23]
Here, the appellate court found that said requirements were adequately met for
as observed by the trial court, the testimonies presented by the prosecution were
given in a clear, straightforward and convincing manner.
As for the failure by the prosecution to offer as evidence the marked money, the CA
cited jurisprudence holding that the absence of the marked money does not create
a hiatus in the prosecution's evidence, as long as the sale of the dangerous drug is
adequately proved.[24] Furthermore, the appellate court rejected appellant's
contention that there was no proof that the Valium that was subjected to qualitative
examination was the same Valium seized from him during the buy-bust operation.
According to the appellate court, the unbroken chain of custody of the ten (10)
Valium tablets was established by the prosecution through the testimonies of PO1
Galotera and PO1 Magpale. Thus, in the absence of any bad faith or proof that the
evidence has been tampered with, the integrity of the evidence is presumed to have
been preserved.[25]
Aggrieved, appellant filed a Notice of Appeal[26] on April 4, 2012. Thereafter, in
compliance with the Resolution of the Court, dated March 13, 2013, notifying the
parties that they may file their respective supplemental briefs, if they so desire,
within thirty (30) days from notice, appellant filed his Supplemental Brief on June
14, 2013 raising the following errors:
I
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE
ACCUSED-APPELLANT DESPITE NON-COMPLIANCE BY THE ARRESTING OFFICERS
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE PROPER CUSTODY OF SEIZED DANGEROUS

DRUGS UNDER R.A. NO. 9165.
II.
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE
ACCUSED-APPELLANT DESPITE THE PROSECUTION'S FAILURE TO PROVE THE
IDENTITY OF THE CORPUS DELICTI.[27]
Appellant maintains that the instant case does not fall under the exceptions to the
requirement of obtaining a judicial warrant prior to making an arrest under Section
5, Rule 113 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure. According to appellant,
for in flagrante warrantless arrests to be lawful, the following elements must
concur: (1) the person to be arrested must execute an overt act indicating that he
has just committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit a crime; and
(2) such overt act is done in the presence or within the view of the arresting officer.
But here, appellant asserts that he was not exhibiting any strange actuation at the
time of his arrest, merely playing cara y cruz with a friend. Thus, absent any
physical act on the part of the accused, positively indicating that he had just
committed a crime or was committing or attempting to commit one, no reasonable
suspicion would be sufficient enough to justify his arrest and subsequent search
without a warrant.[28]
Next, appellant asseverates that the prosecution foiled to establish, with moral
certainty, that the item seized from him was the very same item presented and
proved in court because of its non-compliance with the requirements under Section
21 of RA No. 9165 mandating the arresting team to conduct a physical inventory of
the items seized and photograph the same in the presence of: (1) the accused; (2)
a representative from the media; (3) a representative from the Department of
Justice (DOJ); and (4) any elected public official who shall further be required to
sign the copies of the said inventory. According to appellant, no physical inventory
nor photograph was ever taken in this case.[29]
Furthermore, while appellant recognizes the jurisprudential teaching that noncompliance with Section 21 of RA No. 9165 is not fatal so long as: (1) there is
justifiable ground therefor; and (2) the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized
items were properly preserved by the apprehending team, he stressed that said
conditions were not established in this case. Not only did the prosecution fail to
adequately explain its failure to comply with said requirements, it likewise failed to
show the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items.
Appellant asserts that this is due to a gaping hole in the chain of custody of the
seized items arising from the prosecution's failure to show how the seized drugs
were transported from the place of arrest to the police station, or from the time
they were delivered to the laboratory until their eventual presentation in court.

To secure a conviction for the crime of illegal sale of regulated or prohibited drugs,
the following elements under Section 5, Article II of RA No. 9165 should be
satisfactorily proven: (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.
What is material to the prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs is the proof
that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in
court of evidence of corpus delicti.[30]
The Court finds that the prosecution sufficiently proved the preceding requisites
warranting appellant's conviction. As appropriately found by the lower courts, the
prosecution presented clear and convincing testimonies of the police officers
categorically recounting, in detail, how they conducted the buy-bust operation,
beginning from the receipt of the tip from the confidential informant, then to the
marking of the buy-bust money with the initials of PO1 Galotera, and then to the
meeting of the appellant as seller and PO1 Galotera as buyer, and next to the actual
exchange of the blister pack containing the Valium tablets with the marked money,
and then finally to the appellant's eventual arrest and turn over to the police station
where his arrest was duly recorded. Moreover, the prosecution further presented
before the trial court Chemistry Report No. D-787-09 on the seized tablets
revealing positive results for Diazepam, a dangerous drug under RA No. 9165. It is
clear, therefore, that the prosecution's evidence adequately established beyond
reasonable doubt the identity of the buyer and seller, the ten (10) tablets of Valium
as the object of the sale, the marked money as the consideration, as well as the
exchange of the Valium and the marked money signifying the consummation of the
sale.
In this regard, the Court cannot give credence to appellant's insistence on the
illegality of his warrantless arrest due to an alleged absence of any overt act on his
part positively indicating that he was committing a crime. He asserts that he was
merely playing cara y cruz and denies any participation in the crime charged.
Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules of Court enumerates the circumstances by which a
warrantless arrest are considered reasonable:
Sec 5. Arrest without warrant, when lawful - A peace officer or a private person
may, without a warrant, arrest a person:
(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.[31]
Contrary to appellant's claims, there is overwhelming evidence that he was actually
committing a crime in the presence of the police officers who arrested him without
a warrant. To repeat, straightforward and unwavering testimonies were presented
by the prosecution narrating, in detail, how the police officers personally witnessed
the sale by appellant of the dangerous drug, being actual participants of the buybust operation. Indeed, a buy-bust operation is a form of entrapment, in which 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.[32] Against the positive testimonies of the prosecution witnesses,
appellant's plain denial of the offense charged, unsubstantiated by any credible and
convincing evidence, must simply fail.[33]
As for appellant's contention that the prosecution failed to establish that the items
seized from him were the very same items presented and proved in court due to its
non-compliance with the requirements under Section 21 of RA No. 9165 mandating
the arresting officers to take photographs and conduct a physical inventory of the
items seized, the Court is not convinced. Section 21, Paragraph 1, Article II of RA
No. 9165 provides:
Section 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized, and/or Surrendered
Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and
Essential Chemicals, Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory Equipment. The PDEA shall take charge and have custody of all dangerous drugs, plant sources
of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as
instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment so confiscated, seized
and/or surrendered, for proper disposition in the following manner:
(1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately
after seizure and confiscation,physically inventory and photograph the same in the
presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or
seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the
Department of Justice (DO.I), and any elected public official who shall be required to sign
the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof[.]
Notwithstanding the foregoing, and as admitted by appellant, the failure to conduct
a physical inventory of the seized items, as well as to take photographs of the same
in the presence of the persons required above, will not automatically render an
arrest illegal or the seized items inadmissible in evidence,[34] pursuant to the
following Section 21 (a) of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of RA No.
9165:
(a) The apprehending officer/team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall,
immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in
the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or
seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the
Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required to sign
the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof: Provided, that the physical
inventory and photograph shall be conducted at the place where the search warrant is
served; or at the nearest police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending
officer/team, whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless seizures; Provided, further,
that non-compliance with these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the
integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the
apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and
custody over said items[.][35]
In view of the preceding, the Court has, time and again, ruled that non-compliance
with Section 21 of RA No. 9165 shall not necessarily render the arrest of an accused
as illegal or the items seized as inadmissible if the integrity and evidentiary value of
the seized items are properly preserved in compliance with the chain of custody
rule.[36] The Court explained the rule on the chain of custody to be as follows:
The rule on chain of custody expressly demands the identification of the persons
who handle the confiscated items for the purpose of duly monitoring the authorized
movements of the illegal drugs and/or drug paraphernalia from the time they are
seized from the accused until the time they arc presented in court. Moreover, 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 in evidence, in such manner 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 witness7 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.[37]
It is evident from the records of this case that the prosecution sufficiently complied
with the chain of custody rule. Contrary to the claims of appellant, the unbroken
chain of custody of the tablets seized from him was categorically established by the
testimonies presented by the prosecution's witnesses. PO1 Galotera gave a clear
and detailed account of the events that transpired from the moment he handed the
marked money to appellant, to the time appellant pulled out the blister pack
containing ten (10) pieces of round, blue tablets from his right pocket, all the way
up to his execution of the pre-arranged signal and subsequent arrest of appellant.
He testified that he informed appellant of his constitutional rights, apprised him of
the nature of his arrest, and marked the seized tablets with appellant's initials. Fie
also attested to the process by which he turned appellant and the seized items over
to PO1 Magpale, who in turn, clearly narrated how he took photographs thereof,
prepared the Booking and Information Sheet, and eventually turned over appellant
and the seized items to Forensic Chemist Calabocal.
In an attempt to further assign breaks in the chain of custody, appellant claimed
that the prosecution did not present any testimony of the persons who took charge
of the safekeeping and custody of the illicit drugs from the time they were delivered
to the laboratory. It bears stressing, however, that such point had already been
addressed by the appellate court in the following wise:
The testimony of Forensic Chemist PS I. Erickson L. Calabocal was
dispensed with after the parties had stipulated on the existence and due
execution of Chemistry Report No. D-787-09 (Exhibit "C").
xxxx
x x x Quoting from their testimonies, the Solicitor General aptly traced the
unbroken chain of custody of the valium tablets seized from appellant, thus:
xxxx
Worthy of note, as well is the fact that the parties stipulated during pretrial that the forensic chemist who conducted the qualitative examination
of the seized item received a letter request dated October 23, 2009 from
PO1 Magpale. Attached to said letter was the specimen with markings EDG.
[38]
In like manner, the trial court similarly noted appellant's admission, during pre-trial,
of the parties' stipulation as to the qualification of PS I. Erickson L. Calabocal as a
Forensic Chemist, as well as the genuineness and due execution of the documents
he brought together with the specimen, part of which were his Final Chemistry
Report and his Findings and Conclusions resulting from the laboratory examination
he conducted on the seized tablets, which yielded positive results for dangerous
drugs.[39] Due to these stipulations, the testimony of Forensic Chemist Calabocal
was not presented at trial not because the prosecution failed to do so, but because
the same was dispensed with as expressly agreed to by the parties.
Unfazed, appellant further faults the police officers not only for failing to comply
with the requirements of Section 21 of RA No. 9165 but also for failing to provide
any explanation constituting justifiable ground therefor. It bears stressing, however,
that said objection was never raised in the trial court, and not even on appeal
before the appellate court. Appellant cannot belatedly raise its questions as to the
evidence presented at trial, too late in the day and, at the same time, expect the
prosecution to have provided justifiable grounds for its non-compliance with RA No.
9165. People of the Philippines v. Jimmy Gabuya y Adlawan[40] explains:
It is well to note that the records of the case are bereft of evidence that appellant,
during trial, interposed any objection to the non-marking of the seized items in his
presence and the lack of information on the whereabouts of the shabu after it was
examined by P/Insp. Calabocal. While he questioned the chain of custody before the
CA, the alleged defects appellant is now alluding to were not among those he raised
on appeal. The defects he raised before the CA were limited to the alleged lack of
physical inventory, non-taking of photographs of the seized items, and the
supposed failure of the police officers to mark the sachets of shabu at the crime
scene. But even then, it was already too late in the day for appellant to have raised
the same at that point since he should have done so early on before the RTC. It
bears stressing that the Court has already brushed aside an accused's
belated contention that the illegal drugs confiscated from his person is
inadmissible for failure of the arresting officers to comply with Section 21
of R.A. 9165.20 This is considering that "[w]hatever justifiable grounds
may excuse the police officers from literally complying with Section 21 will
remain unknown, because [appellant] did not question during trial the
safekeeping of the items seized from him. 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 an objection. Without
such objection, he cannot raise the question for the first time on appeal. x
x x"
Be that as it may, the Court has always reiterated that "what is of utmost
importance is the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized
items, as the same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence
of the accused."[41] Here, the Court opines that said requirement was sufficiently
complied with. It is evidently clear, therefore, that there exists no gap in the chain
of custody of the dangerous drug seized from appellant for all the links thereof
beginning from the moment the item was obtained from appellant up to the time
the same was presented in court were sufficiently accounted for. Thus, it is because
the apprehending team properly preserved the integrity and evidentiary value of
the seized items that the Court excuses their failure to strictly comply with Section
21 of RA No. 9165 for on said failure, alone, appellant cannot automatically be
exonerated.
All things considered, the Court finds no compelling reason to disturb the findings of
the courts below for the prosecution adequately established, with moral certainty,
all the elements of the crime charged herein. It is hornbook doctrine that the
factual findings of the appellate court affirming those of the trial court are binding
on this Court unless there is a clear showing that such findings are tainted with
arbitrariness, capriciousness or palpable error.[42] Thus, there exists no reason to
overturn the conviction of appellant.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant appeal is DISMISSED. The

Decision dated March 19, 2012 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR HC No.
04587, affirming the Decision dated August 2, 2010 of the Regional Trial Court,
Branch 2, Manila, in Criminal Case No. 09-271907, finding appellant Eduardo Dela
Cruz y Gumabat guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 5, Article 11 of
Republic Act No. 9165, is hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
Velasco, Jr., (Chairperson), Perez, and Reyes, JJ., concur.
Perlas-Bernabe,* J., on leave.
April 20, 2016

NOTICE OF JUDGMENT
Sirs / Mesdames:
was received by this Office on April 20, 2016 at 10:07 a.m.
Very truly yours,

Designated Additional Member in lieu of Associate Justice Francis H. Jardeleza, per

Raffle dated October 1, 2014.
*
Penned by Associate Justice Rebecca De Guia-Salvador, with Associate Justices

Normandie B. Pizarro and Rodil V. Zalameda, concurring; rollo, pp. 2-22.
[1]
[2]
Penned by Presiding Judge Alejandro G. Bijasa, CA rollo, pp. 9-15.
[3]
Rollo, p. 3.
[4]
Id.
[5]
Id. at 4.
[6]
Id.
[7]
Id. at 5.
[8]
Id.
[9]
Id. at 6.
[10]
Id.
[11]
Id.
[12]
CA rollo, p. 13.
[13]
Id. at 14.
[14]
Id. at 15.
[15]
Id. at 46.
[16]
Id. at 51.
[17]
Id. at 53.
[18]
Id. at 54.
[19]
Id.
[20]
Rollo, p. 8.
[21]
Id. at 9.
Sec. 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. - A peace officer or a private

person may, without a warrant, arrest a person:
[22]
(a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually
committing, or is attempting to commit an offense; x x x.
[23]
Rollo, p. 11.
[24]
Id. at 17.
[25]
Id. at 21.
[26]
Id. at 23.
[27]
Id. at 35.
[28]
Id. at 36.
[29]
Id. at 37.
[30]
People v. Mariano, G.R. No. 191193, November 14, 2012, 685 SCRA 592, 600.
[31]
Emphasis ours.
[32]
People v. Adriano, G.R. No. 208169, October 8, 2014.
[33]
People v. Almodiel, 694 Phil. 449, 464 (2012).
People of the Philippines v. Manuela Flores y Salazar, G.R. No. 201365, August
3, 2015.
[34]
[35]
Emphasis ours.
People of the Philippines v. Edwin Dalawis y Hidalgo, G.R. No. 197925,

November 9, 2015, citing People ofthe Philippines v. Michael Rosy Ortega, et al.,
G.R. No. 201146, April 15, 2015.
[36]
[37]
Id.
[38]
Rollo, pp. 5 and 21. (Emphasis ours)
[39]
CA rollo, pp. 9-10.
[40]
G.R. No. 195245, February 16, 2015. (Emphasis supplied)
[41]
People v. Manlangit, 654 Phil. 427, 442 (2011).
People of the Philippines v. Bienvenido Miranda y Feliciano, G.R. No. 209338,

June 29, 2015.
[42]

G.R.
No.
187633
HEIRS OF DELFIN AND MARIA TAPPA, PETITIONERS, VS. HEIRS OF JOSE BACUD, HENRY CALABAZARON AND VICENTE
MALUPENG,
RESPONDENTS.
April 04, 2016
THIRD DIVISION
[ G.R. No. 187633, April 04, 2016 ]
HEIRS OF DELFIN AND MARIA TAPPA, PETITIONERS, VS.
HEIRS OF JOSE BACUD, HENRY CALABAZARON AND VICENTE
MALUPENG, RESPONDENTS.
DECISION
JARDELEZA, J.:
This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari[1] under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of
Court assailing the Decision[2] dated February 19, 2009 and Resolution[3] dated April
30, 2009 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 90026, which reversed
and set aside the Decision[4] dated July 6, 2007 of Branch 5, Regional Trial Court
(RTC) of Tuguegarao City, Cagayan in Civil Case No. 5560 for Quieting of Title,
Recovery of Possession and Damages.
The Facts
On September 9, 1999, petitioners Delfin Tappa (Delfin) [5] and Maria Tappa
(Spouses Tappa) filed a complaint[6] for Quieting of Title, Recovery of Possession
and Damages (Complaint) against respondents Jose Bacud (Bacud), [7] Henry
Calabazaron (Calabazaron), and Vicente Malupeng (Malupeng). [8] The property
subject of the complaint is a parcel of land identified as Lot No. 3341, Pls-793 with
an area of 21,879 square meters, located in Kongcong, Cabbo, Peablanca,
Cagayan (Lot No. 3341).[9]
In their complaint, Spouses Tappa alleged that they are the registered owners of
Lot No. 3341, having been issued an Original Certificate of Title No. P-69103 (OCT
No. P-69103) on September 18, 1992, by virtue of Free Patent No. 021519-923194.[10] Delfin allegedly inherited Lot No. 3341 from his father, Lorenzo Tappa
(Lorenzo). Spouses Tappa claimed that both Delfin and Lorenzo were in open,
continuous, notorious, exclusive possession of the lot since time immemorial. [11]
In their Answer,[12] respondents Bacud, Calabazaron and Malupeng claimed that the
original owner of Lot No. 3341 was Genaro Tappa (Genaro) who had two children,
Lorenzo and Irene. Upon Genaro's death, the property passed on to Lorenzo and
Irene by operation of law; and they became ipso facto co-owners of the property.
As co-owners, Lorenzo and Irene each owned 10,939 square meters of the lot as
their respective shares. Lorenzo had children namely, Delfin, Primitiva, and
Fermina. Upon the death of Irene, her share in turn passed to her heirs, Demetria,
Juanita, Pantaleon and Jose Bacud.[13]
Respondents presented before the RTC a joint affidavit dated April 29, 1963 (1963
Affidavit) signed by Delfin, his sisters, Primitiva and Fermina, and their mother,
Modesta Angoluan.[14] The 1963 affidavit stated that Genaro originally owned Lot
No. 3341. It further stated that one-half (1/2) of the property was owned by
Lorenzo; but that the whole property was declared as his, only for taxation
purposes.
Calabazaron claimed that he became the owner of 2,520 square meters of Lot No.
3341 by virtue of two Deeds of Sale executed in his favor, one dated October 12,
1970 executed by Demetria, and another dated August 22, 1971 executed by
Juanita.[15] After the sale, Calabazaron entered into possession of his portion and
paid the real property taxes.[16] He remains in possession up to this date.[17]
Malupeng, on the other hand, claimed that he became the owner of 210 square
meters of Lot No. 3341 by virtue of a Deed of Sale executed on November 30, 1970
by Pantaleon in his favor.[18] After the sale, Malupeng entered into possession of his
portion of property and paid the real property taxes. [19] He remains in possession up
to this date.[20]
Bacud claimed ownership over 1,690 square meters of Lot No. 3341 in his own right
as heir of Irene.[21]
Respondents started occupying their respective portions after the sale made to each
of them. They continued to occupy them despite several demands to vacate from
Spouses Tappa.[22]
Spouses Tappa claimed that the 1963 Affidavit was executed through force and
intimidation.[23] Bacud and Malupeng denied this allegation.[24]
The Ruling of the RTC
The RTC issued its Decision,[25] the decretal portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiffs and the Court
hereby orders:
1. Plaintiffs to be the owners of Lot 3341, Pls 793 and unqualifiedly vests in
them the full and untrammeled rights of ownership:
2. All the defendants must, if still in possession of portions of the lot in issue,
convey the same to the plaintiffs;
3. No pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.[26]
The RTC ruled that the basic requirement of the law on quieting of title under Article
447 of the Civil Code was met, thus:
Delfin and Maria's title is clear and unequivocal, and its validity has never
been assailed by the defendants - nor has any evidence been adduced that
successfully overcomes the presumption of validity and legality that the
title of Delfin and Maria enjoys.[27] (Emphasis in the original.)
The RTC ruled that there was no document in the hands of respondents as strong
and persuasive as the title in the name of the Spouses Tappa that will support
respondents' claim of ownership and Irene's antecedent ownership. [28] The RTC
stated that the 1963 Affidavit contains nothing more than the allegations of the
affiants and does not, by itself, constitute proof of ownership of land, especially as
against documents such as titles.[29]
Respondents appealed to the CA, raising the following arguments:
First, respondents alleged that Spouses Tappa fraudulently applied for, and were
issued a free patent over Lot No. 3341, and eventually OCT No. P-69103 dated
September 18, 1992.[30] They alleged that Spouses Tappa committed fraud because
they were not in possession of the lot since 1963, which possession was required
for an applicant for a free patent under the law.[31]
Second, respondents argued that the complaint should be dismissed because both
extinctive and acquisitive prescription have already set in.[32] Respondents claimed
that both ordinary acquisitive prescription of 10 years, and extraordinary acquisitive
prescription of 30 years in claiming ownership of immovable property apply in the
case.[33] They argued that more than 30 years have already lapsed from the time
they entered possession of the subject lot in 1963 up to the filing of the complaint
on September 9, 1999.[34] They also pointed out that Spouses Tappa admitted in
their complaint that respondents were in possession of the lot since 1963. [35]
Particularly, Calabazaron argued that the 10-year prescriptive period under Article
1134 of the Civil Code applies to him by virtue of the two duly executed Deeds of
Sale in his favor.[36] It was never alleged that he had any participation in the alleged
duress, force and intimidation in the execution of the 1963 Affidavit. [37] Hence, he is
a purchaser in good faith and for value. Calabazaron entered possession of the lot
after the sale to him in 1970, thus, the prescriptive period of 10 years had long
lapsed.[38]
Bacud and Malupeng claimed that, even assuming that the execution of the 1963
Affidavit was attended with force and intimidation, the complaint against them
should have been dismissed because the extraordinary acquisitive prescriptive
period of 30 years under Article 1137 of the Civil Code applies to them. [39] They also
argued that the action for quieting of title had already prescribed since the
possession of Bacud and Malupeng started in 1963, which fact was allegedly
admitted by Spouses Tappa in their complaint. [40] Thus, Spouses Tappa had only
until 1993 to file a complaint, which they failed to do.
Ail respondents claimed that from the start of their possession, they (1) have paid
real taxes on the lot, (2) have planted crops, and (3) have continued to possess the
lot in the concept of owners.[41]
Third, respondents alleged that Spouses Tappa failed to prove their right over the
subject lot because they cannot rely on the certificate of title issued to them on
September 18, 1992 by virtue of a free patent.[42] They asserted that Spouses
Tappa fraudulently obtained the free patent on Lot No. 3341 by concealing material
facts, specifically the fact of not being in possession of the lot since 1963. [43]
The Ruling of the CA
The CA set aside the decision of the RTC.[44] The relevant dispositive portion of the
CA decision reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is hereby GRANTED. The assailed
decision dated July 6, 2007 is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE, and another one
entered DISMISSING the complaint.
SO ORDERED.[45]
On the issue of prescription, the CA ruled in favor of respondents and explained
that their possession over Lot No. 3341 already ripened into ownership through
acquisitive prescription.[46] The CA noted that Spouses Tappa acknowledged in their
complaint that they have not been in possession of the lot, and that respondents
have been continuously occupying portions of it since 1963. [47] It explained:
The substantial length of time between 1963, up to the time of filing of the present
complaint on September 9, 1999, which is more than 30 years, should be
considered against [S]pouses Tappa, and in favor of defendants-appellants. Settled
is the rule that an uninterrupted adverse possession of the land for more than 30
years could ripen into ownership of the land through acquisitive prescription, which
is a mode of acquiring ownership and other real rights over immovable property.
Hence, appellants' possession of the land has ripened into ownership by virtue of
acquisitive prescription.[48] (Citation omitted.)
On the merits of the case, the CA ruled that the two indispensable requisites for an
action to quiet title under Articles 476 and 477 of the Civil Code were not met. [49]
The first requisite is absent because Spouses Tappa do not have a legal or an
equitable title to or an interest in the property. The CA explained that the free
patent granted to Spouses Tappa produced no legal effect because Lot No. 3341
was a private land, thus:
As heretofore discussed, the open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession
by appellants of the subject parcel of land within the period prescribed by law has
effectively converted it into a private land. Consequently, the registration in the
name of Maria Tappa on September 18, 1992 under OCT [No.] P-69103, by virtue
of Free Patent No. 021519-92-3194, produces no legal effect. Private ownership of
landas when there is a prima facie proof of ownership like a duly registered
possessory information or a clear showing of open, continuous, exclusive, and
notorious possession, by present or previous occupantsis not affected by the
issuance of a free patent over the same land, because the Public Land [L]aw applies
only to lands of the public domain.[50] (Citation omitted.)
The CA further stated that while Spouses Tappa were able to obtain a free patent
over the property, and were able to register it under the Torrens system, they have
not become its owners. The CA said that "[r]egistration has never been a mode of
acquiring ownership over immovable propertyit does not create title nor vest one
but it simply confirms a title already vested, rendering it forever indefeasible." [51]
The second requisite that the deed, claim, encumbrance or proceeding claimed to
be casting cloud on the title must be shown to be in fact invalid or inoperative
despite its prima facie appearance of validity is likewise unavailing. The CA ruled
that no other evidence (aside from Delfin's own testimony) was presented to prove
the allegation of fraud and intimidation, making the testimony self-serving. [52] The
CA further noted that Delfin's own sister, Fermina, one of the signatories of the
1963 Affidavit, belied his testimony. Fermina testified that they went to the house
of one Atty. Carag to sign the affidavit and they did so, on their own. [53]
Spouses Tappa filed a Motion for Reconsideration,[54] which the CA denied.[55]
Hence, spouses Tappa filed a petition for review on certiorari before this court,
raising the following issues:
I.
II.
III.
Whether the CA erred in dismissing Spouses Tappa's complaint for quieting of

title against respondents;[56]
Whether the CA erred in not finding that Spouses Tappa's certificate of title
cannot be collaterally attacked in this case;[57] and
Whether the CA erred in finding that respondents have acquired the property
through acquisitive prescription.[58]
The Ruling of the Court
We affirm the decision of the CA.

