Campa v Hon.

Paras
G.R No. 250504 (July 12, 2021)
*Lazaro Javier

- The proper remedy of challenging an interlocutory order such as a denial of a motion to quash is a
petition for certiorari under Rule 65 when it is shown that the same is patently erroneous or was
issued in GAD. (citing Cruz y Digma v People)
- The issue of inordinate delay violating the right to a speedy disposition of case justifies direct resort
to SC and constitutes as an exception to the doctrine of hierarchy of courts, on the ground of
exigency and that they have no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of
law as the only alternative is to proceed to trial and prolong further the disposition of cases. (citing
Gios-Samar v DOTC)
- TEST: Inordinate delay (violation of right to speedy disposition of cases)
1. BALANCING TEST (Barker v Wingo)
4 criteria:
(1) Length of the delay
(2) Reason for delay
(3) Defendant’s assertion or non-assertion of his or her right
(4) Prejudice to the Defendant as a result of the delay

2. Cagang v Sandiganbayan (modified the balancing test insofar as preliminary investigation)

First. Right to speedy disposition of cases is different from the right to speedy trial. While the
rationale of the two are the same, the right to speedy trial may only be invoked in criminal
prosecutions against courts of law. The latter may however be invoked before any tribunal,
whether judicial or quasi-judicial.

Second. A case is deemed filed upon filing of a formal complaint prior to the conduct of PI. The
Ombudsman should set reasonable periods for PI with due regard to the complexities and
nuances of each case. Delays beyond this period will be taken against the prosecution. The
period taken for fact-finding investigations prior to the filing of a formal complaint should not be
included in the determination of whether there has been inordinate delay.

Third. Court should determine which party carries the burden of proof. If the right is invoked
within the given time periods contained in the current SC resolutions and circular and time
period that will be promulgated by the Ombudsman, the defense has the burden of proving that
the right was justifiably invoked. If the delay occurs beyond the given time period and the right
is invoked, the prosecution has the burden of justifying the delay.

Lamadrid v Cathay Pacific Airways Limited

G.R No. 200658
June 23, 2021
*Hernando
- A cabin crew based in Hongkong is considered an OFW under Section 10 of RA 8042 as amended
by RA 10022, as well as Section 3 of RA 10022, because she is engaged in a remunerated activity
in a state where she is not a citizen. Cathay’s cabin crew are all based in Hongkong and in fact
Lamadrid resided and leased an apartment in HK during her stint with Cathay. As an OFW faced
with a termination dispute, the Labor Arbiter has jurisdiction over the case.
- An cabin crew line manager who had in her control properties of Cathay of significant value and
has the responsibility of informing the In-Flight Service Manager whether there was a defective or
missing equipment is occupying a position imbued with trust and confidence. Hence, she can be
terminated for loss of trust and confidence.
- Lamadrid’s act of taking an Evian water bottle amounts to pilferage of company property, an act
characterized by fraud or dishonesty. However, the penalty of termination is too harsh and is not
commensurate to her infraction considering that it is her first infraction of a company policy in here
17 years of service. Under the principle of totality of infractions, all surrounding circumstances
must be considered and the penalty must be commensurate to the violation committed by an
employee. Termination should be the employer’s last resort especially when other disciplinary
actions may be imposed considering the employee’s long years of service.

Two classifications of positions of trust and confidence

1. Managerial employees or those vested with powers or prerogatives to lay down and execute
management policies and/or to hire, transfer, suspend, lay off, recall, discharge, assign or
discipline employees
2. Those who in the normal and routine exercise of their functions regularly handle significant
amounts of the employer’s money or property, such as but not limited to cashiers, auditors,
and property custodians

Loss of trust and confidence

1. Employee must be holding a position of trust
2. Employer shall sufficiently establish the employee’s act that would justify loss of trust and
confidence

Spouses Casador v Spouses Bacar

G.R No. 219930 (June 30, 2021)
*Resolution

Failure to file an appellant’s brief, while not a jurisdictional flaw, results in the abandonment of the appeal
and ultimately its dismissal.

The authority of the Court of Appeals to dismiss an appeal for failure to file the appellant’s brief is a matter
of judicial discretion. The CA cannot be faulted from declaring the appeal of petitioners abandoned and
dismissed because of petitioners’ failure to file their appellants’ brief despite the original 45 days and
additional 15 days given them by the CA; petitioners’ failure to attach their appellants’ brief in their MR; and
belatedly blaming their former counsel’s alleged negligence.

Peronilla v FIS Global Solutions Philippines, Inc.

G.R No. 252739 (June 30, 2021)
*Resolution

When terminating a probationary employee for failure of an employee to meet the standards of the
employer, the usual two-notice rule does not govern. Nonetheless, Section 2, Rule I, Book VI, as amended
by D.O No. 147-15 of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code, provides that while a written notice
of termination is deemed sufficient, it should be served on the probationary employee within a reasonable
time from the effective date of his/her termination. Hence, termination of a probationary employee made
and effective immediately violates Section 2, Rule I, Book VI, as amended by D.O No. 147-15 and the
employer is liable to pay the employee nominal damages of P30,000.00.

