PROJECT JURISPRUDENCE

FIRST DIVISION [ G.R. No. 225480, August 30, 2016 ] COTABATO ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE [COTELCO], DULY REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER, ENGR. GODOFREDO B. HOMEZ V. JEANY H. GENZOLA, ANDY L. ANTIPUESTO, AND ANTONIO LADRA. The petitioner's manifestation dated July 5, 2016, stating that the petition for review on certiorari was mailed on June 30, 2016, and requesting that it be given an extension of thirty (30) days from July 5, 2016 within which to go to Cagayan de Oro City and secure the Certification of the attached annexes to the petition for review on certiorari from the Court of Appeals; the petitioner's manifestation dated July 19, 2016, submitting a copy of the petition for review on certiorari with all certified true copies of all pleadings in relation to the case; and the petitioner's submission of compact disc containing the soft copy of the petition for review on certiorari, are all  NOTED;  the counsel for petitioner is hereby required to  COMPLY  within five (5)

In Delfino, Sr. v. Anasao, the Supreme Court held that the verification requirement is deemed substantially complied with even when only one of the plaintiff-heirs, who had sufficient knowledge and belief to swear to the truth of the allegations in the petition, signed the verification attached to it. The same liberality was likewise applied to the certification against forum shopping when the Court allowed the signature of only one of the petitioners because of the commonality of interest of all the parties with respect to the subject of the controversy. (G.R. No. 197486, 10 September 2014, citing Iglesia ni Cristo v. Judge Ponferrada 563 Phil.705, 2006)

In Agtarap v. Agtarap, the Supreme Court explained the extent of the jurisdiction of a probate or intestate court. The general rule is that the jurisdiction of the trial court, either as a probate or an intestate court, relates only to matters having to do with the probate of the will and/or settlement of the estate of deceased persons, but does not extend to the determination of questions of ownership that arise during the proceedings. The patent rationale for this rule is that such court merely exercises special and limited jurisdiction. As held in several cases, a probate court or one in charge of estate proceedings, whether testate or intestate, cannot adjudicate or determine title to properties claimed to be a part of the estate and which are claimed to belong to outside parties, not by virtue of any right of inheritance from the deceased but by title adverse to that of the deceased and his estate. All that the said court could do as regards said properties is to determine wheth

In determining the sufficiency of a complaint, the three elements of a cause of action must concur in the allegations therein: (a) a right in favor of the plaintiff by whatever means and under whatever law it arises or is created; (b) an obligation on the part of the named defendant to respect or not to violate such right; and (c) an act or omission on the part of the named defendant violative of the right of the plaintiff or constituting a breach of the obligation of defendant to the plaintiff for which the latter may maintain an action for recovery of damages. (Zuniga-Santos v. Santos-Gran, G. R. No. 197380, 8 October 2014) The Supreme Court explained in Zuniga-Santos v. Santos-Gran that the basic test in a motion to dismiss on the ground of failure to state a cause of action is whether, assuming the truth of the facts alleged in the complaint, a valid judgment could be rendered in accordance with the relief demanded. As a corollary, only ultimate or essential and not evidentiary

THIRD DIVISION  [ G.R. No. 234835, January 23, 2019 ]  FELICIANO G. FERNANDEZ VS. BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS. This petition for review challenges the Decision[1] dated June 30, 2016 and the Resolution[2] dated October 5, 2017 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 141855. The CA affirmed the judgment of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 137 of Makati City, finding Feliciano G. Fernandez (Fernandez) liable to pay Bank of Philippine Islands (BPI) P230,503.61, plus legal interest imposed at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint until fully paid. Fernandez, a valued client of BPI, was issued a pre-approved BPI credit card with Customer Number 201003002902302.[3] Under the terms and conditions governing the issuance and use of the BPI credit card, a finance charge of 3.25% is imposed on the unpaid balance after the due date of payment. A late payment charge of 6% is also added for every month that a client fails to pay on the due date indica

THIRD DIVISION [ G.R. No. 225939, October 05, 2016 ] G.R. No. 225939 NURBERT M. SAHALI VS. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN AND THE FIELD INVESTIGATION UNIT, OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN-MINDANAO REPRESENTED BY SIEGFRED L. LABANG. For the consideration of the Court is a Petition for Certiorari filed under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court by Nurbert M. Sahali, assailing the Resolution dated April 27, 2016 and Order dated June 30, 2016 issued by the Office of the Ombudsman in Case No. 0MB- M-C-14-0157, entitled Field Investigation Unit, Office of the Ombudsman — Mindanao, represented by Siegfred L. Labang v. Nurbert M. Sahali, Municipal Mayor, Sherwina S. Juhaili, Municipal Human Resource Management Officer. The facts are as follows: In a letter dated July 11, 2011, Muhammad Suhaili wrote then Secretary of the Department of the Interior and Local Government Jesse Robredo alleging that: In accordance with President Aquino's "Daang Matuwid" advocacy, the undersigned and Concerned Citi