The action for quieting of title should not prosper.
The action filed by Spouses Tappa was one for quieting of title and recovery of
possession. In Baricuatro, Jr. v. Court of Appeals,[59] an action for quieting of title is
essentially a common law remedy grounded on equity, to wit:
xxx Originating in equity jurisprudence, its purpose is to secure "... an adjudication
that a claim of title to or an interest in property, adverse to that of the complainant,
is invalid, so that the complainant and those claiming under him may be forever
afterward free from any danger of hostile claim." In an action for quieting of title,
the competent court is tasked to determine the respective rights of the complainant
and other claimants, "... not only to place things in their proper place, to make the
one who has no rights to said immovable respect and not disturb the other, but also
for the benefit of both, so that he who has the right would see every cloud of doubt
over the property dissipated, and he could afterwards without fear introduce the
improvements he may desire, to use, and even to abuse the property as he deems
best. x x x."[60] (Emphasis in the original.)
In our jurisdiction, the remedy is governed by Article 476 and 477 of the Civil Code,
which state:
Art. 476. Whenever there is a cloud on title to real property or any interest therein,
by reason of any instrument, record, claim, encumbrance or proceeding which is
apparently valid or effective but is in truth and in fact invalid, ineffective, voidable,
or unenforceable, and may be prejudicial to said title, an action may be brought to

remove such cloud or to quiet the title.
An action may also be brought to prevent a cloud from being cast upon title to real
property or any interest therein.
Art. 477. The plaintiff must have legal or equitable title to, or interest in the real
property which is the subject-matter of the action. He need not be in possession of
said property.
From the foregoing provisions, we reiterate the rule that for an action to quiet title
to prosper, two indispensable requisites must concur, namely: (1) the plaintiff or
complainant has a legal or an equitable title to or interest in the real property
subject of the action; and (2) the deed, claim, encumbrance or proceeding claimed
to be casting cloud on his title must be shown to be in fact invalid or inoperative
despite its prima facie appearance of validity or legal efficacy.[61]
Spouses Tappa failed to meet these two requisites.
First, Spouses Tappa's claim of legal title over Lot No. 3341 by virtue of the free
patent and the certificate of title, OCT No. P-69103 issued in their name cannot
stand. The certificate of title indicates that it was issued by virtue of Patent No.
021519-92-3194. We agree with the CA that at the time of the application for free
patent, Lot No. 3341 had already become private land by virtue of the open,
continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession by respondents. Hence, Lot No.
3341 had been removed from the coverage of the Public Land Act, [62] which governs
public patent applications.
The settled rule is that a free patent issued over a private land is null and void, and
produces no legal effects whatsoever. Private ownership of land as when there is
aprima facie proof of ownership like a duly registered possessory information or a
clear showing of open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession, by present
or previous occupantsis not affected by the issuance of a free patent over the
same land, because the Public Land Law applies only to lands of the public domain.
The Director of Lands has no authority to grant free patent to lands that have
ceased to be public in character and have passed to private ownership. [63]
In Magistrado v. Esplana,[64] we cancelled the titles issued pursuant to a free patent
after finding that the lots involved were privately owned since time immemorial. A
free patent that purports to convey land to which the Government did not have any
title at the time of its issuance does not vest any title in the patentee as against the
true owner.[65]
In this case, the parties were able to show that Lot No. 3341 was occupied by, and
has been in possession of the Tappa family, even before the 1963 Affidavit was
executed. After the execution of the 1963 Affidavit, respondents occupied their
respective portions of the property. Delfin testified that before his father, Lorenzo,
died in 1961, Lorenzo had been occupying the lot since before the war, and that
Delfin was born there in 1934.[66]
Records show that Lorenzo declared Lot No. 3341 for taxation purposes as early as
1948, and paid the real property taxes (evidenced by real property tax payment
receipts in the name of Lorenzo from 1952 until his death in 1961). [67] Spouses
Tappa were likewise shown to pay the real property taxes from 1961 to 2000.
[68]
Similarly, respondents also declared their respective portions of Lot No. 3341 for
taxation in their names in 1994, and paid real property taxes on those portions
from 1967 to 2004.[69] Although tax declarations or realty tax payment of property
are not conclusive evidence of ownership, they are good indicia of possession in the
concept of owner, for no one in his right mind would be paying taxes for a property
that is not in his actual or constructive possession. They constitute at least proof
that the holder has a claim of title over the property.[70]
Spouses Tappa also admitted in their complaint that sometime in 1963, Bacud and
Malupeng started occupying portions of Lot No. 3341 and planted crops on the
property, while Calabazaron did the same on another portion of the lot in the
1970's.[71] The complaint stated further that since 1963, the respondents
"continuously occupied portion of the subject land."[72]
In view of the foregoing circumstances that show open, continuous, exclusive and
notorious possession and occupation of Lot No. 3341, the property had been
segregated from the public domain.[73] At the time the patent and the certificate of
title were issued in 1992, Spouses Tappa and their predecessors-in-interest were
already in possession, at least to the half of the lot, since 1934; and respondents
were also in possession of the other half since 1963. Therefore, the free patent
issued covers a land already segregated from the public domain.
In Heirs of Simplicio Santiago v. Heirs of Mariano E. Santiago,[74] we ruled, thus:
Considering the open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and
occupation of the land by respondents and their predecessors in interests, they are
deemed to have acquired, by operation of law, a right to a government grant
without the necessity of a certificate of title being issued. The land was thus
segregated from the public domain and the director of lands had no authority to
issue a patent. Hence, the free patent covering Lot 2344, a private land, and the
certificate of title issued pursuant thereto, are void.[75]
Records also show that Spouses Tappa were aware of respondents' possession of
the disputed portions of Lot No. 3341. They even admitted such possession (since
1963) by respondents in their complaint filed in 1999. Despite this, Spouses Tappa
were able to obtain a free patent of the whole property even if they were not in
possession of some of its portions. Therefore, Free Patent No. 021519-92-3194 and
OCT No. P-69103 are void not only because it covers a private land, but also
because they fraudulently included[76] respondents' portion of the property. In Avila
v. Tapucar,[77] we held that "[i]f a person obtains a title under the Torrens system,
which includes by mistake or oversight land which can no longer be registered
under the system, he does not, by virtue of the said certificate alone, become the
owner of the lands illegally included."[78]
In an action to quiet title, legal title denotes registered ownership, while equitable
title means beneficial ownership.[79] As discussed, the free patent and the certificate
of title issued to Spouses Tappa could not be the source of their legal title.
The second requisite for an action to quiet title is likewise wanting. We find that;
although an instrument (the 1963 Affidavit) exists, and which allegedly casts cloud
on Spouses Tappa's title, it was not shown to be in fact invalid or ineffective against
Spouses Tappa's rights to the property.
A cloud on a title exists when (1) there is an instrument (deed, or contract) or
record or claim or encumbrance or proceeding; (2) which is apparendy valid or
effective; (3) but is, in truth and in fact, invalid, ineffective, voidable, or
unenforceable, or extinguished (or terminated) or barred by extinctive prescription;
and (4) and may be prejudicial to the title.[80]
The 1963 Affidavit is no doubt an instrument, which appears to be valid. It is dated
and appears to be executed and signed by Delfin, his mother, and sisters. It is also
notarized by a public notary. It states that Genaro originally owns the land
described, and that one-half (1/2) of which is actually owned by Irene as a co-heir.
This is contrary to the claim of Spouses Tappa that the property was solely
Lorenzo's. Respondents' argue that this affidavit evidences the title of their
predecessor-in-interest over Lot No. 3341 and effectively, theirs. [81]
The 1963 Affidavit however, was not proven to be, in fact, invalid, ineffective,
voidable, or unenforceable, or extinguished (or terminated) or barred by extinctive
prescription. The CA correctly found that Spouses Tappa's claim of force and
intimidation m the execution of the 1963 Affidavit was "unsubstantiated." [82] The CA
pointed out that, "[a]side from the testimony of Delfin Tappa, no other evidence
was presented to prove the claim of force and intimidation, hence, it is at most,
self-serving."[83] Also, the 1963 Affidavit was duly notarized and, as such, is
considered a public document, and enjoys the presumption of validity as to its
authenticity and due execution.
Thus, we affirm the ruling of the CA that the requisites for an action to quiet tub are
wanting in this ease.[84]

There is no collateral attack on the Certificate of Title.
Spouses Tappa argue that respondents collaterally attacked the certificate of title of
Lot No. 3441 when they raised the issue of its validity. Spouses Tappa used the
same argument against the CA when it declared the certificate of title to be without
legal effect.[85]
Spouses Tappa's' argument is without merit. The certificate of title was not
collaterally attacked. Section 48 of PD 1529,[86] provides that "[a] certificate of title
shall not be subject to collateral attack. It cannot be altered, modified, or canceled
except in a direct proceeding in accordance with law." This rule is not applicable in
this case.
We reiterate our ruling in Lee Tek Sheng v. Court of Appeals,[87] where we stated
that, "[w]hat cannot be collaterally attacked is the certificate of title and not the
title. The certificate referred to is that document issued by the Register of Deeds x
x x. By title, the law refers to ownership which is represented by that
document."[88] Ownership is different from a certificate of title, the latter being only
the best proof of ownership of a piece of land.[89] Title as a concept of ownership
should not be confused with the certificate of title as evidence of such ownership
although both are interchangeably used.[90]
In Vda. de Figuration v. Figuracion-Gerilla,[91] citing Lacbayan v. Samoy, Jr.,[92] we
reaffirm this ruling, and stated that:
Mere issuance of a certificate of title in the name of any person does not foreclose
the possibility that the real property may be under co-ownership with persons not
named in the certificate, or that the registrant may only be a trustee, or that other
parties may have acquired interest over the property subsequent to the issuance of
the certificate of title. Stated differently, placing a parcel of land under the mantle
of the Torrens system does not mean that ownership thereof can no longer be
disputed. The certificate cannot always be considered as conclusive evidence of
ownership.[93]
In this case, what respondents dispute, as raised in their Answer, is Spouses
Tappa's claim of sole ownership over Lot No. 3341. As affirmative defense,
respondents claimed that Spouses Tappa were owners of only one-half (1/2) of the
lot since it was originally owned by Genaro, the father of Lorenzo and Irene.
[94]
Respondents claim that Lorenzo and Irene became ipso facto co-owners of the
lot.[95] Thus, respondents claim that, by virtue of a valid transfer from Irene's heirs,
they now have ownership and title over portions of Lot No. 3341, and that they
have been in continuous, exclusive, and uninterrupted possession of their occupied
portions.[96]Malupeng and Calabazaron claim ownership and title over their
respective portions by virtue of a valid sale. Bacud claims ownership and title by
virtue of succession. Therefore, it is the ownership and title of Spouses Tappa which
respondents ultimately attack. OCT No. P-69103 only serves as the document
representing Spouses Tappas' title.
Respondents cannot likewise argue that the certificate of title of Spouses Tappa is
indefeasible.[97] We have already ruled that the one-year prescriptive period does
not apply when the person seeking annulment of title or reconveyance is in
possession of the property.[98] This is because the action partakes of a suit to quiet
title, which is imprescriptible.[99] In this case, respondents have been proved to be
in possession of the disputed portions of Lot No. 3341. Thus, their claim against
Spouses Tappa cannot be barred by the one-year prescriptive period.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the petition is DENIED and the Decision of
the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 90026 is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
Velasco, Jr., (Chairperson), Peralta, Perez, and Reyes, JJ., concur.
April 26, 2016

NOTICE OF JUDGMENT
Sirs / Mesdames:
Very truly yours,

[1]
Rollo, pp. 10-28.
Penned by Associate Justice Juan Q. Enriquez, Jr. with Associate Justices Celia C.
Librea-Leagogo, and Normandie B. Pizarro concurring. Id. at 81-90.
[2]
[3]
Id. at 100-101.
[4]
Id. at 30-34.
Upon the death of Delfin, he was substituted by his heirs: Vidal Tappa, Imee T.
Henricksen, Ruth T. Taguinod, and Nila T. Maggay. Records, p. 151.
[5]
[6]
Id. at 1-5.
Respondent Bacud was substituted by his heirs: Esting Bacud Salva, Sally Bacud
Perciano, Myrna Bacud Bancud, Adoracion Melad Bacud, Leslie M. Bacud, Dante M.
Bacud, Jose M. Bacud, Jr., and Margie Bacud. Id. at 187.
[7]
Respondent Malupeng was likewise substituted by his heirs: Erlinda, Eric, Aileen,
Elvis, Nuvel, Jaclyn, Vic, Janice, and Mikey, all surnamed Malupeng. Id. at 41.
[8]
[9]
Id. at 1, 6.
[10]
Id. at 6.
[11]
Id. at 1-2.
[12]
Id. at 9-12.
[13]
Rollo, p. 36.
[14]
Records, p. 213.
[15]
Id. 10-11; rollo, p. 83.
[16]
Respondents' Comment with Entry of Appearance, rollo, p. 110.
[17]
Id.
[18]
Rollo, p. 83 and 110.
[19]
Id. at 110.
[20]
Id.
[21]
Records, p. 11.
[22]
Petition for Review on Certiorari, rollo, p. 14.
[23]
Records, p. 2; rollo, p. 37.
[24]
Records, p. 9.
[25]
Rollo, pp. 30-34.
[26]
Id.at 33-34.
[27]
Id. at 33.
[28]
Id. at 32.
[29]
Id. at 33.
[30]
Id. at 37.
[31]
Id.
[32]
Rollo , pp. 39-43.
[33]
Id. at 40-41.
[34]
Id. at 40-42.
[35]
Id. at 39.
[36]
Id. at 40-41.
[37]
Id.
[38]
Id.
[39]
Rollo, p. 41.
[40]
Id.
[41]
Rollo , pp. 49-50.
[42]
Id. at 69; 75-76.
[43]
Id. at 75.
[44]
Id. at 81-90.
[45]
Id. at 89.
[46]
Id. at 86.
[47]
Id. at 85-86.
[48]
Id. at 86.
[49]
Id. at 86-87.
[50]
Id. at 87.
[51]
Id. at 89; citation omitted.
[52]
Id. at 87.
[53]
Id. at 87-89.
[54]
Id. at 91-98.
[55]
Id. at 100-101.
[56]
Id. at 17.
[57]
Id. at 22.
[58]
Id.
[59]
[60]
Id. at 146-147.
Calacala v. Republic, G.R. No. 154415, July 28, 2005, 464 SCRA 438,
444; Mananqul v. Moico, G.R. No. 180076, November 21, 2012, 686 SCRA 123,
129-130.
[61]
[62]
Commonwealth Act No. 141, as amended.
Heirs of Simplicio Santiago v. Heirs of Mariano E. Santiago, G.R. No. 151440,

June 17, 2003, 404 SCRA 193, 199.
[63]
[64]
G.R. No. 54191, May 8, 1990, 185 SCRA 104.
Agne v. Director of Lands, G.R. No. 40399, February 6, 1990, 181 SCRA 793,
808.
[65]
[66]
TSN, April 19, 2002, pp. 7-8.
[67]
Records, pp. 65, 68-78.
[68]
Id. at 65, 79-126.
[69]
Id. at 202-203, 206, 208-212, 214-228, 230.
[70]
Heirs of Simplicio Santiago v. Heirs of Mariano E. Santiago, supra.
[71]
Records, p. 2.
[72]
Id.
[73]
Heirs of Simplicio Santiago v. Heirs of Mariano E. Santiago, supra.
G.R. No. 151440, June 17, 2003, 404 SCRA 193, citing Robles v. Court of
Appeals, G.R. No. 123509, March 14, 2000, 328 SCRA 97; Heirs of Marciano
Nagano v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 123231, November 17, 1997, 282 SCRA
43; Mendoza v. Navarette, G.R. No. 82531, September 30, 1992, 214 SCRA
337; Azarcon v. Vallarta, G.R. No. L-43679, October 28, 1980, 100 SCRA
450; Herico v. Dar, G.R. No. L-23265, January 28, 1980, 95 SCRA 437; and Mesina
v. Vela, de Sonza, et al., 108 Phil 251 (1960).
[74]
[75]
Id. at 200.
[76]
Cf. Heirs of Simplicio Santiago v. Heirs of Mariano Santiago, supra.
[77]
G.R. No. 45947, August 27, 1991, 201 SCRA 148.
[78]
Id. at 155; citations omitted.
[79]
Mananquil v. Moico, G.R. No. 180076, November 21, 2012, 686 SCRA 123, 124.
Paras, CIVIL CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES ANNOTATED, 2013 ed., Vol. II, pp. 299300; Green Acres Holdings, Inc. v. Cobral, G.R. Nos. 175542 & 183205, June 5,
2013, 697 SCRA 266, 289-290.
[80]
[81]
Rollo, p. 110
[82]
Id. at 87.
[83]
Id.
[84]
Id.
[85]
Rollo, pp. 23-24.
[86]
Property Registration Decree.
[87]
G.R. No. 115402, July 15, 1998, 292 SCRA 544.
[88]
Id. at 547.
[89]
Id. at 548.
[90]
Id.
[91]
[92]
G.R. No. 165427, March 21, 2011, 645 SCRA 677, 690.
[93]
Vda. de Figuracion y. Figuracion-Gerilla, supra at 508-509.
[94]
Records, p. 9.
[95]
Rollo, p. 36.
[96]
Id. at 36-37; Records, p. 10.
Wee v. Mardo, GR No. 202414, June 4, 2014, 725 SCRA 242, 252. The pertinent
portion of the decision reads:
A public land patent, when registered in the corresponding Register of Deeds, is a
veritable Torrens title, and becomes as indefeasible upon the expiration of one (1)
year from the date of issuance thereof. Said title, like one issued pursuant to a
judicial decree, is subject to review within one (1) year from the date of the
issuance of the patent.
[98]
Heirs of Simplicio Santiago v. Heirs of Mariano Santiago, supra note 74 at 203.
[97]
[99]
Id.

G.R.
No.
214567
DRA. MERCEDES OLIVER, PETITIONER, VS. PHILIPPINE SAVINGS BANK AND LILIA CASTRO, RESPONDENTS.
April 04, 2016
SECOND DIVISION
[ G.R. No. 214567, April 04, 2016 ]
DRA. MERCEDES OLIVER, PETITIONER, VS. PHILIPPINE
SAVINGS BANK AND LILIA CASTRO, RESPONDENTS.
DECISION
MENDOZA, J.:
This is a petition for review on certiorari seeking to reverse and set aside the
October 25, 2013 Decision[1] and the September 12, 2014 Resolution[2] of the Court
of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 95656, which reversed the July 22, 2010
Order[3] of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 276, Muntinlupa City (RTC) in Civil Case
No. 99-278, a case for injunction and damages.
Petitioner Mercedes Oliver (Oliver) was a depositor of respondent Philippine Savings
Bank (PSBank) with account number 2812-07991-6. Respondent Lilia Castro
(Castro) was the Assistant Vice President of PSBank and the Acting Branch Manager
of PSBank San Pedro, Laguna.
Oliver's Position
In her Complaint,[4] dated October 5, 1999, Oliver alleged that sometime in 1997,
she made an initial deposit of P12 million into her PSBank account. During that
time, Castro convinced her to loan out her deposit as interim or bridge financing for
the approved loans of bank borrowers who were waiting for the actual release of
their loan proceeds.
Under this arrangement, Castro would first show the approved loan documents to
Oliver. Thereafter, Castro would withdraw the amount needed from Oliver's account.
Upon the actual release of the loan by PSBank to the borrower, Castro would then
charge the rate of 4% a month from the loan proceeds as interim or bridge
financing interest. Together with the interest income, the principal amount
previously withdrawn from Oliver's bank account would be. deposited back to her
account. Meanwhile, Castro would earn a commission of 10% from the interest.
Their arrangement went on smoothly for months. Due to the frequency of bank
transactions, Oliver even entrusted her passbook to Castro. Because Oliver earned
substantial profit, she was further convinced by Castro to avail of an additional
credit line in the amount of P10 million. The said credit line was secured by a real
estate mortgage on her house and lot in Ayala Alabang covered by Transfer
Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 137796.[5]
Oliver instructed Castro to pay P2 million monthly to PSBank starting on September
3, 1998 so that her credit line for P10 million would be fully, paid by January 3,
1999.
Beginning September 1998, Castro stopped rendering an accounting for Oliver. The
latter then demanded the return of her passbook. When Castro showed her the
passbook sometime in late January or early February 1999, she noticed several
erasures and superimpositions therein. She became very suspicious of the many
erasures pertaining to the December 1998 entries so she requested a copy of her
transaction history register from PSBank.
When her transaction history register[6] was shown to her, Oliver was surprised to
discover that the amount of P4,491,250.00 (estimated at P4.5 million) was entered
into her account on December 21, 1998. While a total of P7 million was withdrawn
from her account on the same day, Oliver asserted that she neither applied for an
additional loan of P4.5 million nor authorized the withdrawal of P7 million. She also
discovered another loan for P1,396,310.45, acquired on January 5, 1999 and
allegedly issued in connection with the P10 million credit line.
In Oliver's passbook,[7] there were no entries from December 17, 1998 to December
27, 1998. The transaction history register, however, showed several transactions on
these very same dates including the crediting of P4.5 million and the debiting of P7
million on December 21, 1998. Oliver then learned that the additional P4.5 million
and P1,396,310.45 loans were also secured by the real estate mortgage, [8] dated
January 8, 1998, covering the same property in Ayala Alabang.
Oliver received two collection letters,[9] dated May 13, 1999 and June 18, 1999,
from PSBank referring to the non-payment of unpaid loans, to wit: (1)
P4,491,250.00 from the additional loan and (2) P1,396,310.45 from the P10 million
credit line.[10] In response, Oliver protested that she neither availed of the said
loans nor authorized the withdrawal of P7 million from her account. [11] She also
claimed that the P10 million loan from her credit line was already paid in full. [12]
On July 14, 1999, a final demand letter[13] was sent to Oliver by PSBank, requiring
her to pay the unpaid loans. Oliver, however, still refused to pay. Subsequently,
Oliver received a notice of sale[14] involving the property in Ayala Alabang, issued by
Notary Public Jose Celestino Torres on September 15, 1999. The said notice
informed her of the impending extra-judicial foreclosure and sale of her house and
lot to be held on October 21, 1999.
As a result, Oliver filed the subject complaint against PSBank and Castro.
Castro's Position
In her Answer,[15] Castro admitted that she and Oliver agreed that the latter would
lend out money to borrowers at 4% to 5% interest per month provided that the
former would screen them. She also acknowledged having been instructed by Oliver
to pay the bank P2 million every.month to settle the P10 million credit line.
Nonetheless, Castro informed Oliver that the payment thereof was subject to the
availability of funds in her account. She disclosed that she made some alterations
and erasures in Oliver's passbook so as to reconcile the passbook with the
computer printout of the bank, but denied any attempt to hide the passbook as she
was able to return it sometime in January 1999.
Castro also denied the deceit imputed against her. She asserted that their
arrangement was not "interim or bridge financing" inasmuch as the loans were
entirely new and distinct from that granted by PSBank. When Oliver's clients
multiplied, Castro advised her to apply for a credit line of P10 million. The said
credit line was first approved in December 1997 with a term of one year.[16]
Sometime in August 1998, Castro informed Oliver about the impending expiration
of her credit line. Subsequently, Oliver applied for another loan in the amount of
P4.5 million as evidenced by a promissory note,[17] dated December 21, 1998. On
January 5, 1999, another promissory note [18] was executed by Oliver to cover a loan
in the amount of P1,396,310.45.
Castro asserted that, on December 21, 1998, upon Oliver's instruction, a total of P7
million was withdrawn from the latter's account and was then deposited to the
account of one Ben Lim (Lim) on the same date. Lim was a businessman who
borrowed money from Oliver. Castro knew him because he was also a depositor and
borrower of PSBank San Pedro Branch.[19]
As to the amount of P1,396,310.45, Castro explained that it was a separate and
personal loan obtained by her from Oliver. To secure the payment of such
obligation, Castro mortgaged a property located in Camella Homes III in Tunasan,
Muntinlupa City.
Castro admitted that on October 19, 1999, she was terminated by PSBank because
of certain problems regarding client accommodation and loss of confidence. [20]
PSBank's Position
In its defense, PSBank averred that Oliver applied for a credit line of P10 million
which was granted by the bank and which secured by a real estate mortgage.
Because Oliver failed to pay the P10 million loan, she obtained another loan in the
amount of P4.5 million, as evidenced by a promissory note. Days later, she again
acquired a separate loan amounting to P1,396,310.45 as shown by another
promissory note. Both loans were secured by a real estate mortgage, dated January
8, 1998, and the proceeds thereof were issued as proved by the release tickets,
[21]
dated December 21, 1998 and January 5, 1999, respectively.[22]
The RTC Decision
In its March 30, 2010 Decision,[23] the RTC dismissed the complaint and rendered
judgment in favor of PSBank and Castro. According to the RTC, PSBank and Castro
should not be held liable for the loan of P4.5 million and the withdrawal of the P7
million. Castro was able to submit the Debit Credit Memo [24] and the Savings
Account Check Deposit Slip[25] to prove that there were some previous loan
transactions between Oliver and Lim. Considering that neither PSBank nor Castro
obtained the P7 million, there was ho obligation on their part to return the amount.
Moreover, the trial court- stated that Oliver failed to controvert PSBank's allegation
that she had unpaid loan obligations. Thus, it concluded that PSBank had the right
to foreclose the mortgaged property. The fallo reads:
WHEREFORE, finding lack of merit, the instant case is hereby DISMISSED.
Accordingly, the Writ of Preliminary Injunction is hereby LIFTED and SET ASIDE.
SO ORDERED.[26]
Oliver seasonably filed her motion for reconsideration.[27] She insisted that the P7
million was unlawfully withdrawn. She claimed that what happened in this case was
a "cash savings withdrawal" and that there should have been a corresponding
withdrawal slip for such transaction. Also, if indeed the P7 million was withdrawn
from her account and was credited to the account of Lim, the deposit slip for his
account should have been presented.
The RTC Order
On July 22, 2010, the RTC resolved the motion and issued an order reversing its
earlier decision. According to the RTC, Oliver's assertion that the withdrawal was
made without her consent prevailed in the absence of any proof to the contrary.
The cash savings withdrawal slips should have been offered in evidence by either
PSBank or Castro to settle the issue of whether the amount of P7 million was
actually withdrawn by Oliver or by her authorized representative or agent.
The RTC also rejected the position of PSBank and Castro that the erasures and
alterations in Oliver's passbook were made simply to reconcile the same with the
transaction history register of the bank because even after the alleged corrections,
the said documents still contained different entries. Although Oliver and Lim had
previous transactions, none of them pertained to the P7 million purportedly
transferred on December 21, 1998.
With regard to PSBank, the RTC stated that it failed to exercise utmost diligence in
safekeeping Oliver's deposit. Had it not been for the unauthorized, withdrawal
which was attributable to the bank and Castro, the P4.5 million and the
P1,396,310.45 loans would not have remained outstanding, considering that the
improperly withdrawn P7 million was more than sufficient to discharge those
liabilities.[28] The dispositive portion of the order reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Motion for Reconsideration is hereby
GRANTED. The Decision dated March 30, 2010 is hereby reconsidered and set
aside. In lieu thereof, a new one is hereby rendered ordering the defendants Lilia
Castro and Philippine Savings Bank to jointly and solidarity pay plaintiff Dra.
Mercedes Oliver, the sums of
1. P1,111,850.77 as actual damages;
2. P100,000.00 as moral damages;
3. P100,000.00 as attorney's fees; and
4. P100,000.00 as exemplary damages
Moreover, the Writ of Preliminary Injunction is hereby made permanent.