People v Marcaida
G.R No. 252327 (June 28, 2021)
*Resolution

In establishing the chain of custody rule, the fourth link is the turnover and submission of the marked
dangerous drug seized from the forensic chemist to the court. This link requires that the foreign chemist
testifies as to details pertinent to the handling and analysis of the dangerous drug submitted for
examination-when and from whom the dangerous drug was received; what identifying labels or other things
accompanied it; description of the specimen; and the container it was in, as the case may be. Further, the
forensic chemist must also identify the name and method of analysis used in determining the chemical
composition of the subject specimens.

Here, the stipulations pertaining to the testimony of the forensic chemist only mentioned that he was a
forensic chemist who conducted the laboratory examination of the specimens; he issued the chemistry
report reflecting his findings on the results of the laboratory examinations he did on the specimens; and he
signed the Chain of Custody Form. None of these stipulations even mentioned the condition or the
specimens when PCI Pabustan received them and how he handled and stored the same before, during,
and after the chemical examination until the same reached the court. There was further no description of
the method he utilized in analyzing the chemical composition of the drug samples. Hence, the chain of
custody was not established and the accused should be acquitted.

Banag v People
G.R No. 201782 (June 23, 2021)
*Resolution

- The burning of a nipa hut (“kubo”) used for resting purposes during the planting season constitutes
simple arson.
- In arson, proof of the crime is complete where evidence establishes: 1) corpus delicti, fire; and 2)
identity of the defendant as one responsible for the rime. Hence, corpus delicti rule is satisfied by
proof of the bare fact of the fire and of it having been intentionally caused.
- Resort to circumstantial evidence is sanctioned by the Rules in Evidence and the probative value
of direct evidence is generally neither greater than nor superior to circumstantial evidence. Here,
the circumstances testified by the sole eyewitness leads to no other logical conclusion that
accused started the fire.
 - The witness’ decision to remain inside his house while his grandfather’s kubo was ablaze by fire
did not affect his credibility as witness.
- The Indeterminate Sentence Law is applicable to PD 1613 because the penalties therein are lifted
from the RPC.

Agbayani v People
G.R No. 215121 (June 23, 2021)
*Resolution

- Failure of the appellant to provide the appellate court with certified true copies of the judgments or
final orders subject of review, as well as the material portions of the record, shall be a ground for
the dismissal of his petition for review. This infirmity may only be waived provided the concerned
party must offer a satisfactory explanation and subsequently comply with the requirements to justify
a relaxation of the rules. Here, petitioner failed to offer any reasonable justification or to comply
with the deficiencies in his MR notwithstanding the enumeration of the lacking documents made by
the appellate court.
- Failure to the appellant to file his appeal memorandum is a ground for the dismissal of his case.
- The issue of the non-sterilization of the arthroscope accused inserted in victim’s knee during
operation is a question of fact as it involved a review of the probative value of the evidence
presented before and considered by the MeTC. Said question of fact cannot be raised in a petition
for review on certiorari under Rule 45.

Almazan v Bacolod
G.R No. 227529 (June 16, 2021)
Justice Gaerlan

- Whether or not the court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case is a question of law
which falls within the province of a Rule 45 petition
- A party who is not bound by a DARAB decision which injuriously affects his/her interest may
vindicate his/her right through an action to quiet title
- DARAB’s jurisdiction under Section 50 of CARP Law is limited to the resolution of agrarian
disputes, the essential requisite of which is the existence of a tenancy relationship between the
parties. Tenancy relationship cannot be presumed; there must be proof that: 1) the parties are the
landowner and the tenant or agricultural lessee; 2) subject matter of the relationship is an
agricultural land; 3) parties consented to the relationship; 4) purpose of the relationship is to bring
about agricultural production; 5) the tenant or agricultural lessee personally cultivates the land; and
6) the parties share the harvest.

Here, no tenancy relationship exists. First, there is no landlord-tenant relationship between the
petitioner and respondents. Petitioner alleged that they acquired the land from their grandfather,
and respondents do not claim to be tenants of petitioner’s grandfather. Second, the element of
consent is wanting because of the absence of relationship. Third, there is no sharing of harvests
because respondents admit that they share the harvests to persons who are not the petitioner, any
of his co-owners, or a predecessor-in-interest.

- A stranger or one who is not privy to a tenancy relationship is not bound by a tenant’s security of
tenure under Section 10 of RA 3844 (Agricultural Land Reform Code).
 - A denial of a motion to dismiss is an interlocutory order. The remedy of the aggrieved party is to file
an answer. In the event that an adverse judgment is rendered, the party can file an appeal and
raise the interlocutory order as an error.

Jackson v Cabatingan
G.R No. 231095 (May 14, 2021)
*Resolution

- In action to recover the ownership of real property, the person who claims a better right to it must
prove two things: first, the identity of the land claimed; and second, his title thereto.

Here, petitioner failed to prove the identity of the land claimed. The boundaries on the May 5, 1946
Deed of Sale (relied upon by petitioners) reflected Lot No. 752 while those on October 29, 1987
Deed (relied upon by respondents) referred to Lot 758, which is the land in dispute. Hence,
petitioners cannot claim and seek reconveyance of Lot 758, which was never the subject of the
May 5, 1946 Deed of Absolute Sale.