The 1987 Constitution created a new, independent Office of the Ombudsman. The existing Tanodbayan at the time[1] became the Office of the Special Prosecutor under the 1987 Constitution. While the composition of the independent Office of the Ombudsman under the 1987 Constitution does not textually include the Special Prosecutor, the weight of the discussions on the unconstitutionality of Section 8(2) of RA No. 6770 ( The Ombudsman Act of 1989)  should  equally apply  to the Special Prosecutor on the basis of the legislative history of the Office of the Ombudsman as expounded in jurisprudence. ( G.R. No. 196231, January 28, 2014 ) Under the 1973 Constitution,[2] the legislature was mandated to create the Office of the Ombudsman, known as the Tanodbayan, with investigative and prosecutorial powers. Accordingly, on June 11, 1978, President Ferdinand Marcos enacted PD No. 1487.[3] Under PD No. 1486,[4] however, the “Chief Special Prosecutor” (CSP) was given the “exclusive authority” to

THIRD DIVISION [ G.R. No. 214764, June 29, 2016 ] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. NARDING METRILLO Y FATROSINIA. The accused-appellant, Narding Metrillo y Fatrosinia (Metrillo), challenges in this appeal[1] the Decision[2] dated May 31, 2013 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CRHC-04783, which affirmed the Joint Judgment[3] of conviction for two (2) counts of Qualified Rape rendered against him on November 17, 2010 by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of San Pedro, Laguna, Branch 31, in Criminal Case Nos. 6132-33-SPL. The 13-year-old victim, AAA,[4] testified that sometime in March 2004, while sleeping in their residence in San Pedro, Laguna, her father, Metrillo, pointed a knife at her side and right cheek. With his other hand, Metrillo removed her panty and short pants and inserted his penis into her vagina. Thereafter, she heard her father say "teka lalabasan na ako" and a white substance came out of his penis. On account of Metrillo's threat to harm her, she did

PENALIZING WAR CRIMES IS A GENERALLY ACCEPTED PRINCIPLE OF INTERNATIONAL LAW. In accordance with the generally accepted principles of international law of the present day, including the Hague Convention, the Geneva Convention and significant precedents of international jurisprudence established by the United Nations, all those persons, military or civilian, who have been guilty of planning, preparing or waging a war of aggression and of the commission of crimes and offenses consequential and incidental thereto, in violation of the laws and customs of war, of humanity and civilization, are held accountable therefor. Consequently, in the promulgation and enforcement of Executive Order No. 68, the President of the Philippines has acted in conformity with the generally accepted principles and policies of international law which are part of our Constitution. Petitioner argues that respondent Military Commission has no jurisdiction to try petitioner for acts committed in violation of the H

What is the nature and purpose of summons in relation to actions in personam, in rem and quasi in rem? Summons is a writ by which the defendant is notified of the action brought against him. Service of such writ is the means by which the court may acquire jurisdiction over his person. Non-service and irregular service of summons may be a ground for dismissal for lack of jurisdiction over the person of the defending party. What is the effect of lack of summons? The trial court does not acquire jurisdiction and renders null and void all subsequent proceedings and issuances in the actions from the order of default up to and including the judgment by default and the order of execution. However, lack of summons may be waived as when the defendant fails to make any seasonable objection to the court’s lack of jurisdiction over the person of the defendant. Who are the only persons allowed to serve summons? [1] Sheriff; [2] Sheriff’s deputy; or [3] Other proper court officers; or [

Actual delivery of a thing sold occurs when it is placed under the control and possession of the vendee. Pante claimed that he had been using the lot as a passageway, with the Church’s permission, since 1963. After purchasing the lot in 1992, he continued using it as a passageway until he was prevented by the spouses Rubi’s concrete fence over the lot in 1994. Pante’s use of the lot as a passageway after the 1992 sale in his favor was a clear assertion of his right of ownership that preceded the spouses Rubi’s claim of ownership. Delivery of a thing sold may also be made constructively . Article 1498 of the Civil Code states that: "Article 498. When the sale is made through a public instrument, the execution thereof shall be equivalent to the delivery of the thing which is the object of the contract, if from the deed the contrary does not appear or cannot clearly be inferred." Under this provision, the sale in favor of Pante would have to be upheld since the contract exe

Catcalling is experienced by men and women every day on different streets of the Philippines. The ultimate question is why. Why do these people have to catcall? Is there satisfaction in doing this? Do they honestly think that a woman would be attracted to or fall in love with them if they catcall her? Questions above, of course, show how STUPID  catcall-ers are but this blog is not a venue to properly answer these questions. What can be properly discussed here, nevertheless, is the LEGALITY  of catcalling. The short explanation is it is ILLEGAL  and the law PUNISHES catcalling. In 2019, Republic Act No. (RA) 11313, known as the Safe Spaces Act, became law in the Philippines; it punishes misogynistic acts, sexist slurs, wolf-whistling, catcalling, intrusive gazing, cursing, and persistent telling of sexual jokes in public or online. Punishments include imprisonment or fines depending on the seriousness of the crime. Under RA 11313, it is declared as a policy that equality, security