SO ORDERED.[29]
Aggrieved, Castro and PSBank appealed before the CA.
The CA Decision
On October 25, 2013, the CA granted the appeal. It reversed the July 22, 2010 of
the RTC order and reinstated its March 30, 2010 decision. The appellate court found
no compelling evidence to prove that fraud attended the processing and release of
the P4.5 million loan as well as. the withdrawal of P7 million from Oliver's account.
The CA found that Oliver admitted signing the loan documents, the promissory
notes and the release tickets pertaining to the obligations that she had contracted
with PSBank. In addition, the CA stated that Oliver also failed to establish her
assertion that she was manipulated and defrauded into signing the said loan
documents.
The CA also found that PSBank exercised extraordinary diligence in handling
Oliver's account, thus, the awards of damages were deleted. The dispositive portion
of the CA decision reads:
WHEREFORE, the Appeal is hereby GRANTED. The Order dated 22 July 2010 of the
Regional Trial Court of Muntinlupa City, Branch 276, is REVERSED and SET ASIDE,
and another one entered REINSTATING the Decision dated March 30, 2010, in Civil
Case No. 99-278.
SO ORDERED.[30]
Oliver filed her motion for reconsideration but the same was denied in the CA
Resolution, dated September 12, 2014.
Hence, this petition.
ISSUES
I
WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN RULING
THAT THE PETITIONER FAILED TO SHOW COMPELLING EVIDENCE TO
PROVE THAT FRAUD ATTENDED THE PROCESSING AND RELEASE OF THE
LOAN OF P4.5 MILLION AS WELL AS THE WITHDRAWAL OF P7 MILLION
PESOS FROM HER ACCOUNT.
II
WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED WHEN IT
RULED THAT THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE TO PROVE THAT THE SUM OF P7

MILLION WAS DEBITED FROM THE ACCOUNT OF PETITIONER SANS HER
AUTHORIZATION.
III
RULED THAT THE RESPONDENTS TREATED THE PETITIONER'S ACCOUNT
WITH EXTRAORDINARY DILIGENCE.
IV
FAILED TO HOLD THAT THE RESPONDENTS ARE JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY
LIABLE TO THE PETITIONER FOR DAMAGES.[31]
In her petition for review,[32] Oliver insisted that she had no knowledge of any loan
released because she never availed of any new loan from PSBank. Neither the P4.5
million loan nor the cash withdrawal of P7 million was reflected in her passbook.
Oliver further argued that the burden of proving that the withdrawal was made with
her authority would lie on the part of PSBank and Castro. The cash savings
withdrawal slip containing the signature of Oliver should have been presented in
court. While the respondents claimed that the amount withdrawn was lent to Lim,
the latter was never called to the witness stand as PSBank and Castro opted not to
present him in court. Castro, aside from her self-serving testimony, failed to
present any concrete proof to show that Oliver indeed lent the withdrawn P7 million
cash to Lim.
Finally, Oliver averred that the erasures and alterations in her passbook undeniably
established that Castro manipulated the same to conceal the loan release and the
cash withdrawal from her account.
In her Comment,[33] Castro countered that the CA had more opportunity and
facilities to examine the facts. Hence, there was no reason to depart from the rule
that the findings of fact of the CA were final and conclusive and could not-be
reviewed on appeal. She asserted that there was no proof that the P7 million was
withdrawn without Oliver's authority. She added that Oliver was an astute
businesswoman who knew her clients and bank deposits and who was
knowledgeable of her bank transactions and was aware of her loaned amounts from
the bank.
In its Comment,[34] PSBank asserted that the issues and arguments propounded by
Oliver had been judiciously passed upon. On the stated facts alone, the petition,
which was akin to a motion for reconsideration, should be denied outright for
being pro forma.
In her Reply,[35] Oliver faulted PSBank and Castro for failing to present the cash
withdrawal slip which would show her signature to prove that the money was
withdrawn with her authority. She also reiterated that Lim should have been
presented as a witness to substantiate their defense that he actually received the
amount of P7 million.
The Court's Ruling
The petition is impressed with merit.
There was an implied agency between Oliver and Castro; the loans were properly
acquired
A contract of agency may be inferred from all the dealings between Oliver and
Castro. Agency can be express or implied from the acts of the principal, from his
silence or lack of action, or his failure to repudiate the agency knowing that
another, person is acting on his behalf without authority.[36] The question of whether
an agency has been created is ordinarily a question which may be established in the
same way as any other fact, either by direct or circumstantial evidence. The
question is ultimately one of intention.[37]
In this case, Oliver and Castro had a business agreement wherein Oliver would
obtain loans from the bank, through the help of Castro as its branch manager; and
after acquiring the loan proceeds, Castro would lend the acquired amount to
prospective borrowers who were waiting for the actual release of their loan
proceeds. Oliver would gain 4% to 5% interest per month from the loan proceeds of
her borrowers, while Castro would earn a commission of 10% from the interests.
Clearly, an agency was formed because Castro bound herself to render some
service in representation or on behalf of Oliver, in the furtherance of their business
pursuit.[38]
For months, the agency between Oliver and Castro benefited both parties. Oliver,
through Castro's representations, was able to obtain loans, relend them to
borrowers, and earn interests; while Castro acquired commissions from the
transactions. Oliver even gave Castro her passbook to facilitate the transactions.
Accordingly, the laws on, agency apply to their relationship. Article 1881 of the New
Civil Code provides that the agent must act within the scope of his authority. He
may do such acts as may be conducive to the accomplishment of the purpose of the
agency. Thus, as long as the agent acts within the scope of the authority given by
his principal, the actions of the former shall bind the latter.
Oliver claims that the P4.5 million loan, released on December 21, 1998, and the
P1,396,310.45 loan, released on January 5, 1999, were not acquired with her
consent. Castro and PSBank, on the other hand, countered that these loans were
obtained with Oliver's full consent.
The Court finds that the said loans were acquired with Oliver's authority. The
promissory notes[39] and the release tickets[40] for the said loans bore her
signatures. She failed to prove that her signatures appearing on the loan
documents were forged. Hence, the loan documents were reliable and these proved
that the loans were processed by Castro within the scope of her authority. As the
loans were validly obtained, PSBank correctly stated that Oliver had incurred a debt
of P4.5 million and P1,396,310.45, or a total of P5,888,149.33.
P7 million was improperly withdrawn; agent acted beyond her scope of authority
Although it was proven that Oliver authorized the loans, in the aggregate amount of
P5,888,149.33, there was nothing in the records which proved that she also allowed
the withdrawal of P7 million from her bank account. Oliver vehemently denied that
she gave any authority whatsoever to either Castro or PSBank to withdraw the said
amount.
In her judicial affidavit before the RTC, Castro initially claimed that Oliver
authorized, the withdrawal of P7 million from her bank account, to wit:
Q: Do you know when was this 4.5 million pesos loan was credited to plaintiff's deposit
account?
A: Based on the Transaction Ledge of PS Bank, the 4.5 million pesos was credit to plaintiff's
deposit account on 21 December 21, 1998.
Q: What happened after the 4.5 million pesos loan was credited to plaintiff's account?
A: Upon plaintiff's instruction, 7 million was withdrawn from her account including her
loaned amount to be deposited at Mr. Ben Lim's account at PS Bank, San Pedro Branch.[41]
[Emphasis Supplied]
During her cross-examination, however, Castro could no longer remember whether
Oliver gave her the authority to withdraw the P7 million from her account. The
transcript of stenographic notes reads:
Q: You said here, your statement here, "Upon Plaintiffs instruction". So, my question is, who
did the Plaintiff instruct you, was it you?
A: I cannot remember, sir.
Q: You are not definite? Your statement here it is categorical. It's on page 9 of 17 in the Judicial
Affidavit, the question is "What happened after the 4.5 million Pesos loan was credited to
the Plaintiffs account" And your answer was, "Upon Plaintiffs instruction Seven (7) million
was withdrawn from her account. My question is, this phrase, upon plaintiffs instruction,
who did the Plaintiffs (sic) instruct, was it you?
A: I cannot remember, sir because I still have other officers other than me, who were assisting
me during that time, so it could be the instruction even I said upon the instruction of the
plaintiff, but I cannot remember if I was the one who received the instruction from the
plaintiff. It could be other officers of mine during that time, sir.
Q: May I remind you, this is Seven (7) million Pesos?
A: Yes, sir.[42]
[Emphasis Supplied]
Verily, Castro, as agent of Oliver and as branch manager of PS Bank, utterly failed
to secure the authorization of Oliver to withdraw such substantial amount. As a
standard banking practice intended precisely to prevent unauthorized and
fraudulent withdrawals, a bank manager must verify with the client depositor to
authenticate and confirm that he or she has validly authorized such withdrawal. [43]
Castro's lack of authority to withdraw the P7 million on behalf of Oliver became
more apparent when she altered the passbook to hide such transaction. It must be
remembered that Oliver entrusted her passbook to Castro. In the transaction
history register for her account, it was clear that there was a series of dealings from
December 17, 1998 to December 23, 1998. When compared with Oliver's passbook,
the latter showed that the next transaction from December 16, 1998 was on
December 28, 1998. It was also obvious to the naked eye that the December 28,
1998 entry in the passbook was altered. As aptly observed by the RTC, nowhere in
the testimony of Castro could be gathered that she made a detailed, plausible and
acceptable explanation as to why she had to make numerous corrections in the
entries in the passbook.[44] Even after the corrections allegedly done to reconcile the
records, the passbook and the transaction history register still contained different
entries.
Curiously, though she asserts that Oliver obtained a loan of P4.5 million and
authorized the withdrawal of P7 million,[45] Castro could not explain why these
transactions were not reflected in the passbook which was in her possession.
Bearing in mind that the alleged unauthorized withdrawal happened on December
21, 1998, while Castro was questionably withholding the passbook, the Court is of
the impression that she manipulated the entries therein to conceal the P7 million
withdrawal.
Further, Castro claims that Oliver instructed her to withdraw the P7 million from her
bank account and to deposit the same in Lim's account. Glaringly, Lim was not
presented as a witness to substantiate her defense. Even though she testified that
the P7 million transfer from Oliver's account to Lim's was duly documented, Castro
never presented a single documentary proof of that specific transaction.

The Court is convinced that Castro went beyond the scope of her authority in
withdrawing the P7 million from Oliver's bank account. Her flimsy excuse that the
said amount was transferred to the account of a certain Lim deserves scant
consideration. Hence, Castro must be held liable for prejudicing Oliver.[46]
PSBank failed to exercise the highest degree of diligence required of banking
institutions
Aside from Castro, PSBank must also be held liable because it failed to exercise
utmost diligence in the improper withdrawal of the P7 million from Oliver's bank
account.
In the case of banks, the degree of diligence required is more than that of a good
father of a family. Considering the fiduciary nature of their relationship with their
depositors, banks are duty bound to treat the accounts of their clients with the
highest degree of care. The point is that as a business affected with public interest
and because of the nature of its functions, the bank is under obligation to treat the
accounts of its depositors with meticulous care, always having in mind the fiduciary
nature of their relationship.[47]
In Simex International v. Court of Appeals,[48] the Court held that the depositor
expected the bank to treat his account with the utmost fidelity, whether such
account consisted only of a few hundred pesos or of millions. The bank must record
every single transaction accurately, down to the last centavo, and as promptly as
possible. This has to be done if the account is to reflect at any given time the
amount of money the depositor can dispose of as he sees fit, confident that the
bank will deliver it as and to whomever he directs. A blunder on the part of the
bank, such as the dishonor of a check without good reason, can cause the depositor
not a little embarrassment if not also financial loss and perhaps even civil and
criminal litigation.[49]
Time and again, the Court has emphasized that the bank is expected to ensure that
the depositor's funds shall only be given to him or his authorized representative.
InProducers Bank of the Phil. v. Court of Appeals,[50] the Court held that the usual
banking procedure was that withdrawals of savings deposits could only be made by
persons whose authorized signatures were in the signature cards on file with the
bank. In the said case, the bank therein allowed an unauthorized person to
withdraw from its depositor's savings account, thus, it failed to exercise the
required diligence of banks and must be held liable.
With respect to withdrawal slips, the Court declared in Philippine National Bank v.
Pike[51] that "[o]rdinarily, banks allow withdrawal by someone who is not the
account holder so long as the account holder authorizes his representative to
withdraw and receive from his account by signing on the space provided particularly
for such transactions, usually found at the back of withdrawal slips." There, the
bank violated its fiduciary duty because it allowed a withdrawal by a representative
even though the authorization portion of the withdrawal slip was not signed by the
depositor.
Finally, in Cagungun v. Planters Development Bank,[52] a case very similar to the
present one, the depositors therein entrusted their passbook to the bank employees
for some specific transactions. The bank employees went beyond their authority
and were able to withdraw from the depositors' account without the latter's
consent. The bank was held liable therein for the acts of its employees because it
failed to safeguard the accounts of its depositors.
In the case at bench, it must be determined whether the P7 million was withdrawn
from the bank with the authority of Oliver. As testified to by Castro, every
withdrawal from the bank was duly evidenced by a cash withdrawal slip, a copy of
which is given both to the bank and to its client. [53] Contrary to the position of the
CA and that of the respondents, Oliver cannot be required to produce the cash
withdrawal slip for the said transaction because, precisely, she consistently
denied giving authority to withdraw such amount from her account.
Necessarily, the party that must have access to such crucial document would either
be PSBank or Castro. They must present the said cash withdrawal slip, duly signed
by Oliver, to prove that the withdrawal of P7 million was indeed sanctioned.
Unfortunately, both PSBank and Castro failed to present the cash withdrawal slip.
During the trial, the counsel of PSBank conceded that the cash withdrawal slip for
the P7 million transaction could not be located, to quote:
ATTY DEJARESCO: Your Honor, excuse me just a comment for the record we asked
for two (2) years, Your Honor to subpoena this from the bank, the bank never
produce (sic) the withdrawal slip two (2) years (sic), Your Honor, this case was
delayed by the previous Court for two (2) years. Your Honor, no withdrawal slip was
produced by the bank, Your Honor. I would just like to place it on record.
COURT: Were there subpoenas issued by the bank, was there an order?
ATTY. DEJARESCO: Yes Your Honor, I think the good counsel was the counsel at that
time would you able to confirm that it took us two (2) years to subpoena and
subpoena (sic) this withdrawal slip because there must be an authority to withdraw,
and it there is a signature of the plaintiff, we will admit that.
ATTY. CORPUZ: I remember having manifested that the withdrawal slip

cannot be located.
ATTY. DEJARESCO: Let's put that on record, Your Honor.
ATTY. CORPUS: (sic) I remember having made that manifestation, Your Honor.
COURT: That's the reason why no document was produced in Court by the PSBank?
ATTY. CORPUS: (sic) With respect to the withdrawal slip only, Your Honor on
December 21.
ATTY. DEJARESCO: Of that Seven (7) million from the account.
COURT: Make that on record.
ATTY. CORPUS: Yes, Your Honor.[54]
[Emphasis Supplied]
Castro, as agent of Oliver, could not produce either the said withdrawal slip
allegedly authorizing the withdrawal of the P7 million, her testimony is quoted as
follows:
ATTY. DEJARESCO:
Q: Can you show poof of the withdrawal slip?
A: The withdrawal slip.
Q: I'm asking you do you have proof?
A: None, sir.
Q: You cannot produce in Court in support of your Judicial Affidavit?
A: None.
Q: And you cannot produce that in Court?
A: As far as the withdrawal slip as for myself, none.[55]
[Emphasis Supplied]
From the foregoing, there was a clear showing of PSBank's failure to exercise the
degree of diligence that it ought to have exercised in dealing with its clients. It
could not prove that the withdrawal of P7 million was duly authorized by Oliver. As a
banking institution, PSBank was expected to ensure that such substantial amount
should only be transacted with the consent and authority of Oliver. PSBank,
however, reneged on its fiduciary duty by allowing an encroachment upon its
depositor's account without the latter's permission. Hence, PSBank must be held
liable for such improper transaction.
PSBank and Castro failed to discharge their burden and must be held solidarity
liable
The party who alleges a fact has the burden of proving it. Section 1, Rule 131 of the
Rules of Court defines "burden of proof as "the duty of a party to present evidence
on the facts in issue necessary to establish his claim or defense by the amount of
evidence required by law." In civil cases, the burden of proof rests upon the
plaintiff, who is required to establish his case by a preponderance of evidence. Once
the plaintiff establishes his case, the burden of evidence shifts to the defendant,
who, in,turn, bears the burden to establish his defense. [56]
Here, Oliver alleged that she did not authorize the withdrawal of P7 million from her
account. To establish her allegation, Oliver presented the following: (1) the
transaction history register which showed the withdrawal of P7 million from her
account on December 21, 1998; (2) the passbook which contained alterations to
conceal the withdrawal on December 21, 1998 while in the possession of Castro;
and (3) testimonial evidence that she did not allow the withdrawal of the said
amount.[57] The Court is of the view that Oliver had sufficiently discharged her
burden in proving that P7 million was withdrawn from her account without her
authorization. Hence, the burden was shifted to the respondents to refute the
allegation of Oliver.
As discussed above, both Castro and PSBank failed to establish the burden of their
defense. They failed to present proof that Oliver authorized the said transaction.
They could have presented either the cash withdrawal slip for the P7 million on
December 21, 1999 or Lim's testimony to prove the transfer of funds'to the latter's
account, but they did neither. Without an iota of proof to substantiate the validity of
the said transaction, the respondents unlawfully deprived Oliver of her funds.
Indeed, the bank should be solidarily liable with its employee for the damages
committed to its depositor.[58] Under Article 2180 of the Civil Code, employers shall
be held primarily and solidarily liable for damages caused by their employees acting
within the scope of their assigned tasks.
Castro, as acting branch manager of PSBank was able to facilitate the questionable
transaction as she was also entrusted with Oliver's passbook. In other words,
Castro was the representative of PSBank, and, at the same time, the agent of
Oliver, earning commissions from their transactions. Oddly, PSBank, either
consciously or through sheer negligence, allowed the double dealings of its
employee with its client. Such carelessness and lack of protection of the depositors
from its own employees led to the unlawful withdrawal of the P7 million from
Oliver's account. Although Castro was eventually terminated by PSBank because of
certain problems regarding client accommodation and loss of confidence, the
damage to Oliver had already been done. Thus, both Castro and PSBank must be
held solidarily liable.
Award of damages; invalid foreclosure
To recapitulate, the loans of Oliver from PSBank which were secured by real estate
mortages amounted to P5,888,149.33. Finding PSBank and Castro solidarily liable
to Oliver in the amount of P7 million because it was improperly withdrawn from her
bank account, the Court agrees with the RTC that had it not been for the said
unauthorized withdrawal, Oliver's debts amounting to P5,888,149.33 would have
been satisfied.
Consequently, PSBank's foreclosure of the real estate mortgage covering the two
(2) loans in the total amount of P5,888,149.33 was improper. With PSBank being
found liable to Oliver for P7 million, after offsetting her loans would have. PSBank
and Castro still owing her P1,111,850.77, which must be suitably paid in the form
of actual damages.
The award of moral damages must also be upheld. Specifically, in culpa contractual,
or breach of contract, like in the present case, moral damages are recoverable only
if the defendant has acted fraudulently or in bad faith, or is found guilty of gross
negligence amounting to bad faith, or in wanton disregard of his contractual
obligations. Verily, the breach must be wanton, reckless, malicious, or in bad faith,
oppressive or abusive.[59]
Here, Castro and PSBank were utterly reckless in allowing the withdrawal of a huge
amount from Oliver's account without her consent. The bank's negligence is a result
of lack of due care and caution required of managers and employees of a firm
engaged in a business so sensitive and demanding.[60] Hence, the award of
P100,000.00 as moral damages is warranted.
The award of exemplary damages is also proper due to the failure of Castro and
PSBank to prevent the unauthorized withdrawal from Oliver's account. The law
allows the grant of exemplary damages to set an example for public good. [61] The
Court, however, finds that the amount of exemplary damages must be decreased to
P50,000.00.
Finally, the Court agrees with the RTC that Castro and PSBank should be held
solidarity liable for attorney's fees. Article 2208 of the Civil Code is clear that
attorney's fees may be recovered when exemplary damages are awarded or when
the plaintiff, through the defendant's act or omission, has been compelled to litigate
with thirds persons. A decreased amount of P50,000.00 attorney's fees should be
sufficient.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The October 25, 2013 Decision and the
September 12, 2014 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 95656
areREVERSED and SET ASIDE. The July 22, 2010 Order of the Regional Trial
Court, Branch 276, Muntinlupa City in Civil Case No. 99-278 is
hereby REINSTATED with theMODIFICATION that the award of exemplary
damages and attorney's fees be decreased to P50,000.00 each.
All awards shall earn interests at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the
finality of this decision.
SO ORDERED.
Rollo pp. 57-67, penned by Associate Justice Japar B. Dimaampao with Associate
Justice Elihu A. Ybaez and Associate Justice Victoria Isabel A. Paredes, concurring.
[1]
[2]
Id. at 68-70.
[3]
[4]
Id. at 18-28.
[5]
Records, Volume IV, p. 1295.
[6]
Id. at 1308-1310.
[7]
Id. at 1311-1314.
[8]
Id. at 1291-1294.
[9]
Id. at 1429-1430.
[10]
[11]
Records, Volume IV, pp. 1471-1474.
[12]
[13]
Records, Volume IV, pp. 1307.
[14]
Records, Volume V, pp. 1615.
[15]
Id. at 39-48.
[16]
[17]
Records, Volume IV, p. 1298.
[18]
Id. at 1302.
[19]
Id. at 138-139.
[20]
Id. at 154-156.
[21]
Id. at 1300, 1304.
[22]
CA rollo, p. 273.
[23]
Records, Volume V, pp. 1828-1837.
[24]
Records, Volume IV, pp. 1432-1433.
[25]
Records, Volume V, p. 1617.
[26]
Id. at 1837.
[27]
Id. at 1838-1860.
[28]
CA rollo, p. 279.
[29]
Id. at 280.
[30]
Rollo, p. 66.
[31]
Id. at 29-30.
[32]
Id at 10-52.
[33]
Id. at 87-98.
[34]
Id. at 100-104.
[35]
Id. at 119-123.
[36]
Article 1869, New Civil Code of the Philippines.
De Leon and De Leon, Jr., Comments and Cases on Partnership, Agency and
Trusts, 2010 ed., p. 337-338.
[37]
[38]
Article 1868, New Civil Code of the Philippines.
[39]
Records, Volume IV, pp. 1298 and 1302.
[40]
Id. at 1300 and 1304.
[41]
Records, Volume II, p. 681.
[42]
TSN, January 27, 2009, pp. 6-7.
[43]
Philippine National Bank v. Tria, 686 Phil. 1139, 1157 (2012).
[44]
CA rollo, p. 277.
[45]
Rollo, p. 95.
Art. 1898. If the agent contracts in the name of the principal, exceeding the
scope of his authority, and the principal does not ratify the contract, it shall be
void if the party with whom the agent contracted is aware of the limits of the
powers granted by the principal. In this case, however, the agent is liable if he
undertook to secure the principal's ratification.
[46]
[47]
Philippine Bank of Commerce v. Court of Appeals, 336 Phil. 667, 682 (1997).
[48]
262 Phil. 387 (1990).
[49]
Id. at 396.
[50]
445 Phil. 702 (2003).
[51]
507 Phil. 322-344 (2005).
[52]
510 Phil. 51-69 (2005).
[53]
Rollo, p. 92.
[54]
TSN, January 27, 2009, pp. 65-66.
[55]
TSN, August 9, 2011, pp. 10-11.
De Leon v. Bank of the Philippines, G.R. No. 184565, November 20, 2013, 710
SCRA 443, 453, 454
[56]
[57]
TSN, February 6, 2001, p. 13.
[58]
Producers Bank of the Phil. v. Court of Appeals, supra note 50.
[59]
Herbosa v. Court of Appeals, 425 Phil. 431, 458 (2002).
[60]
Prudential Bank v. Court of Appeals, 384 Phil. 817, 824 (2000).
[61]
Cagungun v. Planters Development Bank, 510 Phil. 51, 65 (2005).