- Tax declarations covering a different parcel of land cannot be a basis for a claim of acquisitive
prescription.
- No res judicata by prior judgment or by conclusiveness of judgment will apply because no identity
of issues or subject matter exists between the alleged decision of the CFI which covered Lot 752
and the present action which covers Lot 758.

Quines v United Philippine Lines Inc. and Shell International Trading and Shipping Co.
G.R No. 248774
*Lazaro-Javier

- The compensability of an illness or injury does not depend on whether the injury or disease was
pre-existing at the time of the employment but rather on whether the injury or illness is “work-
related” or “has aggravated the seafarer’s condition.”
- Without a valid final and definitive assessments from the company-designated doctors within the
120-240 days period, a seafarer’s disability is deemed to be total and permanent by operation of
the law.

Here, the two medical reports issued by the company designated physicians after the petitioner
was medically repatriated are not complete and final and there was no categorical statement
whether petitioner is fit or unfit to resume his work as a seafarer.

- Under Department of Health Administrative Order No 2007-0025 or the Revised Guidelines for
Conducting Medical Fitness Examination for Seafarers provides that a seafarer taking more than 2
maintenance oral medicines could no longer be declared fit for sea duties.

People v Sabado
G.R No. 231378 (June 23, 2021)
*Resolution
 - In resolving the admissibility of and relying on out of court identification of suspects, courts have
adopted the totality of circumstances test where they consider the ff. factors: 1) witness’
opportunity to view the criminal at the time of the crime; 2) witness’ degree of attention at that time;
3) accuracy of any prior description given by the witness; 4) level of certainty demonstrated by the
witness at the identification; 5) length of time between the crime and identification; and 6)
suggestiveness of the identification procedure.

Here, Careno was just about 3 meters away from the stabbing incident and he was able to
describe: 1) the interaction between Candelario and Tion prior to the punching and stabbing
incident; b) fact that Tion brought a cigarette from Candelario; 3) how Candelario punched Tion at
his face when the latter turned his back; 4) how C went on top of and continuously stabbed T; and
5) that C boarded a bus bound for Dau, Pampanga after the stabbing incident.

- Even assuming that an out-of-court identification was tainted with irregularity, the subsequent
identification in court cured any flaw that may attended it.

- The essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack by an unsuspecting victim who
gave no provocation, without affording the latter any real chance to defend himself and thereby
ensuring the commission of the crime without risk to the aggressor.

Evidence on record shows that T was totally unaware of the sudden and impending attack as he
already turned his back after buying cigarette from C. Unexpectedly, C punched T at his face.
When T fell to the ground, C went on top of him and once immobilized, he continuously stabbed
the T on his chest with a knife. By pinning T down and stabbing him on his chest, C did not afford T
any chance to defend himself and ensured the commission of the crime without any risk to himself.
Evidently, no altercation took place between T and C prior to the stabbing incident and T gave no
provocation whatsoever. All these circumstances indicated the employment of treachery in the
commission of the crime.

Caampued v Next Wave Maritime Management Inc.

G.R No. 253756 (May 12, 2021)

- Pursuant to the 2010 POEA-SEC, an illness shall be considered as pre-existing if prior to the
processing of the POEA contract, any of the following conditions is present: 1) the advice of a
medical doctor on treatment was given for such continuing illness and condition; or 2) the seafarer
has been diagnosed and has knowledge of such illness or condition but failed to disclose the same
during the PEME, and such cannot be diagnosed during the PEME. Fraudulent misrepresentation
means that a person not only failed to disclose the truth but that he or she deliberately concealed it
for a malicious purpose. In fine, the falsity must be coupled with intent to deceive and to profit from
that deception.

Respondents’ conclusion that petitioner concealed “his history of low back pain” from them
because it was stated in the Discharge Report dated July 25, 2016 of St. Lukes Medical Center
does not find support in the records because on its face, the certification itself does not indicate
how this conclusion was drawn-did petitioner himself admit to the attending doctor that he had a
 “history of low back pain” and did the attending doctors have supporting records in his possession
which he used in drawing this conclusion? What the records actually reveal is that petitioner
passed the PEME prior to boarding respondents’ vessel and was in fact declared fit to work by the
company-designated physician. Prior to boarding, petitioner had no impediment or restrictions in
his actions due to joint or muscle pain in any part of his body. It was only after the incident on
board involving the piston lining when he started to exhibit limited trunk motion die to pain.

- Steps that must be done in disability compensation proceedings:

1. The CDP must issue a final medical assessment on the seafarer’s disability grading within a
period of 120 days, without any justifiable reason, then the seafarer’s disability becomes
permanent and total;
2. If the company-designated physician fails to give his assessment within the period of 120 days
with a sufficient justification (e.g seafarer required further medical treatment or seafarer was
uncooperative), then the period of diagnosis and treatment shall be extended to 240 days. The
employer has the burden to prove that the company designated physician has sufficient
justification to extend the period;
3. If the company designated physician still fails to give his assessment within the extended
period of 240 days, then the seafarer’s disability becomes permanent and total, regardless of
any justification.

- Spinal disc degeneration/desiccation or osteoarthritis is a compensable disease under POEA-SEC.