A complaint is a pleading alleging a plaintiff’s cause or causes of action. The names and residences of the plaintiff and defendant must be stated in the complaint.[1] 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 contains a verification based on "information and belief" or upon "knowledge, information and belief," or lacks a proper verification, shall be treated as an unsigned pleading.[2] Absence of verification when required is not a jurisdictional defect. It is just a formal defect which can be waived.[3]The verification by a lawyer is sufficient.[4] An important component of a complaint or any initiatory pleading is the certificate of non-forum shopping. The rule requires that the plaintiff or principal party certifies under oath in the complaint or other initiatory pleading ass

An acceleration clause —or acceleration covenant— in the law of contracts, is a term that fully matures the performance due from a party upon a breach of the contract. Such clauses are most prevalent in mortgages and similar contracts to purchase real estate in installments. (https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/acceleration_clause, cited in Acceleration clause. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acceleration_clause) It has long been settled that an acceleration clause is valid and produces legal effects. In the case at bench, the promissory note explicitly stated that default in any of the installments shall make the entire obligation due and demandable even without notice or demand. Thus, KT Construction was erroneous in saying that PSBank's complaint was premature on the ground that the loan was due only on October 12, 2011. KT Construction's entire loan obligation became due and demandable when it failed to pay an installment pursuant to the a

Authorities may conduct a warrantless arrest, but only on the following grounds: When the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense in the presence of an arresting officer; When an offense has just been committed and the arresting officer has probable cause (based on personal knowledge of facts and circumstance) to believe that the person to be arrested has committed a crime; and When the person has escaped prison/detention, or escaped while being transferred to another facility. If you're arrested without a warrant, you can only be detained for: 12 hours, for light offenses, which are punishable by light penalties; 18 hours, for less grave offenses, punishable by correctional penalties; and 36 hours, for grave offenses, punishable by capital penalties. As a general rule, inquest proceedings – where a civilian prosecutor determines the legality of an arrest – are included in these time periods. Published 9:34 AM,

The following are the rights of a every possessor. It must be noted that, in property law, a possessor is the one who holds a thing or enjoys a right. Therefore, the owner is not necessarily the possessor of the thing owned. For example, the owner of a car may lease it to another. Every possessor has a right to be respected in his possession and should he be disturbed therein he shall be protected in or restored to said possession by the means established by law and the Rules of Court. (Art. 539) Only the possession acquired and enjoyed in the concept of owner can serve as a title for acquiring dominion. (Art. 540) A possessor in the concept of owner has in his favor the legal presumption that he possesses with a just title and he cannot be obliged to show or prove it. (Art. 541) The possession of real property is presumed that of the movables therein as long as it is not shown or proved that they should be excluded. (Art. 542) Each one of the participants of a thing posse

A cause of action for abuse of process may lie in situations where a criminal proceeding is brought against a defendant for improper motives. For example, in Lader v. Benkowitz (66 N.Y.S.2d 713, N.Y. Spec. Term 1946), a pleading was held to state a good cause of action for abuse of process when it alleged that defendant hotel owner had threatened to have the plaintiff arrested on a warrant issued at the behest of the defendant on a charge of disorderly conduct. The allegedly improper motive was the hotel owner's underlying purpose of compelling plaintiff to pay a bill owed for plaintiff's alleged rental of a room in defendant's hotel. It was claimed that through the unlawful use of the warrant and threat of arrest, the defendant was able to obtain the sum of money allegedly owed by plaintiff. In denying defendant's motion to dismiss, the court admonished that it was sufficient to show that regularly issued process had been used to accomplish an improper purpose in ord

A cause of action for abuse of process is similar to the action for malicious prosecution in that both actions are based on and involve the improper use of the courts and legal systems. The primary difference between the two legal actions is that malicious prosecution concerns the malicious or wrongful commencement of an action, while, on the other hand, abuse of process concerns the improper use of the legal process after process has already been issued and a suit has commenced. In abuse of process, the legal process is misused for some purpose which is considered improper under the law. Thus technically, the service of process itself—in the form of a summons—could be considered abuse of process under the right circumstances, e.g. fraudulent or malicious manipulation of the process itself, but in malicious prosecution, the wrongful act is the actual filing of the suit itself for improper and malicious reasons. The three requirements of malice, lack of probable cause in the issuance of

In G.R. No. 186329 and G.R. No. 198598, the Sandiganbayan convicted Alid of falsification of a private document for altering the Philippine Airlines (PAL) Ticket. The Supreme Court disagrees with the conviction for two reasons. First, a conviction for falsification of a private document under paragraph 2 of Article 172 violates the right of Alid to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him given that his Information charged him only with falsification of documents committed by a public officer under Article 171. Second, for falsifying a commercial document , the penal provision allegedly violated by Alid was paragraph 1, and not paragraph 2, of Article 172. At the outset, the High Court noted that the appeal of Alid is grounded on two points: (1) that he was not the one who altered the plane ticket; and (2) that he had no intent to cause damage. He has not raised the defense that his right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against