G.R.
No.
192320
BENJAMIN L. VERGARA, JONA M. SARVIDA AND JOSEPHINE P. SABALLA, PETITIONERS, VS. ATTY. EUSEBIO I. OTADOY,
JR.,
RESPONDENT.
April 04, 2016
SECOND DIVISION
[ G.R. No. 192320, April 04, 2016 ]
BENJAMIN L. VERGARA, JONA M. SARVIDA AND JOSEPHINE

P. SABALLA, PETITIONERS, VS. ATTY. EUSEBIO I. OTADOY,
JR., RESPONDENT.
DECISION
BRION, J.:
We resolve the petition for review on certiorari filed by the petitioners to challenge
the June 30, 2009 decision[1] and May 11, 2010 resolution[2] of the Court of Appeals
(CA) in CA-GR SP No. 100262. The CA decision reversed the Regional Trial Court's
(RTC) orders[3] which denied the respondent's motion to postpone the pre-trial
conference and which adopted the evidence that the petitioners had previously
presented.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
This case stemmed from a petition for habeas corpus decided by this Court in G.R.
154037.[4] In that case, the petitioners were arrested for indirect contempt because
they refused to comply with the probate court's order to pay rentals to Anselma
Alters' estate. This Court ruled that their imprisonment was unwarranted as it
violated the constitutional prohibition against imprisonment for nonpayment of
debt.
Armed with this ruling, on January 12, 2004, the petitioners Benjamin L. Vergara,
Jona M. Sarvida, and Josephine P. Saballa filed a civil action for damages against
respondent Atty. Eusebio I. Otadoy, Jr. and three other persons (defendants). Atty.
Otadoy served as the administratrix's counsel in G.R. No. 154037. The petitioners
alleged that they were unjustly detained as a result of Atty. Otadoy's fraudulent
practices.
On March 4, 2004, the petitioners filed a motion to admit an amended complaint
which the RTC granted.
When the defendants failed to file their answers, the petitioners moved to declare
the defendants in default and to allow the petitioners to present evidence ex parte.
These were granted in the RTC's order dated September 17, 2004.
Atty. Otadoy, representing himself, filed several motions for reconsideration of the
RTC's order. He alleged that he did not receive the amended complaint.
Meanwhile, the petitioners presented their evidence ex parte on September 27,
2004 and October 11, 2004.
On February 8, 2005, the RTC granted Atty. Otadoy's motion to set aside the
default order. It also directed the petitioners to serve a copy of the amended
complaint on Atty. Otadoy.
The court scheduled the pre-trial conference on March 12, 2007, at 1:30 in the
afternoon.
Atty. Otadoy filed a motion to postpone the pre-trial conference to April 20, 2007.
He claimed that on March 4, 2007, he was invited to deliver a lecture at the
National Annual Lectureship of the Church of Christ on March 11-14, 2007. As a
minister and evangelist of that church, he chose to accept the invitation rather than
attend the pre-trial conference. Without waiting for a ruling on his motion, Atty.
Otadoy proceeded to attend the lecture in Zamboanga.
At the pre-trial conference, the petitioners' counsel opposed the motion to postpone
the pre-trial conference arguing that Atty. Otadoy failed to file a pre-trial brief and
that his motion was filed late. The petitioners' counsel moved that he be allowed to
present his evidence ex parte as stated in Section 5, Rule 18 of the Rules of Court.
He also moved that the court adopt the evidence that he had previously presented.
The RTC granted his motions and considered the case submitted for
resolution.
Atty. Otadoy filed his pre-trial brief only on April 11, 2007. He also filed a motion for
reconsideration on April 20, 2007, which the RTC denied.
Atty. Otadoy responded by filing a petition for certiorari with the CA.
THE CA RULING
The CA granted Atty. Otadoy's petition. It noted that Atty. Otadoy should be blamed
for not appearing at the pre-trial and for presuming that his motion would be
granted ipso facto. Nevertheless, Atty. Otadoy only asked once for the
postponement of the pre-trial proceedings during the entire duration of the case.
The RTC should have placed greater premium on safeguarding a litigant's fullest
opportunity to establish his case than on technicalities. Thus, the CA opined that
the RTC should have granted Atty. Otadoy's motion to postpone.
The CA denied the petitioners' motion for reconsideration; hence, this petition.
THE PARTIES' ARGUMENTS
In their present petition, the petitioners argue that the CA incorrectly ruled that the
RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in denying Atty. Otadoy's urgent motion to
postpone dated March 6, 2007.
First, a mere error of judgment does not constitute grave abuse of discretion unless
attended by personal biases, whims, and caprices, which were not proven here.
Moreover, the CA did not refer to any law or rule that the RTC violated in granting
the petitioners' motions.
Second, Atty. Otadoy did not submit any proof that he indeed attended the
conference. Despite this lack of evidence, the CA reversed the RTC's order denying
his motion for postponement.
In his comment, the respondent argues that the CA's decision is supported by facts
and jurisprudence. He argues that his motion to postpone was timely filed by
registered mail on March 7, 2007, or six (6) days before the scheduled pre-trial
conference. He claims that by denying his motion, the RTC deprived him of his day
in court.
OUR RULING
We GRANT the petition.
The issue to be resolved here is whether the RTC committed grave abuse of
discretion in denying Atty. Otadoy's motion to postpone the pre-trial conference.
A ruling that precludes a party from presenting evidence, such as an order of
default, must have basis in law; otherwise, it is issued with grave abuse of
discretion.[5]
In the present case, the RTC had legal basis to deny the motion for postponement
as explained more fully below. Thus, we rule that the RTC did not commit grave
abuse of discretion in denying Atty. Otadoy's motion.
Motion to Postpone is a privilege, not a right.
Pre-trial answers the call for the speedy disposition of cases. [6] Under Rule 18 of the
Rules of Court, the counsels and the parties are mandated to appear at pre-trial.
[7]
Their non-appearance may be excused only if there is a valid cause or if a
representative appears on their behalf.[8] If the defendant fails to appear, the RTC
may allow the plaintiff to present evidence ex parte and may render judgment
based on it.[9]
This Court has ruled that a motion for postponement is a privilege and not a right.
[10]
The movant should not assume that his motion would be granted. [11]
In deciding whether to grant or deny a motion to postpone the pre-trial, the court
must take into account two factors: (a) the reason given, and (b) the merits of the
movant's case.[12]
In Philippine Transmarine Carriers, Inc., et al. v. Song,[13] the defendants' counsel
moved to postpone the pre-trial due to his illness. The trial court denied the motion
because the movant did not attach any supporting medical certificate. In the motion
for reconsideration, the defendants' counsel attached a duly notarized medical
certificate and an affidavit of merit that he signed. The trial court, however, also
denied the motion for reconsideration.
When the case reached this Court, we ruled that the trial court should have granted
the motion for reconsideration after the notarized medical certificate was submitted,
following the rationale we discussed below.
On the basis of this precedent, the question now for us is whether Atty. Otadoy
presented a valid cause to postpone the pre-trial conference.
We note that Atty. Otadoy's failure to attach proof that he attended the alleged
lectureship weighs heavily against him. He had many opportunities to submit proof
of his attendance. He could have attached this proof in his motion for
reconsideration, in his petition before the CA, or in this petition. Yet, he failed to do
so. Thus, we find that he did not sufficiently establish a valid cause to postpone the
pre-trial conference, giving the RTC a firm legal basis to deny his motion and to
declare him in default.
Strict application of procedural rules
The CA acknowledged Atty. Otadoy's fault. However, it added that the courts should
not be overly strict in applying procedural rules. It cited Africa v. Intermediate
Appellate Court, et al.[14] and RN Development Corporation v. A.I.I. System, Inc.[15]
In those cases, the judges declared the parties in default only because their lawyers
were late: for ten minutes in Africa and for four minutes in RN Development.
In the present case, Atty. Otadoy not only failed to appear during pre-trial; he also
failed to file the mandatory pre-trial brief within the prescribed time.
To be sure, judicial action must be guided by the principle that a party-litigant must
be given the fullest opportunity to establish the merits of his case. [16] Rules of
procedure, however have their own reasons for their existence; they are with us to
ensure prompt, speedy, and orderly dispensation of justice. This competing reason
must be weighed and balanced against the admittedly weightier need to give
litigants their day in court. When procedural rules are at the point of being abused,
such as when the litigant fails to establish a valid cause to postpone the
proceedings, procedural rules cannot and must not be brushed aside.
In Philippine Transmarine Carriers, the Court considered that the motion was the
first postponement that the defendants requested only after finding that there was
a valid cause to postpone.
In this petition, although Atty. Otadoy requested for postponement only once, he
failed to show a valid cause to justify his request; thus, the RTC did not legally err
in denying his motion to postpone.
WHEREFORE, we GRANT the petition. The June 30, 2009 decision and May 11,
2010 resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-GR SP No. 100262 are REVERSED.
The Regional Trial Court's order dated March 12, 2007, is hereby REINSTATED.
SO ORDERED.
Carpio, (Chairperson), Velasco, Jr.,* Mendoza, and Leonen, JJ., concur.
Designated as Additional Member in lieu of Associate Justice Mariano C. Del

Castillo; per Raffle dated February 15, 2016.
*
Penned by Associate Justice Monina Arevalo-Zenarosa and concurred in by

Associate Justices Mariano C. Del Castillo (now with the Supreme Court) and
Priscilla J. Baltazar-Padilla. Rollo, pp. 20-30.
[1]
Penned by Associate Justice Priscilla J. Baltazar-Padilla and concurred in by

Associate Justices Juan Q. Cnriquez Jr. and Sesinando E. Villon.
[2]
[3]
RTC Orders dated March 12, 2007 and July 13, 2007. Rollo, pp. 100-107.
In the Matter of the Petition for Habeas Corpus of Benjamin Vergara, Jona
Sarvida, Milagros Majoremos, Majorie Jalalon, May Joy Mendoza (@ May Joy Sandi),
andJoy Saballa (@ Josephine Saballa), Mabelyn B. Vergara, Rio Sarvida, Francisco
Majoremos, in their respective behalf and in behalf of Roy Jalalon, Rommel
Mendoza, and Delfin Saballa, 450 Phil. 623-624 (2003).
[4]
[5]
Paredes v. Verano, G.R. No. 164375, October 12, 2006, 504 SCRA 278.
Philippine American Life & General Insurance Company v. Enario, G.R. No.
182075, September 15, 2010, 630 SCRA 607.
[6]
[7]
Rules of Court, Rule 17, Section 4.
[8]
Id.
[9]
Id., Section 5.
[10]
Supra note 6.
[11]
Id.
[12]
Id.
[13]
G.R. No. 122346, February 18, 2000, 326 SCRA 18-19.
[14]
G.R. No. 76372, August 14, 1990, 188 SCRA 586-587.
[15]
G.R. No. 166104, June 26, 2008, 555 SCRA 513-514.
CMTC International Marketing Corporation v. Bhagis International Trading

Corporation, G.R. No. 170488, December 10, 2012, 687 SCRA 469.
[16]

G.R.
No.
206226
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. NIEVES CONSTANCIO Y BACUNGAY, ERNESTO BERRY Y
BACUNGAY,
April 04, 2016
ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.
SECOND DIVISION
[ G.R. No. 206226, April 04, 2016 ]
NIEVES CONSTANCIO Y BACUNGAY, ERNESTO BERRY Y
BACUNGAY, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.
DECISION
DEL CASTILLO, J.:
This is an appeal from the February 24, 2012 Decision [1] of the Court of Appeals
(CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 02709 which affirmed the January 22, 2007
Decision[2] of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 258, Paraaque City, finding the
appellants Nieves Constancio y Bacungay (Constancio) and Ernesto
Berry y Bacungay (Berry) guilty of the crime of Rape with Homicide and sentencing
them to surfer the penalty of reclusion perpetua.
Factual Antecedents
Constancio and Berry, along with co-accused Donardo Pagkalinawan
(Pagkalinawan), Danny Darden (Darden), and alias Burog, were charged with the
crime of Rape with Homicide committed against "AAA"[3] on the night of March 11,
2001.
The Information states:
That on or about the 11th day of March 2001, in the City of Paraaque, Philippines
conspiring and confederating and all of them mutually helping and aiding one
another, by means of force and intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully
and feloniously have carnal knowledge [of "AAA"] against her will and consent.
That on said occasion, all the above-named accused, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and strangle and gang up on her thereby
inflicting upon the latter traumatic injuries which caused her death. [4]
Constancio and Berry pleaded not guilty during their arraignment on May 3,2001.
Trial on the merits subsequently followed.
Version of the Prosecution
The prosecution presented the following witnesses:
1. "BBB," the mother of the victim "AAA," testified that on March 11, 2001, "AAA"
was forcibly abducted, raped, brutally beaten, and strangled to death. Her body was
later found at a creek under a bridge in San Antonio Valley 3, Brgy. San Antonio,
Paraaque City. "BBB" further testified on the amount they spent for the wake and
funeral expenses of "AAA."
2. Myra Katrina Dacanay (Dacanay) testified that she was a high school classmate
of "AAA." On the night before "AAA" was killed, she and "AAA" planned to watch a
movie at the Alabang Town Center but since they were late for the last full show,
they went to Cinnzeo instead where they were later joined by another friend, Tara
Katrina Golez (Golez). After exchanging pleasantries, Golez left first. Thereafter, she
(Dacanay) and "AAA" proceeded to the parking lot to get "AAA's" black Mazda 323
with plate number URN 855. "AAA" then brought her (Dacanay) home at Ayala
Alabang. Dacanay testified that she tried to contact "AAA" to make sure that she
arrived home safely but she could not be reached.
At around 5:30 in the morning, Dacanay received a call from "AAA's" father asking
about "AAA's" whereabouts. She also, received a call from Golez who told her that
"AAA" was not yet home. Dacanay stated that she was shocked when she learned
about "AAA's" death.
3. Golez testified that "AAA" was her classmate and that they had been friends for
about 10 years; that on March 10, 2001 at around 10:00 o'clock in the evening, she
met with "AAA" and Dacanay at the Cinnzeo, Alabang Town Center, and stayed with
them for about 30 to 40 minutes.
Golez added that at around 6:00 o'clock on the morning of March 11, 2001, "AAA's"
father went to her house to inquire about "AAA's" whereabouts. Golez told him that
she was with "AAA" and with Dacanay,the night before but that she left earlier than
these two. Golez said that she learned about "AAA's" death at about 4:00 o'clock on
the afternoon of the same day.
4. Janette Bales (Bales) testified that at around 3:00 o'clock in the early morning of
March 12, 2001, she. was at Unioil gas station in front of the Multinational Village,
Ninoy Aquino Avenue, Brgy. Sto. Nino, Paraaque City waiting for a ride home when
a black Mazda car suddenly stopped in front of her and a male person then alighted
from the back seat and immediately grabbed her arm; that she was able to
recognize the face of the person as the appellant Berry whom she identified in open
court. Bales further testified that Berry's face was not covered at the time he
grabbed her arm and that Berry attempted to pull her inside the black Mazda car
and abduct her; that she shouted for help and tried to free herself from Berry's hold
on her arm; that she then saw another man who was about to alight from the same
black Mazda car but fortunately, a barangay tanod from behind the car shouted,
"Hoy!" and Berry was not able to abduct her (Bales); and that Berry was however
able to forcibly take her shoulder bag which contained her wallet, cellphone,
necklace, and other personal belongings. On the same date, she reported the
incident to the Paraaque Police Station and executed a sworn statement. When
Berry was arrested on March 30,2001, Bales identified him as the person who
grabbed her arm and took her shoulder bag.
5. Dr. Emmanuel Reyes (Dr. Reyes) is the Medico-Legal Officer at the Southern
Police District Crime Laboratory at Fort Bonifacio. He testified that he conducted an
autopsy examination on the cadaver of "AAA." According to his Medico-Legal Report
No. M-072-2001, the cause of death is asphyxia by strangulation with traumatic
head injuries, with signs of drowning and recent loss of virginity. There was a fresh
deep laceration of the genitalia with hematoma. Dr. Reyes was able to recover
samples of sperm cells collected from the victim.
6. Chito Adarna[5] (Adarna) testified that he is a tricycle driver plying the San
Antonio Valley area in Paraaque City; that on March 11, 2001., he transported a
male passenger from the tricycle terminal to the corner of Sta. Escolastica and Sta.
Teresa streets in Paraaque City, where he saw a black Mazda car parked by the
bridge of San Antonio Valley; that he (Adarna) then saw two men carrying
something that they threw over the bridge where the body of "AAA" was eventually
found; and that thereafter, both men entered the Mazda car with its windows rolled
down on the right side. He identified these two men in open court as the appellants
Constancio and Berry.
7. P/Sr. Insp. Edgardo C. Ariate (PSI Ariate) testified that he is the Chief
Investigator of the Investigation Division of Precinct No. 2 of the Paraaque City
Police Station; that on March 11, 2001, he received a telephone call informing him
about a body of a female found hogtied and lifeless at the creek of San Antonio
Valley; that he (PSI Ariate) then ordered SPO2 Odeo Carino to conduct an
investigation to verify the truth of the information; that initially, the police officers
did not have any suspects to the crime; but a few weeks later, an informant
surfaced and relayed to them the identities of "AAA's" assailants. The informant
came out after then-Paraaque Mayor Joey Marquez (Mayor Marquez) offered a
reward to anyone who could provide any lead on the identities of "AAA's" assailants.
PSI Ariate added that the informant identified Berry and Constancio as the persons
responsible for the crime. The informant also gave the whereabouts of the suspects
which led to Berry's arrest in Muntinlupa and Constancy's arrest in Cagayan
province.
The informant positively identified Berry during the course of the arrest. At the
police station, Bales likewise positively identified Berry as the person who
attempted to abduct her and who also took off with her bag. PSI Ariate testified
that Berry confessed his participation in the crime and provided the names of his
companions namely: Pagkalinawan, one alias Burog, and Darden.
8. "CCC" is the father of "AAA." He testified that during the preliminary
investigation, he was able to ask Berry what he did to his daughter. Berry replied
that it was better to not let him ("CCC") know what happened as the details of the
killing would only hurt him. "CCC" added that the impression he got from speaking
with Berry was that the latter admitted to him that he and his companions were the
ones responsible for his daughter's death. He also asked Berry why they had to kill
his daughter. To this Berry simply responded that he would help him ("CCC").
9. Fernando Sanga y Amparo a.k.a. Dindo Amparo (Amparo) testified that he is a
reporter of the ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation; that he covered the news on
the murder case of "AAA," and that he personally interviewed Berry.
Amparo declared that during his interview, Berry revealed that his co-accused
Constancio is his cousin, and his three companions were alias Burog, Pagkalinawan,
and Darden, all three of whom he just met that very night; that he and his cousin
Constancio, and their companions alias Burog, Pagkalinawan and Darden abducted
"AAA" outside the Alabang Town Center after poking her with a knife; that he
(Berry) at first thought that it would just be a hold-up; and that after threatening
"AAA" with a knife, they placed "AAA" at the back seat of her black Mazda car and
they all rode in her black car and drove to Constancio' vacant house.
During the same interview, Berry further revealed that while parked in Constancio'
garage in Luxemburg Street at the Better Living Subdivision, Paranaqe City, "AAA's"
car was shaking with Constancio inside with "AAA;" that this led him to suspect that
something was already happening inside the car. Berry also divulged that when the
car door was opened, he saw "AAA" already apparently lifeless, her private parts
exposed, and without her underwear. Then he (Berry) heard Constancio utter"wala
na;" that when asked whether by that phrase "wala na" he meant that "AAA" was
already dead, Berry replied, "yes."
In the same interview, Berry also disclosed that "AAA's" body was placed inside the
trunk of her car and thrown over a bridge at San Antonio Valley III, Paraaque City;
that he was prompted to reveal such information because he felt guilty about what
happened. Berry claimed that he had nothing to do with "AAA's" killing and
promised her family that he would help them obtain justice by becoming a witness
in the case.
10. Atty. Rhonnel Suarez (Atty. Suarez) testified that he was the lawyer who
assisted Berry during the custodial investigation at the Paraaque police station;
that it was Berry himself who approached him at the police precinct and asked for
his professional assistance during the custodial investigation; and that he fully
explained to Berry and made the latter understand clearly his constitutional rights
before the latter executed the Sinumapaang Salaysay containing his extrajudicial
confession. Berry freely and voluntarily affixed his signature to the Sinumpaang
Salaysay in the presence of Atty. Suarez and two of Berry's relatives, Estrella
Corate (Corate) and Florinda Buenafe (Buenafe).
Version of the Defense
1. Pagkalinawan testified that he was surprised that Berry implicated him in this
case because he does not know him; that he only met Berry inside the police
precinct 13 days after his arrest; and that Berry might have been subjected to
torture to give the names of other persons involved in the case.
With regard to Constancio, Pagkalinawan testified that he has known him for less
than a year as he was a neighbor in Bayanan, Muntinlupa; but that several months
before the case, he (Pagkalinawan) and Constancio were no longer neighbors
because he (Pagkalinawan) transferred to another place.
Pagkalinawan claimed that he went into hiding because he was afraid that police
officers were searching for him after a reward for information concerning his
whereabouts was offered.
2. Napoleon Pagkalinawan (Napoleon) is Pagkalinawan's father. He testified that on
the night of March 10, 2001, at around 8:00 o'clock in the evening, he was
watching television with his children, including Pagkalinawan; and that after
watching television until 11:00 o'clock that evening, he (Napoleon) claimed that
Pagkalinawan went to his room to sleep.
Napoleon also averred that Pagkalinawan had been living with him since birth and
that Constancio was not their neighbor. He said that Pagkalinawan transferred to
the house of his in-laws which was less than a kilometer away from his house.
3. Aida R. Viloria-Magsipoc (Magsipoc) testified that she is a Forensic Chemist of the
National Bureau of Investigation (NBI); and that she took the buccal swabs from
the inner lining of Pagkalinawan's mouth. Her final report concluded that the vomit
and hair samples from "AAA's" car did not match the profile of the suspects.
Magsipoc however could not say whether Pagkalinawan and the other suspects were
inside the car or not since their profile was not found in the car based on the
submitted specimen.
4. Constancio testified that on February 24, 2001, his neighbor, the wife of his coaccused Pagkalinawan, informed him that NBI agents were looking for him
regarding a kidnapping with murder case of a certain Calupig; that for fear of
apprehension, he (Constancio) went to his cousin and co-accused Berry and stayed
in the latter's house; that he then contacted his girlfriend Aiko Tiu (Aiko) and told
her to stay in his house in Bayanan, Muntinlupa in the meantime; that Aiko later
went to see him (Constancio) and informed him that his house had been ransacked;
that his personal belongings had been taken including his wallet which contained his
identification cards; that on February 27, 2001, he (Constancio) went to Baguio City
to hide; that Aiko visited him there on March 14, 2001 as it was his birthday; that
the next day, Aiko returned to Manila and they communicated only through text
messages; that about a week later he (Constancio) was informed that his face was
flashed on television with a reward offered to any person who could provide
information regarding his whereabouts; that this prompted him (Constancio) to
head further up north to Aparri, Cagayan on March 24, 2001; and that on March 29,
2001, he was arrested and brought to the office of Mayor Marquez where he saw
his cousin Berry.
5. Aiko testified that Constancio is her live-in partner with whom she has two
children; that from February 27, 2001 to March 14, 2001, while Constancio was in
Baguio she called him everyday to make sure he was safe; that on March 14, 2001,
she visited him in Baguio as this was his birthday; that upon her return to Manila,
she learned that Constancio had been arrested; and that this surprised her since
she believes that Constancio did not have anything to do with "AAA's" murder.
6. Berry testified that on March 10, 2001, he went home after work as a welder and
did not go back to work the next day; that on March 29, 2001, two men in civilian
clotliing came to his house and informed him that they were police officers; that
after opening the door, the police officers kicked him in the chest and thereafter
handcuffed him; that he asked them what crime he committed and if they were
armed with a warrant of arrest but the alleged police officers failed to show him any
document; that he was then brought to the Office of Mayor Marquez where he was
asked about his cousin Constancio; that thereafter, he was brought to the Coastal
Police Headquarters of Paraaque where he was threatened by PSI Ariate and
forced to sign a Sinumpaang Salaysay, and that said sinumpaang salaysay is false.
Berry further testified that Atty. Suarez assisted him in the execution of his
affidavit; that his relatives Corate and Buenafe also signed the affidavit; and that
nonetheless he was not able to narrate the threats made by PSI Ariate on his life
and the lives of his family. Berry stressed that he does not know who prepared the
statements in his Sinumpang Salaysay.
7. Corate testified that Berry is her son-in-law; that while she was at the police
station, police officers asked her to sign a document without informing her of its
contents.
Summary of Facts
It appears that on March 10, 2001, "AAA" went to Alabang Town Center with her
friends Dacanay and Golez. After parting ways with them, "AAA" was about to
board her car when she found herself confronted by Berry then armed with a knife,
who was then in the company of Constancio, Pagkalinawan, Darden and alias
"Burog." These five forcibly seized "AAA's" car and drove her to Constancio' house
where she was raped and killed.
In the course of an interview with ABS-CBN Reporter Amparo, Berry revealed that
while "AAA's" car was parked in Constancio' garage, the said car was moving and
shaking with "AAA" inside.[6] This led him to suspect that something was already
happening; that when the door of the car was opened, (Berry) saw that "AAA" was
without her underwear; and that Constancio then uttered the words, "wala na,"
indicating that "AAA" was already dead.[7]
"AAA's" body was then placed inside the trunk of her car. Adarna, a tricycle driver,
saw Berry, Constancio, and their other companions, throw something over a bridge
which turned out to be "AAA's body upon investigation by the authorities.
On the evening of March 12, 2001, Bales almost became the next victim when
Berry and his companions who were still using "AAA's" car, attempted to abduct her.
Fortunately for Bales, a barangay tanod was present at the scene and was able to
foil the abduction when he shouted at the malefactors and startled them.
Nonetheless, Bales' bag was taken during this incident.
Eventually, Berry and Constancio were arrested after an informant surfaced and
identified them as "AAA's" assailants. The informant came out after Mayor Marquez
offered a reward for information leading to the identity of persons responsible for
"AAA's" rape-slay.
During the custodial investigation, where Atty. Suarez advised him of his
constitutional rights and the consequences of his statements, Berry executed an
extrajudicial confession which was embodied in a Sinumpaang Salaysay. Berry also
confessed to Amparo during an interview that he did take part in the execution of
the crime.
At the trial, however, Berry denounced the Sinumpaang Salaysay as false, and
claimed that he was coerced into signing the same.
For his part, Constancio contended that he was in Baguio at the time of the
commission of the crime. Both appellants denied the charges against them. These
two also asserted that Berry's extrajudicial confession was inadmissible in evidence.
On January 23, 2007 the RTC of Paraaque City, Branch 258 rendered its Decision
finding Constancio and Berry guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Rape
with Homicide and sentenced them to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua.
As for Pagkalinawan, the RTC acquitted him of the crime for failure of the
prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The RTC held that the
prosecution witnesses were not at all able to positively identify Pagkalinawan as a
participant in the crime, thus, he must be absolved of the crime charged.
The dispositive part of the Decision of the RTC reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, considering that the prosecution was able to
prove the guilt of accused NIEVES CONSTANCIO y BACUNGAY and ERNESTO
BERRY y BACUNGAY beyond reasonable doubt, both accused are hereby sentenced
to suffer the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA pursuant to Republic Act 9346 which
repealed the death penalty law. However pursuant to Section 3 thereof, they are
not eligible for parole.
Accused, NIEVES CONSTANCIO y BACUNGAY and ERNESTO BERRY y BACUNGAY are
also hereby ordered to jointly and severally pay the heirs of [AAA] the following
amounts, to wit:
1. P92,290.00 as actual damages;
2. P50,000.00 as civil indemnity ex-delicto;
3. P50,000.00 as moral damages; and
4. P50,000.00 as exemplary damages;
For failure of the prosecution to prove the guilt of accused DONARDO