Degenerative disc disease is a spinal condition caused by the breakdown of the intervertebral discs
which results in the loss of flexibility and ability to cushion the spine.

Osteoarthritis is a stage of degenerative disc disease.

Spondylosis is term used osteoarthritis of spine.

- Under Section 32-A (21) of the 2010 POEA-SEC, osteoarthritis is expressly considered as an
occupational disease when contracted in any occupation involving any of the following: 1) joint
strain from carrying heavy loads, or unduly heavy physical labor, as among laborers and
mechanics ; (b) minor or major injuries to the joint; (c) excessive use or constant strenuous usage
of a particular joint, as among sportsmen, particularly those who have engaged in the more active
sports activities; (d) extreme temperature changes (humidity, heat and cold exposures); and (e)
faulty work posture or use of vibratory tools.
To carry out his activities as Engine Fitter, petitioner had to stand for most of the day and
constantly moved around. Such strenuous activities could have led to or at least aggravated
petitioner’s condition, thus making it a compensable work-related illness.

- Even assuming, however, that petitioner’s condition was pre-existing, this does not negate the
declaration of such illness as work-related. An illness shall be compensable when it is shown that
the seafarer’s work may have contributed to or aggravated any pre-existing disease.
- A medical report which declared petitioner’s spinal tuberculosis to be not work related and is
addressed only to the Captain falls short of the requirement of a final and definitive assessment
 A CDP must not only “issue” a final medical assessment of a seafarer’s medical condition; he must
“give” his assessment to the seafarer concerned who must be fully and properly informed of his
medical condition.

Global Medical Center of Laguna/Ross Systems International Inc. v Global Medical Center of Laguna, Inc.
G.R No. 230112/G.R No. 230119 (May 11, 2021)
ENBANC
*Caguiao

- As a general rule, judicial review of arbitral awards involving construction disputes is limited to
questions of law.

Exceptions: when factual review of CIAC’s arbitral award may be subject of judicial review
1. Challenge on the integrity of the arbitral tribunal
(a) Award was procured by corruption, fraud, or other undue means
(b) Evident partiality or corruption of the arbitrators or of any of them
(c) Arbitrators were guilty of misconduct in refusing to postpone the hearing upon sufficient
cause shown, or in refusing to hear evidence pertinent and material to the controversy
(d) One or more of the arbitrators were disqualified to act as such under Section 9 of RA 876
and willfully refrained from disclosing such disqualifications or any other misbehavior by
which the rights of any party have been materially prejudiced
(e) Arbitrator exceeded their powers, or so imperfectly executed them that a mutual, final, and
definite award upon the subject matter submitted to them was not made

2. Allegation of the arbitral tribunal’s violation of the Constitution or positive law

- A direct appeal to the SC of a CIAC award may be done via appeal by certiorari under Rule 45.

The direct appeal of CIA awards to the SC under RA 9285 was not an increase of SC’s appellate
jurisdiction that required concurrence because even before 1987 Constitution was created, the SC
is already enjoying jurisdiction over appeal from CIAC awards on pure questions of law, as
conferred to it by Congress for two years, by the passage of E.O 1008.

CIAC awards may be considered an exemption to Rule 45’s exclusive contemplation of lower
courts.

- E.O 1008 and R.A 9285 (which grants SC jurisdiction over appeals from CIAC awards) prevails
over B.P 129 (which confers appellate jurisdiction to CA) because: 1) E.O 1008 and R.A 9285,
which are later laws prevails over B.P 129, which was earlier promulgated; 2) Under the principle of
generalia specialibus non derogant, E.O 1008 and R.A 9285 which are specific laws prevails over
B.P 129, a general law.

- RULES:

Question of Law: SC via Rule 45

 This is notwithstanding Rule 43 on CA’s jurisdiction over quasi-judicial agencies and Rule
45’s exclusive application to lower courts.

Questions of Fact: Integrity/Violation of Constitution or positive law

CA via Rule 65

- GUIDELINES
1. For appeals from CIAC arbitral awards that have already been filed and are currently pending
before the CA under Rule 43, prior availability of the appeal on matters of fact and law thereon
applies.

2. For future appeals from CIAC arbitral awards that will be filed after the promulgation of this
Decision:

Reimplead above

3. Under no other circumstances other than the limited grounds provided above may parties
appeal to the CA a CIAC arbitral award.

Daisy Joy Rojallo Cervantes,et.al v H.E Benigno Simeon Aquino III

G.R No. 210805 (May 11, 2021)
EN BANC
*Hernando

- The action for certiorari and prohibition filed by petitioners seeking to annul and set aside the BOT
Agreement for modernization of POC and to permanently enjoin respondents from implementing
the MPOC Project has been mooted by the termination of the BOT Agreement of private
respondents.

To expound, "[a] case or issue is considered moot and academic when it ceases to present a
justiciable controversy by virtue of supervening events, so that an adjudication of the case or a
declaration on the issue would be of no practical value or use. In such instance, there is no actual
substantial relief which a petitioner would be entitled to, and which would be negated by the
dismissal of the petition. Courts generally decline jurisdiction over such case or dismiss it on the
ground of mootness. This is because the judgment will not serve any useful purpose or have any
practical legal effect because, in the nature of things, it cannot be enforced.