PAGKALINAWAN y VILLANUEVA, he is hereby ACQUITTED of the crime charged
against him.
Let alias warrant of arrest issue against Danny Darden and @ Burog, which need
not be returned until after they have been arrested.
The City Jail Warden, this jurisdiction is hereby ordered to immediately release
accused, DONARDO PAGKALINAWAN from further detention unless he is being held
for some other cause or causes.
No pronouncement as to cost.
SO ORDERED.[8]
In its Decision of February 24, 2012, the CA affirmed the RTC. The CA found that
Constancio and Berry conspired to abduct, rape, and kilt "AAA." The CA accorded
credence to the testimonies of prosecution witnesses Adarna and Bales, both of
whom in the opinion of the CA positively established the identities of Constancio
and Berry. The CA upheld the RTC's assessment of the credibility of these
witnesses, because of the trial court's unique opportunity to observe their
deportment and demeanor while on the witness stand.
Also, the CA gave credence to Berry's extrajudicial confession as contained in
the Sinumpaang Salaysay which he executed with the assistance of Atty. Suarez.
Berry's extrajudicial confession was admitted as corroborative evidence of facts that
likewise tend to establish the guilt of his co-accused and cousin, Constancio as
shown by the circumstantial evidence extant in the records.
Invariably therefore, the CA rejected the defences of alibi and denial interposed by
Constancio in light of the positive identification by the prosecution witnesses.
The CA disposed as follows:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the assailed Decision. finding accusedappellants Nieves Constancio y Bacungay and Ernesto Berry y Bacungay guilty of
the crime charged is hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.[9]
From the CA's Decision, Berry filed his notice of appeal [10] on March 8, 2012 while
Constancio filed his own notice of appeal[11] on September 12, 2012.

Both appellants filed separate briefs. Berry opted hot to file a Supplemental Brief
and instead, adopted the arguments raised in the Appellant's Brief [12] that he filed
before the CA. Constancio, on the other hand, filed a Supplemental Brief [13] raising
substantially the same issues as those raised by Berry.
The issues raised by the appellants can be summarized as follows:
I. Whether the CA erred in lending credence to the testimonies of the prosecution
witnesses.
II. Whether the CA erred in declaring Berry's extrajudicial confession admissible in
evidence and in considering it against his co-accused Constancio.
III. Whether the CA erred in finding the appellants guilty beyond reasonable doubt
of the crime charged.
Our Ruling
Credibility of the Prosecution's Witnesses
Appellants claim that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, specifically
those of Bales and Adarna, were unreliable and should not have been given credit
by the CA in affirming the RTC's Decision; and that the identification of the
appellants made by these witnesses was not believable given the circumstances of
the case.
Constancio, in particular, assails the testimony of Adarna. He argues that, "[t]he
distance of several meters between [Adarna] and accused-appellant at the time he
allegedly saw the latter riding in the victim's car, as well as the position of
[Adarna's] tricycle relative to the vehicle wherein accused-appellant was riding in,
the negligible lighting, time of day, and other circumstances make it impossible for
[Adarna] to positively identify accused-appellant."[14]
Berry, on the other hand, flays Bales's testimony, calling it unreliable since her
description of the suspect, "i.e. 5'5" to 5'6" in height, with brush-up
hair,"[15] allegedly failed to match his own features. Berry harps on the fact that
Bales was unable to state in court what the suspect was wearing at the time.
Likewise, Berry labels Adarna's testimony as "mere afterthoughts and of doubtful
veracity."[16]
The appellants' assaults upon the credibility of the prosecution witnesses will not
succeed. Firmly settled is the rule that when factual findings of the RTC are affirmed
by the CA, such factual findings should not be disturbed on appeal, unless some
material facts or circumstances had been overlooked or their significance
misconstrued as to radically affect the outcome of the case. We find no cogent
reason to set aside the factual findings of the RTC as affirmed by the CA because
these factual findings are in accord with the evidence on record. What is more, the
appellants have not shown that either or both the RTC and the CA had overlooked
some material facts or circumstances or had misappreciated their import or
significance as to radically affect the outcome of the case.
Admissibility of Berry's Extrajudicial Confession
Both appellants also argue that Berry's extrajudicial confession is inadmissible in
evidence against them.
Berry insists that when he executed his extrajudicial confession, he was not
provided with a competent and independent counsel of his own choice in violation
of Section 12, Article III of the Constitution which provides:
(1) Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have 'the
right to be informed of his right to remain silent and to have competent and
independent counsel preferably of his own choice. If the person cannot afford the
services of counsel, he must be provided with one. These rights cannot be waived
except in writing and in the presence of counsel.
(2) No torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any other means which
vitiate the free will shall be used against him. Secret detention places,
solitary, incommunicado, or other similar forms of detention are prohibited.
(3) Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this or the preceding
section shall be inadmissible in evidence against him.
xxxx
Berry contends that Atty. Suarez does not qualify as a competent and independent
counsel since the circumstances surrounding this lawyer's presence at the precinct
during the custodial investigation was suspect. Berry specifically challenges, the
competence and independence of Atty. Suarez and questions his presence at the
police precinct at the very moment he underwent custodial investigation.
After a close reading of the records, this Court believes that Berry's confession is
admissible because it was voluntarily executed with the assistance of a competent
and independent counsel in the person of Atty. Suarez. In point of fact Atty. Suarez
testified that he thoroughly explained to Berry his constitutional rights and the
consequences of any statements he would give. Atty. Suarez testified as follows:
ATTY. ANTONIO:
Q:
So, what did you do upon your arrival at the police station?
A:
Upon my arrival there, I went to the desk and it so happened that there was another
case, I identified myself to the police officer who was manning the desk. And there was
another case, a small case between two (2) parties who also requested my assistance so,
I assisted them. And then, I told the police that I was actually looking for an accused of
a rape incident, and it was at that time that someone approached me and requested my
assistance.
Q:
And who is this person that approached you, Mr. witness?
A:
It was the accused, Berry.
Q:
When he approached you what did he tell you, if any?
A:
He told me, "Sir, pwede ho bang tulungan ninyo ako?" That's what I recalled him
saying.
xxxx
Q:
So, in short, Mr. witness, it was Ernesto Berry who initially approached you and asked
you to represent him?
A:
That is correct because I was there in the precinct, I was infront... I was there in the
front desk of the police precinct and when I arrived, he was not there in the general
holding area or lobby. I don't know where he came from but he was the one who
approached me.
Q:
Did you, in fact, represent this Ernesto Berry during his custodial investigation?
A:
Yes
Q:
There is testimony of Ernesto Berry during the time that he took the witness stand, Mr.
witness, that he was tortured, coerced and/or forced to sign this extra-judicial
confession. What can you say about that?
A:
What I can say is during the entire time that I was there, I made sure that we were alone
first and foremost, and I explained to him his rights under our laws. I also remember
that his relatives were present. Before I allowed the police to go inside the room, I
asked that I be left alone with the accused together with his relatives, and I talked to
him for a few minutes before anything happen.
xxxx
Q:
How was the extra-judicial confession taken, Mr. witness? In your presence or without
your presence?
A:
I recall that I was there present from the start up to the end, and never left him precisely
to protect his interest.[17]
It is clear from the foregoing testimony that Atty. Suarez is a competent and
independent counsel and that he was in fact chosen by Berry himself during the
custodial investigation; and that he was no stranger.at all to the processes and
methods of a custodial investigation. In default of proof that Atty. Suarez- was
remiss in his duties, as in this case, this Court rriust hold that the custodial
investigation of Berry was regularly conducted. For this reason, Berry's extrajudicial
confession is admissible in evidence against him.
As expected, Berry now assails the extrajudicial confession he made to Amparo.

Berry claims "he was under a very intimidating atmosphere" where "he was coerced
by the police to confess and to even name 'names'."[18] Berry insists that the only
incriminating part of his confession was his admission that he was present at the
scene of the crime. Nonetheless, he claims that he was never privy to any of the
plans involving the raping or killing of "AAA."
Berry's argument does not persuade. The CA correctly held:
It is already settled that statements spontaneously made by a suspect to news
reporters on a televised interview are deemed voluntary and are admissible in
evidence. In this case, there was no ample proof to show that appellant Berry's
narration of events to ABS-CBN reporter Dindo Amparo was the product of
intimidation or coercion, thus making the same admissible in evidence. [19]
Berry's confession is admissible in evidence because it was-voluntarily made to a
news reporter and not to the police authority or to an investigating officer. Amparo
testified that he requested Berry for an interview in connection with his confession,
and that the latter freely acceded. Hence, Berry's confession to Amparo, a news
reporter, was made freely and voluntarily and is admissible in evidence.
In an attempt to escape liability as a co-conspirator, Berry argues that although he
was present at the scene of the crime, he was not at all privy to any plans to rape
and kill "AAA."
This argument will not hold.
A closer examination of the prosecution's evidence compels the conclusion that
Berry was a co-conspirator in the rape and killing "AAA." In People v. Foncardas,
[20]
the Court held that:
Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement to commit an
unlawful act. There is, however, no need to prove a previous agreement to commit
the crime if by their overt acts, it is clear that all the accused acted in concert in the
pursuit of their unlawful design. It may even be inferred from the conduct of the
accused before, during and after the commission of the crime.
In this case, while there was no direct proof of a previous agreement to rape and
kill "AAA," it was nonetheless clear from Berry's conduct that he acted in concerted
effort and was united in intent, aim and purpose in executing the group's criminal
design. This was established by Adarna's testimony stating that he saw Berry throw
the body of "AAA" over a bridge and that he was in "AAA's" car the night she was
killed. By helping his cousin and co-accused Constahcio dispose of the body of
"AAA," Berry became 'a co-conspirator by direct participation. It is immaterial that
Berry was merely present at the scene of the crime since it is settled that in
conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all. If it is true that Berry was not privy to
the plan of raping and killing "AAA," he should have prevented the same from
happening or at the very least, left the group and reported the crime to the
authorities. Berry did neither and he even helped Constancio dispose of "AAA's"
body. Clearly, Berry, by his overt acts, became a co-conspirator by directly
participating in the execution of the criminal design.
On the other hand, Constancio argues that Berry's confession is inadmissible in
evidence against him under the principle of res inter alios acta found in Section 28,
Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, which provides that the rights of a party cannot be
prejudiced by an act, declaration, or omission of another. Our ruling in Tamargo v.
Awingan[21] pertinently explains the reason for this rule:
[O]n a principle of good faith and mutual convenience, a man's own acts are
binding upon himself, and are evidence against him. So are his conduct and
declarations. Yet it would not only be rightly inconvenient, but also manifestly
unjust, that a man should be bound by the acts of mere unauthorized strangers;
and if a party ought not to be bound by the acts of strangers, neither ought their
acts or conduct be used as evidence against him.
The general rule is that an extra-judicial confession is binding only on the
confessant and is inadmissible in evidence against his co-accused since it is
considered hearsay against them.[22] However, as an exception to this rule, the
Court has held that an extra-judicial confession is admissible against a co-accused
when it is used as circumstantial evidence to show the probability of participation of
said co-accused in the crime.[23]
In People v. Aquino,[24] this Court held that in order that an extra-judicial confession
may be used against a co-accused of the confessant, "there must be a finding of
other circumstantial evidence which when taken together with the confession would
establish the guilt of a co-accused beyond reasonable doubt." Applying the rule to
Constancy's case, the Court finds that the prosecution was able to show
circumstantial evidence to implicate him in the crime.
Significantly, Constancio was positively identified as among those who threw the
body of "AAA" over a bridge. It is significant to note that eyewitness Adarna also
attests that Constancio was riding in the very same car where "AAA" was raped and
killed. This fact leaves this Court without a doubt that Constancio is guilty of the
crime charged as the same qualifies as circumstantial evidence showing his
participation in the execution of the crime.
Short shrift must be given to Constancio's alibi because he was not able to establish
that it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime the night
"AAA" was abducted, raped, and killed. As correctly held by the trial court:
xxx However, assuming arguendo that he went up to Baguio City on February
27,2001, there is no physical impossibility for the said accused to go down from
Baguio City and proceed to Manila which will only take him at least [sic] six (6)
hours to reach and then go up again after committing the crime, x x x [25]
In line with prevailing jurisprudence, this Court hereby modifies the awards of civil
indemnity moral damages, and exemplary damages to P100,000.00 each. [26] In
addition, interest is imposed on all damages awarded at the rate of 6% per annum.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals dated
February 24, 2012 in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 02709 is AFFIRMED subject to
theMODIFICATIONS that appellants are ordered to solidarity pay the heirs of
"AAA" civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages in the increased
amounts of P100,000.00 each. All damages awarded shall earn interest at the rate
of 6% per annum from finality of this Decision until fully paid.
SO ORDERED.
Carpio, (Chairperson), Brion, Reyes,* and Leonen, JJ., concur.
Per Raffle dated March 28, 2016.
CA rollo, pp. 444-482; penned by Associate Justice Agnes Reyes-Carpio and

concurred in by Associate Justices Jose C. Reyes, Jr. and Priscilla J. Baltazar-Padilla.
[1]
[2]
Records, Vol. 4, pp. 1130-1162; penned by Judge Raul E. De Leon.
Pursuant to Republic Act No. 9262, otherwise known as the "Anti-Violence

Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004" and its implementing rules, the real
name of the victim, as well as that of her/his immediate family members, is
withheld and fictitious initials instead are used to represent her/him, both to protect
their privacy. (People v. Cabalquinto, 533 Phil. 703 [2006]).
[3]
[4]
Records, Vol. 1 ,p. 81.
[5]
Arana in some parts of the records.
[6]
Records, Vol. 5, TSN, July 17,2003, p. 15.
[7]
Id.
[8]
Records, Vol. 4, pp. 1161-1162.
[9]
CA rollo, p. 481.
[10]
Id. at 483-484.
[11]
Id. at 523-524.
[12]
Id. at 86-111.
[13]
Rollo, p. 84-101.
[14]
CA rollo, p. 169.
[15]
Id. at 103.
[16]
Id. at 105.
[18]
TSN, August 22, 2006, pp. 10-14. CA rollo, p. 109.
[19]
Id. at475, citing People v. Andan , 336 Phil. 91, 106 (1997).
[20]
466 Phil. 992, 1009 (2004), citing People v. Llanes, 394 Phil. 911, 933 (2000).
624 Phil. 312, 327 (2010), citing People v. Vda. DeRamos, 451 Phil. 214, 224
(2003).
[21]
[22]
People v. Tizon, Jr., 434 Phil. 588, 614 (2002).
[23]
Id.
[24]
369 Phil. 701, 725 (1999).
[25]
Records, Vol. IV, p. 1156.
[26]
People v. Gambao, G.R. No. 172707, October 1, 2013, 706 SCRA 508, 533.

G.R.
No.
210621
ALFREDO MANAY, JR., FIDELINO SAN LUIS, ADRIAN SAN LUIS, ANNALEE SAN LUIS, MARK ANDREW JOSE, MELISSA
JOSE, CHARLOTTE JOSE, DAN JOHN DE GUZMAN, PAUL MARK BALUYOT, AND CARLOS S. JOSE, PETITIONERS, VS.
CEBU
AIR,INC,
RESPONDENT.
April 04, 2016
SECOND DIVISION
[ G.R. No. 210621, April 04, 2016 ]
ALFREDO MANAY, JR., FIDELINO SAN LUIS, ADRIAN SAN
LUIS, ANNALEE SAN LUIS, MARK ANDREW JOSE, MELISSA
JOSE, CHARLOTTE JOSE, DAN JOHN DE GUZMAN, PAUL MARK
BALUYOT, AND CARLOS S. JOSE, PETITIONERS, VS. CEBU
AIR,INC, RESPONDENT.
DECISION
LEONEN, J.:
The Air Passenger Bill of Rights[1] mandates that the airline must inform the
passenger in writing of all the conditions and restrictions in the contract of carriage.
[2]
Purchase of the contract of carriage binds the passenger and imposes reciprocal
obligations on both the airline and the passenger. The airline must exercise
extraordinary diligence in the fulfillment of the terms and conditions of the contract
of carriage. The passenger, however, has the correlative obligation to exercise
ordinary diligence in the conduct of his or her affairs.
This resolves a Petition for Review on Certiorari[3] assailing the Court of Appeals
Decision[4] dated December 13, 2013 in CA-G.R. SP. No. 129817. In the assailed
Decision, the Court of Appeals reversed the Metropolitan Trial Court
Decision[5] dated December 15, 2011 and the Regional Trial Court Decision [6] dated
November 6, 2012 and dismissed the Complaint for Damages filed by petitioners
Alfredo Manay, Jr., Fidelino San Luis, Adrian San Luis, Annalee San Luis, Mark
Andrew Jose, Melissa Jose, Charlotte Jose, Dan John De Guzman, Paul Mark
Baluyot, and Carlos S. Jose against respondent Cebu Air, Incorporated (Cebu
Pacific).[7]
On June 13, 2008, Carlos S. Jose (Jose) purchased 20 Cebu Pacific round-trip
tickets from Manila to Palawan for himself and on behalf of his relatives and friends.
[8]
He made the purchase at Cebu Pacific's branch office in Robinsons Galleria. [9]
Jose alleged that he specified to "Alou," the Cebu Pacific ticketing agent, that his
preferred date and time of departure from Manila to Palawan should be on July 20,
2008 at 0820 (or 8:20 a.m.) and that his preferred date and time for their flight
back to Manila should be on July 22, 2008 at 1615 (or 4:15 p.m.). [10] He paid a total
amount of P42,957.00 using his credit card.[11] He alleged that after paying for the
tickets, Alou printed the tickets,[12] which consisted of three (3) pages, and
recapped only the first page to him.[13] Since the first page contained the details he
specified to Alou, he no longer read the other pages of the flight information. [14]
On July 20, 2008, Jose and his 19 companions boarded the 0820 Cebu Pacific flight
to Palawan and had an enjoyable stay.[15]
On the afternoon of July 22, 2008, the group proceeded to the airport for their
flight back to Manila.[16] During the processing of their boarding passes, they were
informed by Cebu Pacific personnel that nine (9)[17] of them could not be admitted
because their tickets were for the 1005 (or 10:05 a.m.) [18] flight earlier that day.
[19]
Jose informed the ground personnel that he personally purchased the tickets and
specifically instructed the ticketing agent that all 20 of them should be on the 4:15
p.m. flight to Manila.[20]
Upon checking the tickets, they learned that only the first two (2) pages had the
schedule Jose specified.[21] They were left with no other option but to rebook their
tickets.[22] They then learned that their return tickets had been purchased as part of
the promo sales of the airline, and the cost to rebook the flight would be P7,000.00
more expensive than the promo tickets.[23] The sum of the new tickets amounted to
P65,000.00.[24]
They offered to pay the amount by credit card but were informed by the ground
personnel that they only accepted cash.[25] They then offered to pay in dollars, since
most of them were balikbayans and had the amount on hand, but the airline
personnel still refused.[26]

Eventually, they pooled enough cash to be able to buy tickets for five (5) of their
companions.[27] The other four (4) were left behind in Palawan and had to spend
the night at an inn, incurring additional expenses.[28] Upon his arrival in Manila, Jose
immediately purchased four (4) tickets for the companions they left behind, which
amounted to P5,205.[29]
Later in July 2008, Jose went to Cebu Pacific's ticketing office in Robinsons Galleria
to complain about the allegedly erroneous booking and the rude treatment that his
group encountered from the ground personnel in Palawan. [30] He alleged that
instead of being assured by the airline that someone would address the issues he
raised, he was merely "given a run around."[31]
Jose and his companions were frustrated and annoyed by Cebu Pacific's handling of
the incident so they sent the airline demand letters dated September 3, 2008 [32]and
January 20, 2009[33] asking for a reimbursement of P42,955.00, representing the
additional amounts spent to purchase the nine (9) tickets, the accommodation, and
meals of the four (4) that were left behind.[34] They also filed a complaint[35] before
the Department of Trade and Industry.[36]
On February 24, 2009, Cebu Pacific, through its Guest Services Department, sent
petitioners' counsel an email[37] explaining that "ticketing agents, like Alou, recap
[the] flight details to the purchaser to avoid erroneous booking[s]." [38] The recap is
given one other time by the cashier.[39] Cebu Pacific stated that according to its
records, Jose was given a full recap and was made aware of the flight restriction of
promo tickets,[40] "which included [the] promo fare being non-refundable." [41]
Jose and his companions were unsatisfied with Cebu Pacific's response so they filed
a Complaint[42] for Damages against Cebu Pacific before Branch 59 of the
Metropolitan Trial Court of Mandaluyong.[43] The Complaint prayed for actual
damages in the amount of P42,955.00, moral damages in the amount of
P45,000.00, exemplary damages in the amount of P50,000.00, and attorney's fees.
[44]
In its Answer,[45] Cebu Pacific essentially denied all the allegations in the Complaint
and insisted that Jose was given a full recap of the tickets. [46] It also argued that
Jose had possession of the tickets 37 days before the scheduled flight; hence, he
had sufficient time and opportunity to check the flight information and itinerary.
[47]
It also placed a counterclaim of PI00,000.00 by reason that it was constrained to
litigate and it incurred expenses for litigation.[48]
On December 15, 2011, the Metropolitan Trial Court rendered its Decision ordering
Cebu Pacific to pay Jose and his companions P41,044.50 in actual damages and
P20,000.00 in attorney's fees with costs of suit.[49] The Metropolitan Trial Court
found that as a common carrier, Cebu Pacific should have exercised extraordinary
diligence in performing its contractual obligations. [50] According to the Metropolitan
Trial Court, Cebu Pacific's ticketing agent "should have placed markings or
underlined the time of the departure of the nine passengers" [51] who were not in the
afternoon flight since it was only logical for Jose to expect that all of them would be
on the same flight.[52] It did not find merit, however, in the allegation that the
airline's ground personnel treated Jose and his companions rudely since this
allegation was unsubstantiated by evidence.[53]
Cebu Pacific appealed to the Regional Trial Court, reiterating that its ticketing agent
gave Jose a full recap of the tickets he purchased.[54]
On November 6, 2012, Branch 212 of the Regional Trial Court of Mandaluyong
rendered the Decision dismissing the appeal.[55] The Regional Trial Court affirmed
the findings of the Metropolitan Trial Court but deleted the award of attorney's fees
on the ground that this was granted without stating any ground under Article 2208
of the Civil Code to justify its grant.[56]
Cebu Pacific appealed to the Court of Appeals, arguing that it was not at fault for
the damages caused to the passengers.[57]
On December 13, 2013, the Court of Appeals rendered the Decision granting the
appeal and reversing the Decisions of the Metropolitan Trial Court and the Regional
Trial Court.[58] According to the Court of Appeals, the extraordinary diligence
expected of common carriers only applies to the carriage of passengers and not to
the act of encoding the requested flight schedule.[59] It was incumbent upon the
passenger to exercise ordinary care in reviewing flight details and checking
schedules.[60]Cebu Pacific's counterclaim, however, was denied since there was no
evidence that Jose and his companions filed their Complaint in bad faith and with
malice.[61]
Aggrieved, Alfredo Manay, Jr., Fidelino San Luis, Adrian San Luis, Annalee San Luis,
Mark Andrew Jose, Melissa Jose, Charlotte Jose, Dan John De Guzman, Paul Mark
Baluyot, and Carlos S. Jose (Jose, et al.) filed before this Court a Petition for Review
on Certiorari[62] assailing the Court of Appeals' December 13, 2013 Decision. [63]
Cebu Pacific was ordered to comment on the Petition. Upon compliance, [65] Jose, et
al. submitted their Reply.[66] The parties were then directed[67] to submit their
respective memoranda.[68]
Jose, et al. argue that Cebu Pacific is a common carrier obligated to exercise
extraordinary diligence to carry Jose, et al. to their destination at the time clearly
instructed to its ticketing agent.[69] They argue that they have the decision to
choose flight schedules and that Cebu Pacific should not choose it for them. [70] They
insist that they have made their intended flight schedule clear to the ticketing agent
and it would have been within normal human behavior for them to expect that their
entire group would all be on the same flight.[71] They argue that they should not
have to ask for a full recap of the tickets since they are under no obligation, as
passengers, to remind Cebu Pacific's ticketing agent of her duties. [72]
Jose, et al. further pray that they be awarded actual damages in the amount of
P43,136.52 since the Metropolitan Trial Court erroneously failed to add the costs of
accommodations and dinner spent on by four (4) of the petitioners who were left
behind in Palawan.[73] They also pray for PI00,000.00 in moral damages and
P100,000.00 in exemplary damages for the "profound distress and anxiety" [74] they
have undergone from the experience, with PI00,000.00 in attorney's fees to
represent the reasonable expenses incurred from "engaging the services of their
counsel."[75]
Cebu Pacific, on the other hand, argues that the damage in this case was caused by
Jose, et al.'s "gross and inexplicable [negligence.]"[76] It maintains that Jose, et al.
should have read the details of their flight, and if there were errors in the encoded
flight details, Jose, et al. would still have ample time to have the error corrected.
[77]
It argues further that its ticketing agent did not neglect giving Jose a full recap
of his purchase since the tickets clearly indicated in the "Comments" section: "FULL
RECAP GVN TO CARLOS JOSE."[78]
Cebu Pacific further posits that according to the Parol Evidence Rule, the plane
tickets issued to Jose, et al. contain all the terms the parties agreed on, and it was
agreed that nine (9) of the passengers would be on the July 22, 2008, 1005 flight
to Manila.[79] It argues that Jose, et al. have not been able to present any evidence
to substantiate their allegation that their intent was to be on the July 22, 2008
1615 flight to Manila.[80]
From the arguments in the parties' pleadings, the sole issue before this Court is
whether respondent Cebu Air, Inc. is liable to petitioners Alfredo Manay, Jr., Fidelino
San Luis, Adrian San Luis, Annalee San Luis, Mark Andrew Jose, Melissa Jose,
Charlotte Jose, Dan John De Guzman, Paul Mark Baluyot, and Carlos S. Jose for
damages for the issuance of a plane ticket with an allegedly erroneous flight
schedule.
I
Although it was not mentioned by the parties, a procedural issue must first be
addressed before delving into the merits of the case.

Petitioners received the assailed Court of Appeals Decision on December 27, 2013.
[81]
They chose to forego the filing of a motion for reconsideration. Instead,
petitioners filed before this Court a Motion for Extension of Time [82] on January 13,
2014.
Under Rule 45, Section 2 of the Rules of Court,[83] petitioners only had 15 days or
until January 11, 2014 to file their petition. Since January 11, 2014 fell on a
Saturday, petitioners could have filed their pleading on the following Monday, or on
January 13, 2014.
In their Motion for Extension of Time, however, petitioners requested an additional
30 days from January 13, 2014 within which to file their petition for review on
certiorari.[84]
This Court already clarified the periods of extension in A.M. No. 00-2-14-SC: [85]
Whereas, Section 1, Rule 22 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure provides:
Section 1. How to compute time. - In computing any period of time prescribed or
allowed by these Rules, or by order of the court, or by any applicable statute, the
day of the act or event from which the designated period of time begins to run is to
be excluded and the date of performance included. If the last day of the period, as
thus computed, falls on a Saturday, a Sunday, or a legal holiday in the place where
the court sits, the time shall not run until the next working day.
Whereas, the aforecited provision applies in the matter of filing of pleadings in
courts when the due date falls on a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday, in which
case, the filing of the said pleading on the next working day is deemed on time;
Whereas, the question has been raised if the period is extended ipso jure to the
next working day immediately following where the last day of the period is a
Saturday, Sunday or a legal holiday, so that when a motion for extension of time is
filed, the period of extension is to be reckoned from the next working day and not
from the original expiration of the period.
NOW THEREFORE, the Court Resolves, for the guidance of the Bench and the Bar, to
declare that Section 1, Rule 22 speaks only of "the last day of the period" so that
when a party seeks an extension and the same is granted, the due date ceases to
be the last day and hence, the provision no longer applies. Any extension of time to
file the required pleading should therefore be counted from the expiration of the
period regardless of the fact that said due date is a Saturday, Sunday or legal
holiday. (Emphasis supplied)
Thus, petitioners' request for extension of time should have been reckoned from the
original due date on January 11, 2014, even if this day fell on a Saturday. A request
for extension of 30 days would have ended on February 10, 2014. [86]
Petitioners subsequently filed their Petition for Review on Certiorari on February 12,
2014.[87] Pursuant to A.M. No. 00-2-14-SC,[88] this Petition would have been filed out
of time.
We are not, however, precluded from granting the period of extension requested
and addressing the Petition filed on its merits, instead of outright dismissing it.
After all, "[l]itigations should, as much as possible, be decided on the merits and
not on technicalities."[89]
However, it does not follow that in the relaxation of the procedural rules, this Court
automatically rules in favor of petitioners. Their case must still stand on its own
merits for this Court to grant the relief petitioners pray for.
II
Common carriers are required to exercise extraordinary diligence in the
performance of its obligations under the contract of carriage. This extraordinary
diligence must be observed not only in the transportation of goods and services but
also in the issuance of the contract of carriage, including its ticketing operations.
Article 1732 of the Civil Code defines a common carrier as "persons, corporations or
firms, or associations engaged in the business of carrying or transporting
passengers or goods or both, by land, water or air, for compensation, offering their
services to the public." Articles 1733, 1755, and 1756 of the Civil Code outline the
degree of diligence required of common carriers:
....
ARTICLE 1733. Common carriers, from the nature of their business and for reasons
of public policy, are bound to observe extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over
the goods and for the safety of the passengers transported by them, according to
all the circumstances of each case.
ARTICLE 1755. A common carrier is bound to carry the passengers safely as far as
human care and foresight can provide, using the utmost diligence of very cautious
persons, with a due regard for all the circumstances.
ARTICLE 1756. In case of death of or injuries to passengers, common carriers are
presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently, unless they prove that
they observed extraordinary diligence as prescribed in articles 1733 and 1755.
Respondent, as one of the four domestic airlines in the country,[90] is a common
carrier required by law to exercise extraordinary diligence. Extraordinary diligence
requires that the common carrier must transport goods and passengers "safely as
far as human care and foresight can provide," and it must exercise the "utmost
diligence of very cautious persons . . . with due regard for all the circumstances." [91]
When a common carrier, through its ticketing agent, has not yet issued a ticket to
the prospective passenger, the transaction between them is still that of a seller and
a buyer. The obligation of the airline to exercise extraordinary diligence commences
upon the issuance of the contract of carriage.[92] Ticketing, as the act of issuing the
contract of carriage, is necessarily included in the exercise of extraordinary
diligence.
A contract of carriage is defined as "one whereby a certain person or association of
persons obligate themselves to transport persons, things, or news from one place
to another for a fixed price."[93] In Cathay Pacific Airways v. Reyes:[94]
[W]hen an airline issues a ticket to a passenger confirmed on a particular flight, on
a certain date, a contract of carriage arises, and the passenger has every right to
expect that he would fly on that flight and on that date. If he does not, then the
carrier opens itself to a suit for breach of contract of carriage. [95] (Emphasis
supplied)
Once a plane ticket is issued, the common carrier binds itself to deliver the
passenger safely on the date and time stated in the ticket. The contractual
obligation of the common carrier to the passenger is governed principally by what is
written on the contract of carriage.
In this case, both parties stipulated[96] that the flight schedule stated on the nine (9)
disputed tickets was the 10:05 a.m. flight of July 22, 2008. According to the
contract of carriage, respondent's obligation as a common carrier was to transport
nine (9) of the petitioners safely on the 10:05 a.m. flight of July 22, 2008.
Petitioners, however, argue that respondent was negligent in the issuance of the
contract of carriage since the contract did not embody their intention. They insist
that the nine (9) disputed tickets should have been scheduled for the 4:15 p.m.
flight of July 22, 2008. Respondent, on the other hand, denies this and states that
petitioner Jose was fully informed of the schedules of the purchased tickets and
petitioners were negligent when they failed to correct their ticket schedule.
Respondent relies on the Parol Evidence Rule in arguing that a written document is
considered the best evidence of the terms agreed on by the parties. Petitioners,
however, invoke the exception in Rule 130, Section 9(b) of the Rules of Court that
evidence may be introduced if the written document fails to express the true intent
of the parties:[97]
Section 9. Evidence of written agreements. When the terms of an agreement have
been reduced to writing, it is considered as containing all the terms agreed upon
and there can be, between the parties and their successors in interest, no evidence
of such terms other than the contents of the written agreement.
However, a party may present evidence to modify, explain or add to the terms of
the written agreement if he puts in issue in his pleading:
(a) An intrinsic ambiguity, mistake, or imperfection in the written agreement;
(b) The failure of the written agreement to express the true intent and agreement
of the parties thereto;
(c) The validity of the written agreement; or
(d) The existence of other terms agreed to by the parties or their successors in
interest after the execution of the written agreement.
In ACI Philippines, Inc. v. Coquia:[98]
It is a cardinal rule of evidence, not just one of technicality but of substance, that
the written document is the best evidence of its own contents. It is also a matter of
both principle and policy that when the written contract is established as the
repository of the parties stipulations, any other evidence is excluded and the same
cannot be used as a substitute for such contract, nor even to alter or contradict
them. This rule, however, is not without exception. Section 9, Rule 130 of the Rules
of Court states that a party may present evidence to modify, explain or add to the
terms of the agreement if he puts in issue in his pleading the failure of the written
agreement to express the true intent and agreement of the parties. [99]
It is not disputed that on June 13, 2008, petitioner Jose purchased 20 ManilaPalawan-Manila tickets from respondent's ticketing agent. Since all 20 tickets were
part of a single transaction made by a single purchaser, it is logical to presume that
all 20 passengers would prefer the same flight schedule, unless the purchaser
stated otherwise.
In petitioners' Position Paper before the Metropolitan Trial Court, they maintain that
respondent's ticketing agent was negligent when she failed to inform or explain to
petitioner Jose that nine (9) members of their group had been booked for the 10:05
a.m. flight, and not the 4:15 p.m. flight.[100]
The first page of the tickets contained the names of eight (8) passengers. [101] In the
Information box on the left side of the ticket, it reads:
Sunday, July 20, 2008
HK PHP999.00 PHP
5J 637 MNL-PPS 08:20- 09:35
Tuesday, July 22, 2008 HK PHP999.00 PH
5J 640 PPS-MNL 16:15- 17:30[102]
In the Comments box, it reads:
R - FULL RECAP GVN TO CARLOS JOSE//AWRE
I - FULL RECAP GVN TO CARLOS JOSE//AWRE
M - FULL RECAP GVN TO CARLOS JOSE//AWRI[103]
The second page contained the names of three (3) passengers. [104] In the
Information box, it reads:
HK PHP1,998.00 PH
5J 637 MNL-PPS 08:20- 09:35
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
HK PHP999.00 PH
5J 640 PPS-MNL 16:15- 17:30[105]
Under the caption "Comments," it reads:
R - FULL RECAP GVN TO CARLOS JOSE//AWRE
I - FULL RECAP GVN TO CARLOS JOSE//AWRE
M - FULL RECAP GVN TO CARLOS JOSE//AWRI[106]
The third page contained the names of nine (9) passengers. [107] In the Information
box, it reads:
HK PHP999.00 PHP
5J637MNL-PPS 08:20-09:35
Tuesday, July 22, 2008 HK PHP999.00 PH
5J638PPS-MNL 10:05-11:20[108]
In the Comments box, it reads:
R - FULL RECAP GVNT O JOSE//CARLOS AWRE
R - NON-REFUNDBLE//VALID TIL 15 OCT08 O[109]
Respondent explained that as a matter of protocol, flight information is recapped to

the purchaser twice: first by the ticketing agent before payment, and second by the
cashier during payment. The tickets were comprised of three (3) pages. Petitioners
argue that only the first page was recapped to petitioner Jose when he made the
purchase.
The common carrier's obligation to exercise extraordinary diligence in the issuance
of the contract of carriage is fulfilled by requiring a full review of the flight
schedules to be given to a prospective passenger before payment. Based on the
information stated on the contract of carriage, all three (3) pages were recapped to
petitioner Jose.
The only evidence petitioners have in order to prove their true intent of having the
entire group on the 4:15 p.m. flight is petitioner Jose's self-serving testimony that
the airline failed to recap the last page of the tickets to him. They have neither
shown nor introduced any other evidence before the Metropolitan Trial Court,
Regional Trial Court, Court of Appeals, or this Court.
Even assuming that the ticketing agent encoded the incorrect flight information, it
is incumbent upon the purchaser of the tickets to at least check if all the
information is correct before making the purchase. Once the ticket is paid for and
printed, the purchaser is presumed to have agreed to all its terms and conditions.
In Ong Yiu v. Court of Appeals:[110]
While it may be true that petitioner had not signed the plane ticket, he is
nevertheless bound by the provisions thereof. "Such provisions have been held to
be a part of the contract of carriage, and valid and binding upon the passenger
regardless of the latter's lack of knowledge or assent to the regulation." It is what is
known as a contract of "adhesion," in regards which it has been said that contracts
of adhesion wherein one party imposes a ready made form of contract on the other,
as the plane ticket in the case at bar, are contracts not entirely prohibited. The one
who adheres to the contract is in reality free to reject it entirely; if he adheres, he
gives his consent.[111]
One of the terms stated in petitioners' tickets stipulates that the photo identification
of the passenger must match the name entered upon booking:
Guests should present a valid photo ID to airport security and upon check-in. Valid
IDs for this purpose are Company ID, Driver's License, Passport, School ID, SSS
Card, TIN Card. The name in the photo-ID should match the guest name that was
entered upon booking. Failure to present a valid photo ID will result in your being
refused check-in.[112]
Considering that respondent was entitled to deny check-in to passengers whose

names do not match their photo identification, it would have been prudent for
petitioner Jose to check if all the names of his companions were encoded correctly.
Since the tickets were for 20 passengers, he was expected to have checked each
name on each page of the tickets in order to see if all the passengers' names were
encoded and correctly spelled. Had he done this, he would have noticed that there
was a different flight schedule encoded on the third page of the tickets since the
flight schedule was stated directly above the passengers' names.
Petitioners' flight information was not written in fine print. It was clearly stated on
the left portion of the ticket above the passengers' names. If petitioners had
exercised even the slightest bit of prudence, they would have been able to remedy
any erroneous booking.
This is not the first time that this Court has explained that an air passenger has the
correlative duty to exercise ordinary care in the conduct of his or her affairs.
In Crisostomo v. Court of Appeals,[113] Estela Crisostomo booked a European tour
with Caravan Travel and Tours, a travel agency. She was informed by Caravan's
travel agent to be at the airport on Saturday, two (2) hours before her flight.
Without checking her travel documents, she proceeded to the airport as planned,
only to find out that her flight was actually scheduled the day before. She
subsequently filed a suit for damages against Caravan Travel and Tours based on
the alleged negligence of their travel agent in informing her of the wrong flight
details.[114]
This Court, while ruling that a travel agency was not a common carrier and was not
bound to exercise extraordinary diligence in the performance of its obligations, also
laid down the degree of diligence concurrently required of passengers:
Contrary to petitioner's claim, the evidence on record shows that respondent
exercised due diligence in performing its obligations under the contract and
followed standard procedure in rendering its services to petitioner. As correctly
observed by the lower court, the plane ticket issued to petitioner clearly reflected
the departure date and time, contrary to petitioner's contention. The travel
documents, consisting of the tour itinerary, vouchers and instructions, were likewise
delivered to petitioner two days prior to the trip. Respondent also properly booked
petitioner for the tour, prepared the necessary documents and procured the plane
tickets. It arranged petitioner's hotel accommodation as well as food, land transfers
and sightseeing excursions, in accordance with its avowed undertaking.
Therefore, it is clear that respondent performed its prestation under the contract as
well as everything else that was essential to book petitioner for the tour. Had
petitioner exercised due diligence in the conduct of her affairs, there would have
been no reason for her to miss the flight. Needless to say, after the travel papers
were delivered to petitioner, it became incumbent upon her to take ordinary care of
her concerns. This undoubtedly would require that she at least read the documents
in order to assure herself of the important details regarding the trip.[115] (Emphasis
supplied)
Most of the petitioners were balikbayans.[116] It is reasonable to presume that they
were adequately versed with the procedures of air travel, including familiarizing
themselves with the itinerary before departure. Moreover, the tickets were issued
37 days before their departure from Manila and 39 days from their departure from
Palawan. There was more than enough time to correct any alleged mistake in the
flight schedule.
Petitioners, in failing to exercise the necessary care in the conduct of their affairs,
were without a doubt negligent. Thus, they are not entitled to damages.
Before damages may be awarded, "the claimant should satisfactorily show the
existence of the factual basis of damages and its causal connection to defendant's
acts."[117] The cause of petitioners' injury was their own negligence; hence, there is
no reason to award moral damages. Since the basis for moral damages has not
been established, there is no basis to recover exemplary damages [118] and
attorney's fees[119] as well.
III
Traveling by air for leisure is a fairly new concept to the average Filipino. From
1974, there was only one local airline commanding a monopoly on domestic air
travel.[120] In 1996, respondent introduced the concept of a budget airline in the
Philippines, touting "low-cost services to more destinations and routes with higher
flight frequency within the Philippines than any other airline."[121] In its inception,
respondent offered plane fares that were "40% to 50% lower than [Philippine
Airlines]."[122]
On March 1, 2007, to celebrate its new fleet of aircraft, respondent offered a promo
of P1.00 base fare for all their domestic and international destinations. [123] The fare
was non-refundable and exclusive of taxes and surcharges. [124]
Despite the conditions imposed on these "piso fares," more people were enticed to
travel by air. From January to June 2007, respondent had a total number of
2,256,289 passengers while Philippines Airlines had a total of 1,981,267
passengers.[125] The domestic air travel market also had a 24% increase in the first
half of 2007.[126]
Promotional fares encouraged more Filipinos to travel by air as the number of fliers
in the country increased from 7.2 million in 2005 to 16.5 million in 2010.127 The
emergence of low-cost carriers "liberalized [the] aviation regime"[128] and
contributed to an "unprecedented and consistent double digit growth rates of
domestic and international travel"[129] from 2007 to 2012.
This development, however, came with its own set of problems. Numerous
complaints were filed before the Department of Trade and Industry and the
Department of Transportation and Communications, alleging "unsatisfactory airline
service"[130] as a result of flight overbooking, delays, and cancellations.[131]
This prompted concerned government agencies to issue Department of
Transportation and Communications-Department of Trade and Industry Joint
Administrative Order No. 1, Series of 2012, otherwise known as the Air Passenger
Bill of Rights.
Section 4 of the Joint Administrative Order requires airlines to provide the
passenger with accurate information before the purchase of the ticket:
Section 4. Right to Full, Fair, and Clear Disclosure of the Service Offered
and All the Terms and Conditions of the Contract of Carriage. Every
passenger shall, before purchasing any ticket for a contract of carriage by the air
carrier or its agents, be entitled to the full, fair, and clear disclosure of all the terms
and conditions of the contract of carriage about to be purchased. The disclosure
shall include, among others, documents required to be presented at check-in,
provisions on check-in deadlines, refund and rebooking policies, and procedures and
responsibility for delayed and/or cancelled flights. These terms and conditions may
include liability limitations, claim-filing deadlines, and other crucial conditions.
4.1 An air carrier shall cause the disclosure under this Section to be printed on or
attached to the passenger ticket and/or boarding pass, or the incorporation of such
terms and conditions of carriage by reference. Incorporation by reference means
that the ticket and/or boarding pass shall clearly state that the complete terms and
conditions of carriage are available for perusal and/or review on the air carrier's
website, or in some other document that may be sent to or delivered by post or
electronic mail to the passenger upon his/her request.
....
4.3 Aside from the printing and/or publication of the above disclosures, the same
shall likewise be verbally explained to the passenger by the air carrier and/or its
agent/s in English and Filipino, or in a language that is easily understood by the
purchaser, placing emphasis on the limitations and/or restrictions attached to the

ticket.
.....
4.5 Any violation of the afore-stated provisions shall be a ground for the denial of
subsequent applications for approval of promotional fare, or for the suspension or
recall of the approval made on the advertised fare/rate. (Emphasis in the original)
The Air Passenger Bill of Rights recognizes that a contract of carriage is a contract
of adhesion, and thus, all conditions and restrictions must be fully explained to the
passenger before the purchase of the ticket:
WHEREAS, such a contract of carriage creates an asymmetrical relationship
between an air carrier and a passenger, considering that, while a passenger has the
option to buy or not to buy the service, the decision of the passenger to buy the
ticket binds such passenger, by adhesion, to all the conditions and/or restrictions
attached to the air carrier ticket on an all-or-nothing basis, without any say,
whatsoever, with regard to the reasonableness of the individual conditions and
restrictions attached to the air carrier ticket;[132]
Section 4.4 of the Air Passenger Bill of Rights requires that "all rebooking,
refunding, baggage allowance and check-in policies" must be stated in the tickets:
4.4 The key terms of a contract of carriage, which should include, among others,
the rebooking, refunding, baggage allowance and check-in policies, must be
provided to a passenger and shall substantially be stated in the following manner
and, if done in print, must be in bold letters:
(English)
"NOTICE:
The ticket that you are purchasing is subject to the following
conditions/restrictions:
1. _______________
2. _______________
3. _______________
Your purchase of this ticket becomes a binding contract on your part to

follow the terms and conditions of the ticket and of the flight. Depending
on the fare rules applicable to your ticket, non-use of the same may result
in forfeiture of the fare or may subject you to the payment of penalties and
additional charges if you wish to change or cancel your booking.