Nepomuceno v Pres. Duterte

UDK No. 16838 (May 11, 2021)
*Lopez

- President Rodrigo Duterte must be dropped as a respondent. Settled is the rule the President of
the Republic of the Philippines cannot be sued during his/her tenure and this immunity from suit
applied regardless of the nature of the suit filed for as long as he/she sits as President.
 - During the time when the national government planned to procure and enter into contracts for the
procurement of the Sinovac vaccine, there was no law in effect that required the mandatory condict
of clinical trial for the procurement of any COVID-19 vaccine, including that produced by SInovac.
-
- There is no ministerial duty to conduct clinical trials and to observe the general procurement
requirement of public bidding: 1) The requirement for the completion of clinical trials before a
vaccine may be used in the Phils as required by the Universal Healthcare Act was suspended for a
period of 3 months; 2) Under RA 11494, Pres. Duterte was given the authority to exercise powers
that are necessary and proper to undertake and implement COVID-10 response and recovery
interventions; 3) E.O 121 gave authority to the Director General of FDA for the issuance of
Emergency Use Authorization which precludes the need for completion of the conduct of clinical
trials as long as the conditions for the issuance under Section 2 of E.O 121 are met; 4) R.A 11525
exempted the procurement of COVID-19 vaccines, including its ancillary supplies and services,
from the general procurement requirement of public bidding.
- A petition to challenge efficacy of the SInovac vaccine is a question of fact which is beyond the
SC’s jurisdiction. The petition for mandamus should be filed with the appropriate RTC under the
doctrine of hierarchy of courts.

Tolentino v SET and COMELEC

G.R No. 248005 (May 11, 2021)
*Lopez

- The Senate Electoral Tribunal has no express, inherent or implied power to declare void or
unconstitutional Section 6.9 of the AES Contracts, which requires the protestant to shoulder
retention costs. The authority of SET is limited to matters affecting the validity of the protestant’s
title. While SET has the power to control its proceedings, such power cannot be construed to
interpret much less invalidate a contract between third parties. Thus, any issue concerning the
contract of COMELEC and Smartmatic-TIM is beyond the jurisdiction and constitutional mandate of
SET.

Hence SER did not commit grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction
when it desisted to rule upon the issue pertaining to the alleged constitutionality and invalidity of
the disputed provision.

“Without jurisdiction”- court acted with absolute lack of authority or want of legal power, right, or
authority to hear and determine a cause or causes, considered either in general or with reference
to a particular matter. Lack of power to exercise authority.

“Excess of jurisdiction”- court transcends its power or acts without any statutory authority or results
when an act, though within the general power of a tribunal, board or officer to do is not authorized
and invalid with respect to the particular proceeding, because the conditions which alone authorize
the exercise of the general power in respect of it is wanting.

GAD- capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment as to be equivalent to lack or excess of

jurisdiction, power is exercise in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion, prejudice, or
personal hostility and such exercise is so patent or so gross as to amount to an evasion of a
 positive duty or to a virtual refusal either to perform the duty enjoined or to act at all in
contemplation of law.

- Lease with option to purchase

VCMs and other election paraphernalia are leased by the COMELEC from Smartmatic-TIM. Upon
the lapse of the agreed lease period or on Dec 1, 2016, all election machines and equipment still in
its possession, due to any election contest or audit shall be considered sold to COMELEC, with the
latter requiring the protestant to shoulder the costs under the option to purchase.

- SET correctly denied petitioner’s Motion for Return of Payments because to do so would unduly
favor an electoral candidate because government funds would have been utilized for the continued
lease of retained machines and equipment deemed necessary in his election protest. This will
undermine the “public purpose requirement” under P.D 1445 . Petitioner’s election protest which is
aimed at advancing his personal interest as a senatorial candidate does not fall within the
expanded concept of public purpose to warrant the disbursement of government funds.

Mangio v People
G.R No. 253336 (May 10, 2021)
*Perlas Bernabe

- As part of the chain of custody procedure, the law requires, that the marking, physical inventory,
and photography of the seized items be conducted immediately after seizure and confiscation of
the same.

The law further requires that the inventory and photography be done in the presence of the
accused of the person from whom the items were seized, or his representative or counsel, as well
as certain required witnesses, namely:

(a) If prior to the amendment of RA 9165 by RA 10640, a representative from the media AND the
DOJ, and any elected public official;
(b) If after the amendment of RA 9165 by RA 10640, an elected public official and a representative
of the National Prosecution Service OR the media.

Anent the witness requirement, non-compliance MAY be permitted if the prosecution proves that
the apprehending officers exerted genuine and sufficient efforts to secure the presence of such
witnesses, albeit they eventually failed to appear. While the earnestness of these efforts must be
examined on a case-to-case basis, the overarching objective is for the Court to be convinced that
the failure to comply was reasonable under the given circumstances. Mere statements of
unavailability, absent actual serious attempts to contact the required witnesses, are unacceptable
as justified grounds for non-compliance.