For more choices and/or control in your flight plans, please consider other
fare types."
(Filipino)
"PAALALA:
Ang tiket na ito ay binibili ninyo nang may mga kondisyon/ restriksyon:
1. _______________
2. _______________
3. _______________
Sa pagpili at pagbili ng tiket na ito, kayo ay sumasang-ayon sa mga
kondisyon at restriksyon na nakalakip dito, bilang kontrata ninyo sa air
carrier. Depende sa patakarang angkop sa iyong tiket, ang hindi paggamit
nito ay maaaring magresulta sa pagwawalang bisa sa inyong tiket o sa
paniningil ng karagdagang bayad kung nais ninyong baguhin o kanselahin
ang inyong tiket.
Para sa mas maraming pagpipilian at malawak na control sa inyong flight,
inaanyayahan kayong bumili ng iba pang klase ng tiket galing sa air
carrier." (Emphasis in the original)
The Air Passenger Bill of Rights acknowledges that "while a passenger has the
option to buy or not to buy the service, the decision of the passenger to buy the
ticket binds such passenger[.]"[133] Thus, the airline is mandated to place in writing
all the conditions it will impose on the passenger.
However, the duty of an airline to disclose all the necessary information in the
contract of carriage does not remove the correlative obligation of the passenger to
exercise ordinary diligence in the conduct of his or her affairs. The passenger is still
expected to read through the flight information in the contract of carriage before
making his or her purchase. If he or she fails to exercise the ordinary diligence
expected of passengers, any resulting damage should be borne by the passenger.
WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
[1]
DOTC-DTI Joint Adm. O. No. 1 (2012).
[2]
DOTC-DTI Joint Adm. O. No. 1 (2012), sec. 4.
[3]
Rollo, pp. 15-27.
Id. at 33-48. The Decision was penned by Associate Justice Marlene GonzalesSison and concurred in by Associate Justices Rosmari D. Carandang (Chair) and
Edwin D. Sorongon of the Fifth Division.
[4]
Id. at 55-63. The Decision was penned by Presiding Judge Flordeliza M. Silao of
Branch 59 of the Metropolitan Trial Court, City of Mandaluyong.
[5]
Id. at 49-54. The Decision was penned by Judge Rizalina T. Capco-Umali of

Branch 212 of the Regional Trial Court, City of Mandaluyong.
[6]
[7]
[8]
Id. at 49-50, Regional Trial Court Decision.
[9]
Id. at 49.
[10]
Id.
[11]
Id.
[12]
Id. at 380-382.
[13]
[14]
Id.
[15]
Id. at 50.
[16]
Id.
Id. at 382, plane ticket. The nine (9) passengers were Alfredo Manay, Jr.,
Fidelino San Luis, Adrian San Luis, Annalee San Luis, Mark Andrew Jose, Melissa
Jose, Charlotte Jose, Dan John De Guzman, and Paul Mark Baluyot.
[17]
[18]
Id.
[19]
[20]
Id.
[21]
Id.
[22]
Id.
[23]
[24]
Id.
[25]
Id.
[26]
Id.
[27]
Id.
[28]
Id. at 36.
[29]
Id. at 35.
[30]
Id. at 36.
[31]
Id.
[32]
Id. at 266-268.
[33]
Id. at 270-271.
[34]
[35]
Id. at 272-273.
[36]
[37]
Id. at 344.
[38]
[39]
Id.
[40]
Id. at 36-37.
[41]
[42]
Id. at 232-247.
Cebu Pacific was referred to as "Cebu Pacific, Incorporated" in the Metropolitan

Trial Court and Regional Trial Court and as "Cebu Air, Incorporated (doing business
as Cebu Pacific)" before the Court of Appeals.
[43]
[44]
Rollo, p. 245, Complaint.
[45]
Id. at 134-140.
[46]
Id. at 137.
[47]
Id.
[48]
Id.
[49]
Id. at 62, Metropolitan Trial Court Decision.
[50]
Id. at 60.
[51]
Id.
[52]
Id.
[53]
Id. at 61-62.
[54]
[55]
Id. at 54.
[56]
Id.
[57]
[58]
Id. at 47.
[59]
Id. at 43.
[60]
Id. at 45-46.
[61]
Id. at 47.
[62]
[63]
Id. at 24.
[64]
Id. at 75, Supreme Court Resolution dated March 10,2014.
[65]
Id. at 76-88, Comment.
[66]
Id. at 461-466.
[67]
Id. at 470-471, Supreme Court Resolution dated October 20, 2014.
Id. at 472^488, Cebu Pacific's Memorandum, and 831-847, Alfredo Manay, Jr.,
et al.'s Memorandum. Id. at 837, Alfredo Manay, Jr., et al.'s Memorandum.
[68]
[70]
Id.
[71]
Id. at 838.
[72]
Id.
[73]
Id. at 842^843.
[74]
Id. at 843.
[75]
Id. at 842.
[76]
Id. at 481, Cebu Pacific's Memorandum.
[77]
Id.
[78]
Id. at 482.
[79]
Id. at 483-484.
[80]
Id. at 484.
[81]
Id. at 3, Motion for Extension of Time (to File Petition for Review on Certiorari).
[82]
Id. at 3-6.
[83]
Section 2. Time for filing; extension. The petition shall be filed within fifteen (15)
days from notice of the judgment or final order or resolution appealed from, or of
the denial of the petitioner's motion for new trial or reconsideration filed in due time
after notice of the judgment. On motion duly filed and served, with full payment of
the docket and other lawful fees and the deposit for costs before the expiration of
the reglementary period, the Supreme Court may for justifiable reasons grant an
extension of thirty (30) days only within which to file the petition.
Rollo, p. 4, Motion for Extension of Time (to File Petition for Review on
Certiorari).
[84]
Entitled Re: Computation of Time When the Last Day Falls on a Saturday,
Sunday or a Legal Holiday and a Motion for Extension on Next Working Day is
Granted(2000).
[85]
Rollo, p. 4, Motion for Extension of Time (to File Petition for Review on
Certiorari).
[86]
[87]
Entitled Re: Computation of Time When the Last Day Falls on a Saturday,
Sunday or a Legal Holiday and a Motion for Extension on Next Working Day is
Granted(2000).
[88]
Montajes v. People, 684 Phil. 1, 11 (2012) [Per J. Peralta, Third Division],

citing Fabrigar v. People, 466 Phil. 1036, 1044 (2004) [Per J. Callejo, Sr., Second
Division].
[89]
DOTC Civil Aeronautics Board, Domestic Airlines

http://www.cab.gov.ph/directory/domestic- airlines (visited March 15, 2016). The
other domestic commercial airlines are Philippine Airlines, Air Asia Philippines, and
SkyJet. Tiger Airways Philippines and SeAir, Inc. have since been absorbed by Cebu
Pacific while Zest Air has been absorbed by Air Asia Philippines.
[90]
[91]
This, of course, is specific to airlines as common carriers, as an air passenger

cannot board a plane without a plane ticket. On the other hand, a prospective
[91]
passenger may board a bus before the bus company issues the bus ticket. In this
instance, the obligation of the bus company to exercise extraordinary diligence
commences upon the physical act of transporting the prospective passenger.
Crisostomo v. Court of Appeals, 456 Phil. 845, 855 (2003) [Per J. YnaresSantiago, First Division], citing 4 AGUEDO F. AGBAYANI, COMMENTARIES AND
JURISPRUDENCE ON THE COMMERCIAL LAWS OF THE PHILIPPINES 1 (1993), in
turn citing 1 Blanco 640.
[93]
[94]
G.R. No. 185891, June 26, 2013, 699 SCRA725 [Per J. Perez, Second Division].
Id. at 738, citing Japan Airlines v. Simangan, 575 Phil. 359, 374-375 (2008)
[Per J. R.T. Reyes, Third Division].
[95]
[96]
Rollo, p. 59, Metropolitan Trial Court Decision.
[97]
Id. at 840-841, Alfredo Manay, Jr., et al.'s Memorandum.
[98]
580 Phil. 275 (2008) [Per J. Tinga, Second Division].
Id. at 284, citing Sabio v. The International Corporate Bank, Inc. 416 Phil. 785
(2001) [Per J. Ynares- Santiago, First Division].
[99]
[100]
Rollo, p. 58, Metropolitan Trial Court Decision.
Id. at 331, plane ticket. The eight (8) passengers were Violeta Manay, Carlos
Jose, Audrey Jose, Cyde Cheraisse Jose, Julita Jose, Priscilla San Luis, Federico
Jose, and Marc Louie Manay.
[101]
[102]
Id.
[103]
Id.
Id. at 332. The three (3) passengers were Maricris Sitjar, Dianaden Ada, and
Krisha Joy Saladaga.
[104]
[105]
Id.
[106]
Id.
Id. at 333. The nine (9) passengers were Alfredo Manay, Jr., Fidelino San Luis,
Adrian San Luis, Annalee San Luis, Mark Andrew Jose, Melissa Jose, Charlotte Jose,
Dan John De Guzman, and Paul Mark Baluyot.
[107]
[108]
Id.
[109]
Id.
[110]
180 Phil. 185 (1979) [Per J. Melencio-Herrera, First Division].
Id. at 193,
N.Y.S. 2d 400;
Air Lines, Inc.,
JUSTICE J.B.L.
[111]
citing Tannebaum v. National Airline, Inc. 13 Misc. 2d 450, 176

Lichten vs. Eastern Airlines, 87 Fed. Supp. 691; Migoski v. Eastern
Fla. 63 So. 2d 634; 4 TOLENTINO, CIVIL CODE 462 (1962); and
REYES, LAWYER'S JOURNAL 49 (1951).
[112]
Rollo, pp. 331-333, plane tickets.
[113]
456 Phil. 845 (2003) [Per J. Ynares-Santiago, First Division].
[114]
Id. at 850-851.
[115]
Id. at 858-859.
Rollo, pp. 91-92, Complaint. According to the Complaint, Fidelino San Luis,
Adrian San Luis, and Annalee San Luis were American citizens and residents of
California, while Mark Andrew Jose, Melissa Jose, and Charlotte Jose were
Australian citizens and residents of New South Wales. Alfredo Manay, Jr., Dan John
De Guzman, Paul Mark Baluyot, and Carlos S. Jose were Filipino citizens and
residents of Metro Manila.
[116]
Keirulf v. Court of Appeals, 336 Phil., 414, 431^32 (1997) [Per J. Panganiban,
Third Division].
[117]
[118]
Art. 2234. While the amount of the exemplary damages need not be proven, the
plaintiff must show that he is entitled to moral, temperate or compensatory
damages before the court may consider the question of whether or not exemplary
damages should be awarded[.]
[119]
Art. 2208. In the absence of stipulation, attorney's fees and expenses of litigation,
other than judicial costs, cannot be recovered, except: When exemplary damages
are awarded;
[120]
Philippine Airlines,
History and Milestones (visited March 15, 2016).
[121]
Cebu Pacific, About Cebu Pacific (visited March 15, 2016).
Sunshine Lichauco De Leon, Making Flying Fun, Forbes Online, May 26,
2011 (visited March 15, 2016).
[122]
Cebu Pacific, Cebu Pacific offers P1 fare to all domestic & International
destinations, March 1, 2007 (visited March 15, 2016).
[123]
Cebu Pacific, Cebu Pacific marks domestic leadership with P1 fare to all
domestic destinations, September 6, 2007 (visited March 15,2016).
[124]
Cebu Pacific, CAB confirms Cebu Pacific is really the No. 1 domestic airline,
August 30, 2007 (visited March 15, 2016).
[125]
[126]
Id., data from the Civil Aeronautics Board.
Sunshine Lichauco De Leon, Making Flying Fun, Forbes Online, May 26,
2011 (visited March 15,2016).
[127]
[128]
DOTC-DTI Joint Adm. O. No. 1 (2012), third whereas clause.
[129]
DOTC-DTI Joint Adm. O. No. 1 (2012), third whereas clause.
Raul J. Palabrica, Truth in Airline Promos, Philippine Daily Inquirer, December

14, 2012 http://www.cab.gov.ph/news/765-truth-in-airline-promos (visited March
15, 2016)
[130]
[131]
Id.
[132]
DOTC-DTI Joint Adm. 0. No. 1 (2012), seventh whereas clause.
DOTC-DTI Joint Adm. O. No. 1 (2012), seventh whereas clause. Emphasis

supplied.
[133]

G.R.
DATU
GUIMID
Nos.
P.
MATALAM,
PETITIONER,
VS.
221849-50
PEOPLE
OF
THE
PHILIPPINES,
RESPONDENT.
April 04, 2016
SECOND DIVISION
[ G.R. Nos. 221849-50, April 04, 2016 ]
DATU GUIMID P. MATALAM, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.
RESOLUTION
LEONEN, J.:
This resolves the Petition for Review on Certiorari assailing the Joint
Decision[1] dated April 28, 2015 and Resolution dated November 2, 2015 of the
Sandiganbayan in Criminal Case Nos. 26707 to 26708. The Sandiganbayan found
petitioner Datu Guimid P. Matalam (Matalam) guilty of non-remittance of the
employer's share in Government Insurance System and Home Development Mutual
Fund (Pag-IBIG Fund) premiums.
The Office of the Ombudsman charged Matalam, Regional Secretary of the
Department of Agrarian Reform-Autonomous Region for Muslim Mindanao (DARARMM), with the commission of crimes under "Section 52 (g) of Republic Act No.
8921, otherwise known as the [Government Service Insurance System (GSIS)] Act
of 1997, and Section 1, Rule XIII of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of
Republic Act No. 7742":[2]
Criminal Case No. 26707
(Violation of Sec. 52 (g), Republic Act No. 8291)
"That sometime in 1997, or prior to or subsequent thereto, in Cotabato City,
Maguindanao, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court,
accused DATU GUIMID MATALAM, a high-ranking public officer being the Regional
Secretary of the Department of Agrarian Reform-Autonomous Region for Muslim

Mindanao (DAR-ARMM), ANSARRY LAWI and NAIMAH B. UNTE, both are low-ranking
officials being the Cashier and Accountant, respectively, of the same aforestated
government office, committing the offense in relation to their official duties and
taking advantage of their official positions, conspiring together and taking
advantage of their official positions, conspiring together and helping one another,
and as such accountable officers involved in the collection and remittance of
accounts to GSIS, did, there and then, willfully, unlawfully and criminally, fail and/or
refuse to pay or remit the sum of TWO MILLION FOUR HUNDRED EIGHTEEN
THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED SEVENTY-SEVEN AND 33/100 PESOS (P2,418,577.33),
representing employer's contribution of [DAR Provincial Office]-Maguindanao for the
period of January, 1997 to June 1998, to GSIS, it being due and demandable,
without justifiable cause and despite repeated demands made.
CONTRARY TO LAW."
Criminal Case No. 26708
(Violation of Sec. 1, Rule XIII of the Implementing Rules &
Regulations of Republic Act No. 7742)
"That sometime in 1997, or prior to or subsequent thereto, in Cotabato City,
Maguindanao, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court,
accused DATU GUIMID MATALAM, a high-ranking public officer being the Regional
Secretary of the Department of Agrarian Reform-Autonomous Region for Muslim
Mindanao (DAR-ARMM), ANSARRY LAWI and NAIMAH B. UNTE, both are low-ranking
officials being the Cashier and Accountant, respectively, of the same aforestated
government office, committing the offense in relation to their official duties and
taking advantage of their official positions, conspiring together and helping one
another, and as such accountable officers involved in the collection and remittance
of accounts to Home Development Mutual Fund (PAG-IBIG), did, there and then,
willfully, unlawfully and criminally, fail and/or refuse to pay or remit the sum of ONE
HUNDRED FORTY-NINE THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED PESOS (P149,100.00),
representing employer's contribution of [DAR Provincial Office]-Maguindanao for the
period of January, 1997 to June 1998, to GSIS, it being due and demandable,
without justifiable cause and despite repeated demands made.
CONTRARY TO LAW."[3]
On August 11, 2003, Matalam was arraigned and he pleaded not guilty.[4] On
October 20, 2004, Matalam's co-accused, Ansarry Lawi (Lawi) and Naimah B. Unte
(Unte), were arraigned and they separately pleaded not guilty.[5]
The Prosecution presented both documentary and testimonial evidence for both
criminal cases.[6] The Prosecution presented five (5) witnesses: (1) Lilia Gamut-
gamutan Delangalen, Accountant III of the GSIS, Cotabato Branch; (2) Rolando
Roque, Chief of Division under the Member Services Division of Pag-IBIG Fund,
Cotabato Branch; (3) Husain Enden Matanog, State Auditor III of the Office of the
Auditor and Resident of DAR-ARMM, DAR Regional Office; (4) Luz Cantor-Malbog,
Director of Bureau C of the Department of Budget and Management; and (5)
Abdulkadil Angas Alabat, Department Manager of the Land Bank of the Philippines,
Cotabato Branch.[7]
According to the Prosecution, Matalam, Lawi, and Unte were the officers involved in
the collection and remittance of accounts to the GSIS and Pag-IBIG Fund and, thus,
were accountable for the non-remittance.[8] Matalam and his co-accused failed
and/or refused to remit the required contributions without justifiable cause despite
repeated demands.[9]
Matalam, for his part, presented both testimonial and documentary evidence. He
claimed that his co-accused Lawi and Unte were responsible for remitting the GSIS
and Pag-IBIG Fund government contributions.[10] Matalam presented a document
entitled Fourth Indorsement dated April 30, 1998 addressed to Lawi, directing the
latter to comment or act on the Third Indorsement of Husain Matanog. The Fourth
Indorsement was signed by Atty. Tommy A. Ala, who was then Matalam's Chief of
Staff.[11] Matalam also presented other memoranda directing Unte and Lawi to
comment on the Indorsement of Husain Matanog.[12] When asked why he did not
sanction Lawi and Unte upon their failure to comply with his directive, Matalam said
that he did not have time to do so because he had numerous pending tasks at that
time.[13]
Lawi and Unte failed to present evidence despite the opportunities given them. [14]
In the Joint Decision dated April 28, 2015, the Sandiganbayan found Matalam guilty
of the crimes charged.[15]
In Criminal Case No. 26707,[16] the Sandiganbayan held that on July 17, 1998,
Zenaida D. Ferrer, GSIS Officer-in-Charge, sent a Notice of Underpayment to
Matalam, which reads:[17]
We wish to inform you that we have validated your office Premium Master List as of
31 December 1997 and actual remittances for compulsory GSIS Premiums covering
the month/s of January 1997-June 1998.
Based on the Remittance Lists submitted to this office, your total actual remittances
for the above-stated period is understated per attached Statement of Account.
Due to this understatement, interests and surcharges will accrue from the due date
to the time of payment. Kindly make necessary adjustments on your next

remittances.
Should there be discrepancy with the amount based on your records, please come
to our office for reconciliation.
Your cooperation on this matter is highly appreciated.[18]
The Sandiganbayan found that wjth the Notice of Underpayment were six (6)
Statements of Account of Compulsory Contributions Due and Payable as of June 30,
1998, all addressed to Matalam.[19]
Further, the Sandiganbayan found that the Department of Budget and Management
released the funds to the DAR-ARMM through the corresponding Advice of Notice of
Cash Allocation issued.[20] According to the court:
These funds were credited to the account of the Office of the Regional Governor of
the ARMM, which had the obligation to remit to the various line agencies of the
ARMM the specific amounts provided to them. As for the remittance to DAR-ARMM,
it appears based on the confirmation by Abdulkadil Angas Alabat, the Department
Manager of the Cotabato Branch of Landbank of the Philippines, which has been the
official depository of the ARMM since the latter s inception, that the following
amounts were deposited into Account No. 0372-1054-29 maintained by DAR-ARMM
for its Fund 101 [.][21] (Emphasis supplied)
Hence, the Sandiganbayan held that:
The act constituting the offense is the failure, refusal or delay in the payment,
turnover, remittance or delivery of such accounts to the GSIS within thirty (30)
days from the time that the same shall have been due and demandable.
Accused Matalam was admittedly the DAR-ARMM Secretary from January 1997 until
1998, and also the concurrent Vice-Governor of the ARMM Region. As the DARARMM Secretary from January 1997 until 1998, [Matalam] was considered the
highest official of DAR-Maguindanao. As such he falls under the first category of
responsible officials. . . The thrust of his defense shifting the duty to remit to his
co-accused, Lawi and Unte, is unavailing since these two officials fall under the
second category of officials responsible for such remittance. [22]
In Criminal Case No. 26708,[23] the Sandiganbayan found Matalam guilty of nonremittance of the employer's share of Pag-IBIG Fund premiums.
According to the Sandiganbayan, under the pertinent rules and law, it is the
employer who is penalized for the non-remittance to Pag-IBIG Fund:
Since it is the employer who is penalized for non-remittance of the contribution
under Section 5, Rule VI and Section 1, Rule XIII ... the term "employer" should be
characterized as to its exact coverage. As defined in Section 1 of Rule III of the
same Implementing Rules and Regulations, an "employer" is any person, natural or
juridical, domestic or foreign, who carries on in the Philippines any trade, business,
industry, undertaking or activity of any kind, and uses the services of another
person who is under his orders as regards such services, the government, its
national and local offices, political subdivision, branches, agencies, or
instrumentalities including corporations owned and/or controlled by the
Government.[24]
Based on the definition of the term "employer" under the law, the Sandiganbayan
ruled that it is the head of the office or the agency that has the obligation to remit
the contributions. That the letters of the Pag-IBIG Fund's Chief of the Member
Services Division (Cotabato Branch), which directed remittance of the employer's
share to the Pag-IBIG Fund, were addressed to the Head of Office of the DAR
Provincial Office in Maguindanao bolsters the correct application of the provisions of
the Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. 7742. [25]
The dispositive portion of the Sandiganbayan Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, in the light of all the foregoing, the Court hereby renders judgment
as follows:
1. In Criminal Case No. 26707, accused DATU GUIMID MATALAM, ANSARRY
LAWI and NAIMAH UNTE are hereby found Guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
Violation of Section 52(g) of R.A. No. 8291, and are each sentenced to suffer the
indeterminate penalty of imprisonment ranging from one (1) year as minimum to
three (3) years as maximum, and to pay a fine of P20,000.00 each. They shall
further suffer absolute perpetual disqualification from holding public office and from
practicing any profession or calling licensed by the Government.
2. In Criminal Case No. 26708, accused DATU GUIMID MATALAM is hereby
found Guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Violation of Section 1, Rule XIII of the
Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. No. 7742, and is hereby sentenced to
pay a fine of P190,506.00, and in addition, to pay a penalty of three percent per
month of the amounts payable computed from the date the contributions fell due
and until the same are paid.
For lack of basis, accused ANSARRY LAWI and NAIMAH UNTE are hereby
ACQUITTED of this offense.

SO ORDERED.[26]
Matalam filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the Decision, which was denied by the
Sandiganbayan on November 2, 2015.[27]
Matalam now comes before this court and assails the Sandiganbayan Decision.
Matalam argues that a review of the factual findings of the Sandiganbayan would
reveal that there is reasonable doubt that he committed the crimes imputed to him.
[28]
Testimonies of the witnesses showed that the funds for the remittances due to
GSIS and Pag-IBIG Fund were released to the Office of the Regional Governor of
the ARMM and not to DAR-ARMM.[29] Even if the funds were, indeed, released to
DAR-ARMM, "Matalam as the Regional Secretary could not be held accountable for
the non-payment or remittance, since as a matter of procedure, he merely acts as a
signatory to whatever document is necessary for the payment of the employer's
share to both GSIS and Pag-IBIG [Fund]."[30] It is the Office of the Regional
Governor that has the duty to release the funds. [31]
Matalam insists that his duty to affix his signature as head of the office was only
ministerial.[32] His signature was conditioned on his receipt of the disbursement
vouchers prepared by the accountant and checked by the cashier.[33]
Matalam also claims that he was not negligent in reminding his co-accused to
respond to the complaints regarding non-remittance to GSIS and Pag-IBIG Fund.
[34]
Matalam sent four (4) memoranda addressed to Lawi and Unte as DAR-ARMM's
cashier and accountant, respectively, to respond to the complaints and to the letter
of Husain Matanog, the State Auditor.[35]
In addition, the billing statements were not addressed to Matalam. [36] The billing
statements were sent to the Accounting Division of DAR; hence, it should have
been Unte's duty as accountant to deal with the statements or to bring them to
Matalam's attention.[37]
Matalam also assails the testimony of witness Abdulkadil Alabat for being
incomplete. According to Matalam, not all of the bank statements allegedly related
to ARMM's account with the Land Bank of the Philippines, Cotabato Branch, was
presented in court. Moreover, based on witnesses' testimonies, the Notices of Cash
Allocation were addressed to the Office of the Regional Governor of the ARMM, not
to DAR-ARMM.[38]
Furthermore, Matalam argues that even if the offenses he allegedly committed
are mala prohibita, his guilt must still be proven beyond reasonable doubt. [39] The
pieces of evidence presented in this case create a reasonable doubt as to his guilt.
[40]
Thus, a re-evaluation of the evidence is required.[41]
The main issue in this case is whether petitioner Datu Guimid P. Matalam is guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of non-remittance of the employer's share of the GSIS
and Pag-IBIG Fund premiums.
Petitioner failed to show that the Sandiganbayan committed reversible error in
rendering the assailed Decision and Resolution. Petitioner is liable for the nonremittance of the contributions to GSIS and Pag-IBIG Fund.
Petitioner's liability for the non-remittance to GSIS and Pag-IBIG Fund of the
employer's share in the contributions is clearly set out in the laws mandating the
collection and remittance of the premiums:
Republic Act No. 8291, Sec. 52 (g):
I. PENAL PROVISIONS
SEC. 52. Penalty.
....
(g) The heads of the offices of the national government, its political subdivisions,
branches, agencies and instrumentalities, including government-owned or
controlled corporations and government financial institutions, and the personnel of
such offices who are involved in the collection of premium contributions, loan
amortization and other accounts due the GSIS who shall fail, refuse or delay the
payment, turnover, remittance or delivery of such accounts to the GSIS within
thirty (30) days from the time that the same shall have been due and demandable
shall, upon conviction by final judgment, suffer the penalties of imprisonment of not
less than one (1) year nor more than five (5) years and a fine of not less than Ten
thousand pesos (P10,000.00) nor more than Twenty thousand pesos (P20,000.00),
and in addition, shall suffer absolute perpetual disqualification from holding public
office and from practicing any profession or calling licensed by the government.
Sec. 1, Rule XIII of the Implementing Rules & Regulations of Republic Act
No. 7742:
RULE XIII
General Provisions
SECTION 1. Penalty Clause Pursuant to Section 23 of Presidential Decree No.