Here, while PO3 Flores did attempt to secure all three witnesses, he did not offer any justification
for the eventual absence of the DOJ representative, much less any explanation or detail as to the
exact efforts exerted to secure their presence. In view of this unjustified deviation from the chain of
custody rules, the integrity and evidentiary value of the item purportedly seized from David were
compromised which consequently warrants his acquittal.
CIR v Yumex Philippines Corporation
G.R No. 222476 (May 5, 2021)
*Gesmundo

- BIR deprived petitioner of the opportunity to be heard when both the PAN and FAN, while bearing
different dates, were both received by the Post Office of Dasmarinas Cavite on Jan 17, 2011 and
served upon and received by respondent on Jan 18, 2011. Under the circumstances, respondent
was not given any notice of the preliminary assessment at all and was deprived of the opportunity
to respond to the same before being given the final assessment. That respondent was able to file a
protest to the FLD/FAN and that respondent paid the other items in the FLD/FAN cannot cure that
fact that respondent’s right to due process was violated.

The Court enjoined the strict observance by the BIR of the prescribed procedure for issuance of
assessment notices with due regard for the taxpayer’s constitutional rights. It is mandatory the BIR
not only inform the taxpayer through the PAN, FLD and FAN of the facts, laws and regulations, and
jurisprudence on which the assessment against it is based, but it must also accord the taxpayer the
opportunity to be heard through the entire process. The importance of PAN is a substantive and
not just a formal due process requirement.

- Section 3.1.2 of RR No. 12-99 which specifically governs the PAN (grants taxpayer 15 days from
receipt of the PAN to file a response) takes precedence over Section 3.1.7 pf RR No. 12-99 which
pertains generally to constructive service of notices under the rule of generalia specialibus non
derogant (a special and specific provision prevails over a general provision irrespective of their
relative position in the statute).
- As a Ecozone Export Enterprise registered under PEZA, respondent is exempted from IAET by
virtue of Sec 4 (g) of RR No. 2-2001, without further qualification. Section 4(g) makes no distinction
and the fact of registration with the PEXA under RA 7916 or pursuant to the BCDA under RA 7227
alone excludes a corporation or enterprise from the coverage of corporations upon which IAET
may be imposed.
- Furthermore, the IAET assessment against respondent is factually groundless. BIR simply
assessed respondent for IAET by imposing 10% tax rate on all the latter’s income from registered
activities enjoying ITH without first establishing prima facie why it deemed such income to be
improperly accumulated pursuant to Section 7 of RR No, 2-2001. Respondent for its part was able
to prove that it had accumulated its earnings from previous years for reasonable business purpose.

In the Matter of the Petition for Probate of the Last Will and Testament of Cecilia Esguerra Cosico
G.R No. 246997 (May 5, 2021)
*Lazaro-Javier

- Article 808 of the NCC which requires that the contents of a last will and testament be read to the
testator twice, once by one of subscribing witnesses and again by the notary, applies not only
when the testator is blind, but also when the testator is illiterate or to those who, for one reason or
another, are incapable of reading their wills, consistent with the Alvarado case.

However, Alvardo recognized an exception to the rule-substantial compliance. In Alvarado, it was

held that there was substantial compliance when the testator’s lawyer read the the will to the
 testator on two separate occasions and that the notary public and the three instrumental witnesses
likewise read the will, albeit silently. With four persons following the reading word for word in their
own copies, it canthe testataor was reasonably assured that was was read to him were the terms
appearing on the document.

Here, there was substantial compliance with Article 808 when Atty. Bueser read and explained the
contents of the Huling Habilin at Pagpapasiya to Cecilia. Witnesses, Liberato and Reynaldo
listened and understood the explanation of Atty. Bueser. It is also undisputed that Cecilia made no
denial or correction wto what she heard.

- A segregation agreement’s approval during the probate of a will has no basis. In a petition for
probate, the question is limited to determining the validity of a will for its allowance-not the
distribution of the estate. Nothwithstanding that per the will Thelma inherited the entire estate of
Cecilia, the properties would still be subject to accounting, collation and even payment of loans of
setting off liabilities.

Cathay Pacific Steel Corporation v COA

G.R No. 252035 (May 4, 2021)
ENBANC
*Lazaro-Javier

- COA has the authority to grant money claims not only for liquidated amounts but also for those
which are readily determinable. Moreover, COA has no power to modify or set aside a judgment of
a court of other tribunal on errors of fact or law.

Hence, COA committed GAD when it dismissed outright the money claim of CAPASCP in the
amount of P 24M despite the final and executory Decision dated May 27, 2010 of the Court of
Appeals granting the same.

Domingo-Agaton v Atty. Nini Cruz

A.C No. 11023 (May 4, 2021)
ENBANC
*Per Curiam

- The dishonest, deceitful, and fraudulent conduct of respondent in 1) making complainant believe
that that the latter needed to issue a manager’s check as bond despite the dismissal of the
complaint; 2) misappropriating complainant’s manager’s check as settlement of another client in
another case; 2) leading RTC into believing that the complainant’s MC was issued for a case to
which complainant is not a party evinces a serious flaw in her moral fiber justifying the extreme
penalty of disbarment under Sec 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court.

Interestingly, for reasons only known to her, respondent has opted to remain silent despite such
serious charges. Failing to refute the allegations levelled against her despite several opportunities
to do so, respondent is either not at all interested in clearing her name or simply has nothing to say
in her defense. In this case, respondent has left the Court with no choice, but to deduce her implicit
admission of the charges against her. Qui tacet consentire videtur. Silence gives consent.
Equitable PCI Bank (BDO Unibank, Inc.) v South Rich Acres, Inc.
G.R Nos. 202384 and 202397 (May 4, 2021)
EN BANC
*Inting

- City Ordinance No. 343097 which declared the entirety of Marcos Alvarez Avenue as a public road
despite the fact that the subject lots are owned SRA is an act of unlawful taking of SRA’s property
without just compensation and amounts to a confiscation which is beyond the ambit of police
power.

Road lots in a private subdivision are private property and hence, the local government should first acquire
them by donation, purchase, or expropriation, if they are to be utilized as public road. The use of
subdivision roads by the general public does not strip it of its private character. The road is not converted to
public property by mere tolerance of the subdivision owner of the public’s passage through it.

Hence City Ordinance No. 343097 is unconstitutional.

- The notice of lis pendens which were erroneously annotated BDO’s titles may still be cancelled as
ordered by the CA before final judgment.

Under Section 77 of PD 1529, before final judgment, the notice of lis pendens may be cancelled upon order
of the court after proper showing that the notice is for the purpose of molesting the adverse party, or that it
is not necessary to protect the rights of the party who caused it to be recorded. On the other hand, after
final judgment, the notice of lis pendens is rendered functus officio.95 Thus, under Section 77 of PD 1529,
in cases where there is already a final judgment, the notice of !is pendens may be cancelled upon the
registration of a certificate of the clerk of court in which the action or proceeding was pending stating the
manner of disposal thereof.

Moll v Convergys Phils Inc.

G.R No. 253715 (April 28, 2021)
*Lazaro-Javier

- There is illegal dismissal when a call center agent was not given any work schedule anymore after
an alleged transfer to the Glorietta office.

In illegal terminations cases, employee must establish the fact of dismissal through the positive and
overt acts of an employer before the burden is shifted to the latter that the dismissal was legal. If
there is no dismissal, then there can be no question as to the legality of illegality thereof.

- The claim of transfer cannot be given any credence because Convergys failed to adduce any office
document, be it in the form of a memorandum, notice, letter, email, or any form of communication
pertaining to petitioner's supposed transfer to the Glorietta Office. Even the attendance sheet
during the supposed orientation program for transferees was not attached to the records of this
case. It also failed to prove the inclusion of petitioner's name in the payroll account of U-verse
 Program in Glorietta Office if indeed there was transfer as Convergys would have this Court
believe.
- The belated issuance of RTWOs more than two months from petitioner’s last day of reporting and
during the pendency of the instant case bolsters the allegation of illegal dismissal.
- Illegal dismissal: 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 (l) 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.

Lasam Saving and Credit Cooperative v Spouses Tan

G.R No. 200129 (April 28, 2021)
*Resolution

- Voluntary dealings with properties such as a mortgage must be registered with the RD in order to
convey and affect the land. However, by way of exception, as when the owner refuses to surrender
the owner’s duplicate certificate of title, an adverse claim may be annotated. An adverse claim is
only proper if there is no other provision of law for registration of the claimant’s alleged right or
interest in the property.

Here, instead of registering the first mortgage as such in the TCT, private respondents filed an
affidavit of adverse claim where it was simply stated that the reason for the annotation was
because the "owner's copy of the title covering the above-mentioned parcel of land is not in the
possession of [private respondent Tan].

This is unjustified because private respondents failed to sufficiently explain the non-presentation of
the Sps. Uy’s title. It was not shown who was in possession of the owner’s duplicate certificate of
title, and whether they made efforts to acquire the same for registration of the first mortgage.
Hence, it did not constitute as an actual encumbrance on the property and cannot be considered
binding against third parties. Since petitioner’s mortgae was registered on the title, its lien is
binding on Sps. Uy and even against private respondents.

Mica Security Agency, Inc. v Atty. Gonzales-Santiago

A.C No. 12827 (April 28, 2021)
*Resolution

- A lawyer, who failed to specifically deny the material averments in the Position Paper, failed to
explain her sudden shift of theory when already on appeal, was clearly remiss of her dutues and
constitutes a violation of her duty to exercise reasonable and ordinary case and diligence in the
pursuit or defense of the defense.

Titan Dragon Properties Corporation v Velosa-Galenzoga

G.R No. 246088 (April 28, 2021)
*Zalameda
- A void judgment preceding from an invalid service of summons, while ordinary should be a ground
of an annulment of judgment, does not preclude certiorari under Rule 65 especially when GAD is
alleged.
- Before service of summons may be allowed, the following requirements must be first satisfied: 1)
written motion for leave of court to effect service by publication supported by an affidavit of the
plaintiff or some person on his behalf, setting forth the grounds for the application; and 2) there
must be diligent efforts exerted by the sheriff in ascertaining the whereabouts of the defendant.