1752, as amended by Executive Order No. 35 and Republic Act No. 7742,refusal or
failure without lawful cause or with fraudulent intent to comply with the provisions
of said law as well as the implementing rules and regulationsadopted by the Board
of Trustees pertinent thereto, particularly with respect to registration of
employees, collection and remittance of employee savings as well as the required
employer contributions, or the correct amount due, within the time set in the
implementing rules and regulations or specific call or extension made by the Fund
Management shall render the employer liable to a fine of not less but not more than
twice the amount involved or imprisonment of not more than six (6) years; or both
such fine and imprisonment at the discretion of the court, apart from the civil
liabilities and/or obligations of the offender or delinquent employer. When the
offender is a corporation, public or private, the penalty shall be imposed upon the
members of the governing board and the President or General Manager without
prejudice to the prosecution of related offenses under the Revised Penal Code and
other laws, revocation and denial of operating rights and privileges in the
Philippines and deportation when the offender is a foreigner. (Emphasis supplied)
In both cases, petitioner was informed of the underpayment or non-remittance of
premiums for a period of one (1) year and six (6) months, or from January 1997 to
June 1998.[42] Petitioner failed to heed the letters and billing statements, which
asked him, as head of DAR-ARMM, to pay the deficiencies.
The importance of the GSIS and the Pag-IBIG Fund cannot be underscored enough.
"The GSIS was created for the purpose of providing social security and insurance
benefits as well as promoting efficiency and the welfare of government
employees."[43] To this end, the state has adopted a policy of maintaining and
preserving the actuarial solvency of GSIS funds at all times.[44] The fund comes
from both member and employer contributions.[45] Hence, non-remittance of the
contributions threatens the actuarial solvency of the fund.
In the same vein, the Pag-IBIG Fund was established pursuant to "constitutional
mandates on the promotion of public welfare through ample social services, as well
as its humanist commitment to the interest of the working groups, in relation
particularly to their need for decent shelter."[46] This continued commitment to social
justice and national development through the establishment, development,
promotion, and integration of a sound and viable tax-exempt mutual provident
savings system for the working peoples' housing needs, with the mandatory
contributory support of the employers, is seen in the subsequent amendments to
the law.[47] Failure of the employer to remit its share of the contributions jeopardizes
the peoples' needs and rights to decent shelter or housing.
We cannot accept petitioner's argument that the duty to remit the required
amounts falls to his co-accused. Republic Act No. 8291, Section 52(g) clearly
provides that heads of agencies or branches of government shall be criminally liable
for the failure, refusal, or delay in the payment, turnover, and remittance or
delivery of such accounts to the GSIS.
Similarly, the refusal or failure without lawful cause or with fraudulent intent to
comply with the provisions of Republic Act No. 7742, with respect to the collection
and remittance of employee savings as well as the required employer contributions
to the Pag-IBIG Fund, subjects the employer to criminal liabilities such as the
payment of a fine, imprisonment, or both.[48]
Indeed, non-remittance of GSIS and Pag-IBIG Fund premiums is criminally
punishable.[49]
When an act is malum prohibitum, "[i]t is the commission of that act as defined by
the law, and not the character or effect thereof, that determines whether or not the
provision has been violated."[50]
In ABS-CBN Corp. v. Gozon,[51] we discussed the difference between acts mala
prohibita and mala in se:
The general rule is that acts punished under a special law are malum
prohibitum. "An act which is declared malum prohibitum, malice or criminal intent is
completely immaterial."
In contrast, crimes mala in se concern inherently immoral acts:
Not every criminal act, however, involves moral turpitude. It is for this reason that
"as to what crime involves moral turpitude, is for the Supreme Court to determine."
In resolving the foregoing question, the Court is guided by one of the general rules
that crimes mala in se involve moral turpitude, while crimes mala prohibita do not,
the rationale of which was set forth in "Zari v. Flores," to wit:
It (moral turpitude) implies something immoral in itself, regardless of the fact that
it is punishable by law or not. It must not be merely mala prohibita, but the act
itself must be inherently immoral. The doing of the act itself, and not its prohibition
by statute fixes the moral turpitude. Moral turpitude does not, however, include
such acts as are not of themselves immoral but whose illegality lies in their being
positively prohibited.
[These] guidelines nonetheless proved short of providing a clear-cut solution, for
in International Rice Research Institute v. NLRC, the Court admitted that it cannot
always be ascertained whether moral turpitude does or does not exist by merely
classifying a crime as malum in se or asmalum prohibitum. There are crimes which
are mala in se and yet but rarely involve moral turpitude and there are crimes
which involve moral turpitude and are mala prohibita only. In the final analysis,
whether or not a crime involves moral turpitude is ultimately a question of fact and
frequently depends on all the circumstances surrounding the violation of the statue.
"Implicit in the concept of mala in se is that of mens rea." Mens rea is defined as
"the nonphysical element which, combined with the act of the accused, makes up
the crime charged. Most frequently it is the criminal intent, or the guilty mind[.]"
Crimes mala in se presuppose that the person who did the felonious act had
criminal intent to do so, while crimes mala prohibita do not require knowledge or
criminal intent:
In the case of mala in se it is necessary, to constitute a punishable offense, for the
person doing the act to have knowledge of the nature of his act and to have a
criminal intent; in the case of mala prohibita, unless such words as "knowingly" and
"willfully" are contained in the statute, neither knowledge nor criminal intent is
necessary. In other words, a person morally quite innocent and with every intention
of being a law-abiding citizen becomes a criminal, and liable to criminal penalties, if
he does an act prohibited by these statutes.
Hence, "[i]ntent to commit the crime and intent to perpetrate the act must be
distinguished. A person may not have consciously intended to commit a crime; but
he did intend to commit an act, and that act is, by the very nature of things, the
crime itself[.]" When an act is prohibited by a special law, it is considered injurious
to public welfare, and the performance of the prohibited act is the crime itself.
Volition, or intent to commit the act, is different from criminal intent. Volition or
voluntariness refers to knowledge of the act being done. On the other hand,
criminal intent which is different from motive, or the moving power for the
commission of the crime refers to the state of mind beyond voluntariness. It is
this intent that is being punished by crimes mala in se.[52] (Emphasis in the original,
citations omitted)
The non-remittance of GSIS and Pag-IBIG Fund premiums is malum
prohibitum. What the relevant laws punish is the failure, refusal, or delay without
lawful or justifiable cause in remitting or paying the required contributions or
accounts.
In Saguin v. People,[53] we have said that non-remittance of Pag-IBIG Fund
premiums without lawful cause or with fraudulent intent is punishable under the
penal clause of Section 23 of Presidential Decree No. 1752. However, the petitioners
in Saguin were justified in not remitting the premiums on time as the hospital they
were working in devolved to the provincial government and there was confusion as
to who had the duty to remit.
In this case, however, petitioner failed to prove a justifiable cause for his failure to
remit the premiums. We cannot subscribe to petitioner's defense that the funds for
the remittances were not directly credited to DAR-ARMM but to the account of the
Office of the Regional Governor of the ARMM, which had the obligation to remit to
the various line agencies of the ARMM the specific amounts provided to them.
As the Sandiganbayan found from the testimonies of the witnesses and evidence on
record, the amounts meant for remittance to GSIS and Pag-IBIG Fund were indeed
deposited into the bank account maintained by DAR-ARMM for its Fund 101. [54] It is
settled that factual findings of the trial court are entitled to respect and finality
unless it is shown that such findings are patently misplaced or without any basis.
[55]
Hence, petitioner's duty to ensure the remittance of the amounts to GSIS and
Pag-IBIG Fund was triggered by the availability of the funds in DAR-ARMM's
account.
In the assailed Decision, the Sandiganbayan in Criminal Case No. 26707, for the
failure to remit the GSIS premium contributions, sentenced petitioner to suffer the
indeterminate penalty of imprisonment ranging from one (1) year as minimum to
three (3) years as maximum, and to pay a fine of P20,000.00. [56] He was also
sentenced to suffer absolute perpetual disqualification from holding public office and
from practicing any profession or calling licensed by government. [57] In Criminal
Case No. 26708, for the non-remittance of the employer's share to the
contributions to the Pag-IBIG Fund, petitioner was sentenced to pay a fine of
P190,506.00 as well as a penalty of three percent (3%) per month of the amounts
payable computed from the date the contributions fell due and until these were
paid.[58]
Under the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the basic goal is "to uplift and redeem
valuable human material, and prevent unnecessary and excessive deprivation of
personal liberty and economic usefulness[.]"[59] However, it has also been held that
"penalties shall not be standardized but fitted as far as is possible to the individual,
with due regard to the imperative necessity of protecting the social
order."[60] Hence, this Court must look at certain factors when imposing penalties:
Considering the criminal as an individual, some of the factors that should be
considered are: (1) His age, especially with reference to extreme youth or old age;
(2) his general health and physical condition; (3) his mentality, heredity and
personal habits; (4) his previous conduct, environment and mode of life (and
criminal record if any); (5) his previous education, both intellectual and moral; (6)
his proclivities and aptitudes for usefulness or injury to society; (7) his demeanor
during trial and his attitude with regard to the crime committed; (8) the manner
and circumstances in which the crime was committed; (9) the gravity of the offense
(note that section 2 of Act No. 4103 excepts certain grave crimes this should be
kept in mind in assessing the minimum penalties for analogous crimes).
In considering the criminal as a member of society, his relationship, first, toward his
dependents, family and associates and their relationship with him, and second, his
relationship towards society at large and the State are important factors. The State
is concerned not only in the imperative necessity of protecting the social
organization against the criminal acts of destructive individuals but also in
redeeming the individual for economic usefulness and other social ends. In a word,
the Indeterminate Sentence Law aims to individualize the administration of our
criminal law to a degree not heretofore known in these Islands. With the foregoing
principles in mind as guides, the courts can give full effect to the beneficent
intention of the Legislature.[61] (Emphasis supplied)
With these factors in mind, we find that the penalty imposed on petitioner should
be modified. Petitioner was Regional Secretary of the DAR-ARMM.[62] He
concurrently served as Vice Governor of the ARMM Region. [63] The Office of the
Regional Secretary oversees several offices, including: the Office of the Assistant
Regional Secretary; the Administrative and Finance Division; Operation Division;
Planning Division; Legal Division; Support Services; Provincial Agrarian Reform
Offices; and Municipal Agrarian Reform Offices.[64] As head of the Regional Office,
petitioner was a public officer who had the obligation to ensure the proper
remittance of the employer's share of the premiums to the GSIS and Pag-IBIG
Fund.
In Rios v. Sandiganbayan,[65] this Court underscored the constitutional principle that
"public office is a public trust":
This Court would like to stress adherence to the doctrine that public office is a
public trust. Public officers and employees must at all times be accountable to the
people, serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty and efficiency, act
with patriotism and justice, and lead modest lives. Public servants must bear in
mind this constitutional mandate at all times to guide them in their actions during
their entire tenure in the government service. "The good of the service and the
degree of morality which every official and employee in the public service must
observe, if respect and confidence are to be maintained by the Government in the
enforcement of the law, demand that no untoward conduct on his part, affecting
morality, integrity and efficiency while holding office should be left without proper
and commensurate sanction, all attendant circumstances taken into
account."[66] (Citations omitted)
Under Section 52(g) of Republic Act No. 8291, the penalty that can be imposed
upon petitioner is "imprisonment of not less than one (1) year nor more than five
(5) years and a fine of not less than Ten thousand pesos (P10,000.00) nor more
than Twenty thousand pesos (P20,000.00)." The accused shall suffer absolute
perpetual disqualification from holding public office and from practicing any
profession or calling licensed by the government.
For violations of Rule XIII, Section 1 of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of
Republic Act No. 7742, the imposable penalty is "a fine of not less but not more
than twice the amount involved or imprisonment of not more than six (6) years; or
both such fine and imprisonment at the discretion of the court, apart from the civil
liabilities and/or obligations of the offender or delinquent employer."
Considering petitioner's position and his actions of trying to pass the blame to his
co-accused, we modify petitioner's sentence of imprisonment in Criminal Case No.
26707 to a minimum of three (3) years to a maximum of five (5) years.
Accordingly, in Criminal Case No. 26708, petitioner is sentenced to suffer
imprisonment of three (3) to six (6) years in addition to the fine imposed by the
Sandiganbayan. The fine imposed is increased to P250,000.00.
WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED. The Joint Decision dated April 28, 2015 and
Resolution dated November 2, 2015 of the Sandiganbayan in Criminal Case Nos.
26707 to 26708 are AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS as to the penalty imposed
on petitioner Datu Guimid Matalam, as follows:
(1) In Criminal Case No. 26707, accused DATU GUIMID MATALAM . . . [is]
hereby found Guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Violation of Section 52(g) of
R[epublic] A[ct] No. 8291, and . . . sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of
imprisonment ranging from three (3) years as minimum to five (5) years as
maximum, and to pay a fine of P20,000.00 each. They shall further suffer absolute
perpetual disqualification from holding public office and from practicing any
profession or calling licensed by the Government.
(2) In Criminal Case No. 26708, accused DATU GUIMID MATALAM is hereby
found Guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Violation of Rule XIII, Section 1 of the
Implementing Rules and Regulations of R[epublic] A[ct] No. 7742, and is hereby
sentenced to pay a fine of P250,000.00, imprisonment with a range of three
(3) years as minimum and six (6) years as maximum, and in addition, to pay
a penalty of three percent (3%) per month of the amounts payable computed from
the date the contributions fell due and until the same are paid.
SO ORDERED.
Rollo, pp. 35-70. The Decision was penned by Associate Justice Teresita V. DiazBaldos and concurred in by Associate Justices, Napoleon E. Inoturan and Maria
Cristina J. Cornejo.
[1]
Id. at 35, Rep. Act No. 7742 amended Pres. Decree No. 1752, otherwise known
as the Home Development Mutual Fund Law of 1980. Rep. Act No. 7742 has been
subsequently amended by Rep. Act No. 9679, otherwise known as the Home
Development Mutual Fund Law of 2009. The Home Development Mutual Fund was
created on June 11, 1978 under Pres. Decree No. 1530.
[2]
[3]
Id. at 36-37.
[4]
Id. at 38.
[5]
Id.
[6]
Id. at 40-58.
[7]
Id. at 40-45.
[8]
Id. at 39.
[9]
Id. at 39-40.
[10]
Id. at 58.
[11]
Id.
[12]
Id.
[13]
Id. at 59.
[14]
Id. at 60.
[15]
Id. at 35-70.
[16]
The case was for violation of Rep. Act No. 8291, sec. 52(g).
[17]
Rollo, p. 61.
[18]
Id.
[19]
Id.
[20]
Id. at 62.
[21]
Id.
[22]
Id. at 64.
The case was for violation of Rule XIII, sec. 1 of the Implementing Rules &
Regulations of Rep. Act No. 7742.
[23]
[24]
Rollo, p. 67.
[25]
Id. at 67-68.
[26]
Id. at 68-69.
[27]
Id. at 87-90.
[28]
Id. at 10.
[29]
Id.
[30]
Id. at 11-12.
[31]
Id. at 12.
[32]
Id. at 18.
[33]
Id.
[34]
Id.
[35]
Id.
[36]
Id. at 19-20.
[37]
Id. at 20.
[38]
Id. at 24.
[39]
Id.
[40]
Id.
[41]
Id. at 26.
[42]
Id. at 61.
GSIS v. Court of Appeals, 350 Phil. 654, 660 (1998) [Per J. Romero, Third
Division], citing Pres. Decree No. 1146, otherwise known as the Revised
Government Service Insurance Act of 1977.
[43]
[44]
Rep. Act No. 8291, sec. 39 provides:
SECTION 39. Exemption from Tax, Legal Process and Lien. It is hereby declared
to be the policy of the State that the actuarial solvency of the funds of the GSIS
shall be preserved and maintained at all times and that contribution rates necessary
to sustain the benefits under this Act shall be kept as low as possible in order not to
burden the members of the GSIS and their employers. Taxes imposed on the GSIS
tend to impair the actuarial solvency of its funds and increase the contribution rate
necessary to sustain the benefits of this Act. Accordingly, notwithstanding any laws
to the contrary, the GSIS, its assets, revenues including all accruals thereto, and
benefits paid, shall be exempt from all taxes, assessments, fees, charges or duties
of all kinds. These exemptions shall continue unless expressly and specifically
revoked and any assessment against the GSIS as of the approval of this Act are
hereby considered paid. Consequently, all laws, ordinances, regulations, issuances,
opinions or jurisprudence contrary to or in derogation of this provision are hereby
deemed repealed, superseded and rendered ineffective and without legal force and
effect.
Moreover, these exemptions shall not be affected by subsequent laws to the
contrary unless this section is expressly, specifically and categorically revoked or
repealed by law and a provision is enacted to substitute or replace the exemption
referred to herein as an essential factor to maintain or protect the solvency of the
fund, notwithstanding and independently of the guaranty of the national
government to secure such solvency or liability.
The funds and/or the properties referred to herein as well as the benefits, sums or
monies corresponding to the benefits under this Act shall be exempt from
attachment, garnishment, execution, levy or other processes issued by the courts,
quasi-judicial agencies or administrative bodies including Commission on Audit
(COA) disallowances and from all financial obligations of the members, including his
pecuniary accountability arising from or caused or occasioned by his exercise or

performance of his official functions or duties, or incurred relative to or in
connection with his position or work except when his monetary liability, contractual
or otherwise, is in favor of the GSIS.
[45]
Rep. Act No. 8291, part C, sec. 5 provides:
C. SOURCES OF FUNDS
SECTION 5. Contributions. (a) It shall be mandatory for the member and the
employer to pay the monthly contributions specified in the following schedule:
Monthly Compensation
I. Maximum Average Monthly Compensation (AMC) Limit and
Below
II. Over the Maximum (AMC) Limit
- Up to the Maximum AMC Limit
- In Excess of the AMC Limit
Percentage of Monthly
Member
Employer
9.0%
12.0%
9.0%
9.0%
12.0%
12.0%
Members of the judiciary and constitutional commissioners shall pay three percent
(3%) of then-monthly compensation as personal share, and their employers a
corresponding three percent (3%) share for their life insurance coverage.
(b) The employer shall include in its annual appropriation the necessary amounts
for its share of the contributions indicated above, plus any additional premiums that
may be required on account of the hazards or risks of its employees' occupation.
(c) It shall be mandatory and compulsory for all employers to include the payment
of contributions in their annual appropriations. Penal sanctions shall be imposed
upon employers who fail to include the payment of contributions in their annual
appropriations or otherwise fail to remit the accurate/exact amount of contributions
on time, or delay the remittance of premium contributions to the GSIS. The heads
of offices and agencies shall be administratively liable for non-remittance or delayed
remittance of premium contributions to the GSIS.
Pres. Decree No. 1752, first whereas clause provides: The Home Development
Mutual Fund was established on June 11, 1978 under Pres. Decree No. 1530.
[46]
[47]
See Rep. Act No. 9679 (2009).
Pres. Decree No. 1752 has been amended by Rep. Act No. 7742 and Rep. Act
No. 9679, entitled An Act Further Strengthening The Home Development Mutual
Fund, And For Other Purposes, or the Home Development Mutual Fund Law of
2009. Rep. Act No. 9679, sec. 25 provides:
[48]
SECTION 25. Penal Provisions. Refusal or failure without lawful cause or with
fraudulent intent to comply with the provisions of this Act, as well as the
implementing rules and regulations adopted by the Board of Trustees, particularly
with respect to registration of employees, collection and remittance of employeesavings as well as the employer counterparts, or the correct amount due, within the
time set in the implementing rules and regulations or specific call or extension
made by the Fund management shall constitute an offense punishable by a fine of
not less than, but not more than twice, the amount involved or imprisonment of not
more than six (6) years, or both such fine and imprisonment, in the discretion of
the court, apart from the civil liabilities and/or obligations of the offender or
delinquent. When the offender is a corporation, the penalty shall be imposed upon
the members of the governing board and the president or general manager, without
prejudice to the prosecution of related offenses under the Revised Penal Code and
other laws, revocation and denial of operating rights and privileges in the
Philippines, and deportation when the offender is a foreigner. In case of government
instrumentalities, agencies or corporations, the treasurer, finance officer, cashier,
disbursing officer, budget officer or other official or employee who fails to include in
the annual budget the amount corresponding to the employers' contributions, or
who fails or refuses or delays by more than thirty (30) days from the time such
amount becomes due and demandable or to deduct the monthly contributions of
the employee shall, upon conviction by final judgment, suffer the penalties of
imprisonment of not more than six (6) years, and a fine of not less than, but not
more than twice the amount involved.
See Estino v. People, 602 Phil. 671 (2009) [Per J. Velasco, Jr., Second Division],
where respondent Pescadera was convicted by the Sandiganbayan of malversation
of public funds under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code for failure to remit the
GSIS contributions of the provincial government employees. Pescadera was
acquitted by the Court due to lack of demand required under the law. See
also Larga v. Ranada, Jr., 247 Phil. 196 (1988) [Per J. Feliciano, Third Division],
where petitioner was prosecuted for failure to remit to the HDMF employeremployee contributions under Pres. Decree No. 1752, sec. 23. See also Social
Security System v. Department of Justice, 556 Phil. 263 (2007) [Per J. Carpio,
Second Division], where criminal liability for non-remittance of SSS premiums was
discussed.
[49]
[50]
Martinez v. Villanueva, 669 Phil. 14 (2011) [Per J. Villarama, Jr., First Division].
G.R. No. 195956, March 11, 2015

file=/jurisprudence/2015/march2015/195956.pdf [Per J. Leonen, Second Division].
[51]
[52]
Id. at 36-38.
G.R. No. 210603, November 25, 2015

file=/jurisprudence/2015/november2015/210603.pdf [Per J. Mendoza, Second
Division]
[53]
[54]
Rollo, pp. 62-63.
See Judge Juliano v. Sandiganbayan, 336 Phil. 49, 57 (1997) [Per J. Torres, Jr.,
En Banc]; Saguin v. People, G.R. No. 210603, November 25,
2015http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?
file=/jurisprudence/2015/november2015/210603.pdf [Per J. Mendoza, Second
Division].
[55]
[56]
Rollo, pp. 68-69.
[57]
Id. at 69.
Id. Under the Implementing Rules and Regulations of Rep. Act No. 7742, rule VI,
sec. 5, employers are required to remit the contributions within fifteen (15) days
from the date of collection. Refusal or failure to collect and remit shall subject the
employer to the penalty of three percent (3%) per month from the date the
contributions fall due and until payment thereof.
[58]
Vitangcol v. People, G.R. No. 207406, January 13, 2016

file=/jurisprudence/2016/january2016/207406.pdf 12 [Per J. Leonen, Second
Division], citing People v. Ducosin, 59 Phil. 109, 117 (1933) [Per J. Butte, En Banc].
[59]
[60]
People v. Ducosin, 59 Phil. 109, 117 (1933) [Per J. Butte, En Banc].
[61]
Id. at 118.
[62]
Rollo, p. 35.
[63]
Id. at 58.
[64]
See Organizational Structure of the Department of Agrarian Reform-
Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao http://dar-armmgov.ph/index.php/aboutdar/org-dar (visited March 17 2016)

[65]
345 Phil. 85, 91 (1997) [Per J. Romero, Third Division]
[66]
Id.


April 2016 Elib

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

April 2016 Elib

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

April 2016 Elib

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R.

April 20, 2016

(d) Php 25,000[.00] as exemplary damages.

Appellant's Death Prior to Final Judgment

We also turn to the Code Commission's justification of its recognition of the

CA rollo, pp. 44-55. Penned by Pairing Judge Luisito G. Cortez.

Also referred to in the Records as Ronaldo Cueno.

Rollo, pp. 3-6.

G.R. No. 102007, 2 September 1994, 236 SCRA 239.

G.R. No. 102007, 2 September 1994, 236 SCRA 239, 255-256.

Rollo, pp. 61-66.

Supra note 25.

Casupanan v. Laroya, 436 Phil. 582, 593 (2002).

Section 3, Rule 111 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.

Death of party; duty of counsel. Whenever a party to a pending action dies,

FLORENZ D. REGALADO, 2 REMEDIAL LAW COMPENDIUM 352 (2004). Rule 86

Commission, pp. 45-46, quoted in ARTURO M. TOLENTINO, 1 COMMENTARIES

Source: Supreme Court E-Library

April 20, 2016

We resolve the petition for review on certiorari filed by petitioners to challenge

In 1997, the petitioners filed a complaint for reformation of contract, cancellation

create a co-ownership, regardless of the value of the house. Rosario, however, is

denominated as "Panananto ng Pagkatanggap ng Kahustuhang Bayad."[44] Its

April 20, 2016

Very truly yours,

Rollo, p. 36; penned by Associate Justice Amelita G. Tolentino and concurred in

RTC rollo, p. 246.

RTC rollo, pp. 1-5.

CA rollo, pp. 19-24.

Cirtek Employees Labor Union-Federation of Free Workers v. Cirtek Electronics,

Ramos v. Heirs of Ramos, G.R. No. 140848, April 25, 2002.

Cagatao v. Almonte, G.R. No. 174004, October 9, 2003.

RTC rollo, p. 135.

Arturo M. Tolentino, Civil Code of the Philippines II 2004, p. 110, citing 3

Rollo, pp. 25-29.

RTC rollo, p. 17, pars. 4-6.

CIVIL CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Art. 1345.

Velario v. Refresco, G.R. No. 163687, March 28, 2006.

CIVIL CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Art. 1346.

RTC rollo, p. 19. Answer, pars. 16-17:

42 Corpus Juris 303.

RTC rollo, p. 247.

RTC rollo, pp. 250-251.

Source: Supreme Court E-Library

April 20, 2016

MELECIO DOMINGO, PETITIONER, VS. SPOUSES GENARO

Rollo, pp. 9-20.

Penned by Associate Justice Ricardo R. Rosario and concurred in by Associate

Rollo, pp. 73-74.

Records, pp. 145 and 180.

RTC Decision dated August 10, 2009. Rollo, pp. 36-39.

CIVIL CODE, ART. 175. The conjugal partnership of gains terminates:

(1) Upon the death of either spouse; x x x

Article 105 of Family Code.

G.R. No. L-15242, June 29, 1962, 5 SCRA 381, 382.

Id. at 18-19 (citations omitted).

Supra note 20.

Rollo, pp. 80-81.

Supra note 19.