Diligence: prior resort to personal service and substituted serve and proof that these modes were
ineffective before summons by publication may be allowed
Several attempts to personally serve within a reasonable time, preferably 3 tries on at least
2 days
Reasons cited why efforts are unsuccessful

Here, the foregoing requirements were not met. While respondent filed, through counsel, a Motion
to Serve Summons by Substituted Service, praying for summons by publication, it was not
accompanied by the required affidavit executed either by respondent or by some other person on
her behalf.

Moreover, the Sheriff's Return does not show that diligent or· earnest efforts were exerted by the
sheriff in ascertaining the whereabouts of petitioner corporation: 1) The Sheriff only tried to serve
the summons personally twice on two separate dates; 2) The sheriff did not state in the return if he
made inquiries with the Admin Asst. and Building Manager of PBCOM if petitioner corporation
previously held office in the said building and whether they have information where it may be
found; 3) Nothing in the return shows that sheriff tried to effect a substituted service of summons or
explain why this is not feasible; 4) Sheriff failed to attempt to serve the summons on the current
address of petitioner in the second page of the GIS.

- Considering that the proceedings and the decision in this case is VOID for failure of the court to
acquire jurisdiction due to improper service of summons, then the writ of execution be issued is
void. A void decision is a nullity and it never acquires finality.

- A writ of execution which expands the scope of the Decision sought to be implemented is void. A
writ of execution must substantially conform to the judgment sought to be enforced and courts may
not go beyond the terms of the judgment sought to be executed. Where the executions is not in
harmony with the judgment which gives it life and exceeds it, it has pro tanto no validity. To
maintain otherwise would be to ignore the constitutional provision against depriving a person of his
property without due process of law.

Here, respondent only prayed for that petitioner be made to pay the CGT and DST pursuant to the
absolute deed of sale and for petitioner to turn over the possession of the property. However, the
writ mandated the RD of QC to reinstate TCT 185260 which was earlier cancelled and subdivided
by petitioner, annotate thereon the deed of sale and issue a new title in the name of respondent.
Hence, Judge Bellosillo whimsically expanded the scope of an already final and executory decision
at the time by including reliefs not even stated in the decision or prayed for by respondent in her
complaint. Such is a blatant disregard of the basic rules of procedure.
 - There is GAD exhibited when Judge Bellosilo allowed service of summons by publication,
notwithstanding diligent efforts in personal service and substituted service and expanding the
Decision by issuing a writ of execution containing terms not included in the decision or complaint.
The wanton disregard of basic procedural requirements led to the deprivation of due process.

People v Canillo
G.R No. 244051 (April 28, 2021)
*Leonen

- Treachery must be present at the inception of an attack to qualify a killing to murder. A treacherous
act that happens during an attack or subsequent to it cannot be appreciated as a qualifying or
generic aggravating circumstance.

Two conditions:
1) That at the time of the attack, the victim was not in a position to defend himself
2) Offender consciously adopted the particular means, method or form of attack employed by him

Here, the attack on Bohol outside the house was a continuation of the altercation inside the house,
It cannot be seen as a separate attack which was attended by treachery because treachery cannot
happen midstream of an attack. Accused-appellant Anthony’s act of waylaying an escaping Bohol
out on the street even if he appeared to have deliberately positioned himself right in Bohol’s patch
to catch him off guard, cannot be appreciated as a qualifying circumstance of treachery.

Citing PP. v Tigle, for treachery to be appreciated, it must exist at the inception of the attack, and if
absent and the attack continues, even if present at the subsequent stage, treachery is not a
qualifying or generic aggravating circumstance.

- Abuse of superior strength: notorious inequality of forces between the victim and aggressor or
purposeful use of force excessively out of proportion to the means of defense available to the
person attacked.

Here, there is notorious inequality of forces becaused accused-appellants used their combined
strength and weapons to corner Bohol and hack him to death. Even the way accused-appellants
positioned themselves against Bohol-Anthony in front and Eduardo behond-showed they used their
advantage to ensure Bohol’s gruesome death.
SEPTEMBER
National Grid Corporation of the Philippines v Bautista
G.R No. 232120 (Sept 30, 2020)
*Inting
- The power of the CA to dismiss an appeal for failure to file an appellant’s brief is discretionary and
directory and not ministerial or mandatory.

In case of late filing, the appellate court may still allow the appeal, considering the ff. factors:
1. Circumstances warrant the court’s liberality
2. Strong considerations of equity in the interest of substantial justice
3. No material injury has been suffered by the appellee by the delay
4. No contention that appellee’s cause was prejudiced
5. At least no motion to dismiss filed
6. Lapse must be for a reasonable period
7. Inadvertence of counsel is not an adequate cause except:
- Reckless or gross negligence of counsel deprives the client of due process of law
- Application will result in outright deprivation of client’s liberty or property
- Interests of justice so require

Here, CA correctly dismissed the appeal because there is no showing that petitioner filed an
appellant’s brief despite receipt of a Notice to File Brief.

- In determining just compensation, BIR zonal valuation is NOT the sole basis. Otherwise,
determination of just compensation would cease to be judicial in nature. (Not taker’s gain, but
owner’s loss)

Despite the property’s zonal classification as agricultural on the tax declaration and municipal
zoning ordinance, courts enjoy sufficient judicial discretion in determining the classification of lands
for purposes of determining just compensation.